Since July, the European Commission has been on the defensive, trying to justify President Ursula von der Leyen’s decision to merge, into a single fund, the Regional and National Partnership Plan (NRPP), the EU’s traditional policies, the CAP and Cohesion, and several others (fisheries, social fund, climate, etc.). To defend this move, the Commission attempts to present this “earthquake” to the various beneficiaries of these policies (taken individually) as an unparalleled opportunity.

Yet, the arguments put forward by the European Commission do not withstand a close analysis of the proposals presented on 16 July, which primarily allow one to say one thing and its opposite, as any predictable political direction or EU-wide framework has been abandoned.

These are just some of the reasons why Farm Europe considers that the Commission’s proposal can hardly serve as an acceptable starting point for co-legislators—and even less so for the European Parliament, which would lose its raison d’être for all these policies.

1) A protected budget—or not

According to the Commission, the NRPP would be an opportunity for farmers, but also for local elected officials, fishers, and many other communities thanks to the flexibilities granted to Member States in budget allocation. After earmarking the (reduced) envelope for the next CAP, a total of €453 billion would supposedly remain available for everyone to draw from. A more honest reading of the numbers shows this is far from the case:

• Almost the entire NRPP envelope is allocated to national envelopes. Therefore, there is no real EU-wide flexibility in this fund, which would become an appendix to national budgets. Taking into account the various allocations, there is in reality barely €15 billion of margin at the European level.
• Within the NRPP envelope itself, all historical EU policies undergo deep cuts—around 20% for the Common Agricultural Policy (17.6%) and 40% for Cohesion Policy. The ESF+ exists only on paper, without a budget. Under these conditions, how can one believe the Commission’s argument that farmers could recover amounts beyond the €300 billion protected envelope from a supposedly unallocated reserve?

A calculation based on the national allocations proposed by the Commission shows this is pure optical illusion. Ireland would have to access more than 75% of NRPP funds beyond the protected CAP envelope to maintain the latter at its 2027 level; France 48%, Spain 21%, Italy 18.5%. It is clear that this impossible equation, leaving difficult choices to Member States, would only sow discord and create a toxic atmosphere in national negotiations, with no winner in sight. In any case, this framework offers no predictability or stability to farmers, despite being an economic policy with significant market impacts.

2) A simpler framework—or not

The Commission claims this new programming would simplify matters thanks to the flexibilities granted to Member States. This ignores the experience accumulated over the years in implementing the current CAP.

In reality, the Commission’s proposed step further toward renationalization has a double effect:

• On one hand, it technocratizes policies into programs managed opaquely between national administrations and the European Commission, sidelining political leaders, including the European Parliament.
• On the other hand, it systematically organizes political irresponsibility. With no clear rules established by law, national officials can easily shift responsibility to “Brussels” to justify their choices—even to their political superiors—while the Commission in turn shifts responsibility back to national administrations.

Thus, there is no simplification, only permanent ambiguity and the removal of political accountability. Both national and European administrations have in the past demonstrated remarkable creativity in complicating even the simplest schemes, especially since performance indicators allow them to justify sometimes arbitrary decisions or compromises between sensitivities across multiple ministries.

Regarding the CAP, one can question the relevance of any recommendations the Commission might make, especially as it plans to further reduce the level of expertise within its agricultural services through drastic staff cuts.

3) A greener framework—or not

The Commission has highlighted the “do no harm” principle to give its regulation a green veneer and appeal to the environmental community. At the same time, it announces the removal of conditionality to appease the agricultural community.

First, it is regrettable to reduce environmental and climate objectives to a sterile opposition that does not reflect the real challenges farmers face.

Second, it is simply false to claim that the new framework would be greener or less green, simpler or more complex. In this regard, the regulations provide no real answers; the only certainty is the creation of a hellish system of competitive distortions between and within Member States, exposing the agricultural sector to the vagaries of changing sensitivities within national administrations.

The “Farm Stewardship” system allows for significant divergence in the baseline ambition of agricultural environmental policies within the internal market, which is especially concerning as it would form the foundation for other environmental programs.

Already, at least in the short term, it is clear that it is easier to be a Hungarian farmer than a German one. In highly decentralized countries, distortions could arise within a single Member State, as has already occurred in Belgium regarding measures against soil erosion. Neither farmers nor the environment benefit from such an abandonment of EU-wide ambition.

4) Farmers consulted—or not

Finally, and perhaps the most politically damaging for the stability of the European project, the reform presented claims to be the result of broad consultations. The Commission President launched a strategic dialogue, then a consultation forum (EBAF), before drafting a strategic vision for agriculture.

In the end, none of the elements of this vision are concretely reflected in the political choices or budgetary and agricultural proposals put forward by the Commission. Farmers who participated in these consultations have every reason to feel instrumentalized, as do the NGOs involved.

This process has been used as a pretext by the Commission to justify the near-total absence of consultation with elected representatives—the European Parliament. The culmination of this charade is the Danish presidency organizing NRPP negotiations, leaving virtually no room for institutions specifically responsible for agricultural matters.

With the NRPP, policies become programs, and the almost-exclusive decision-makers—finance ministries—leave politicians with only secondary elements of these programs, once all axes and political options have been set in closed NRPP negotiations.

A Commission claiming to be political would thus end politics itself and defer to the administrations.

While the European Commission announced that “the EU-Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) will open unprecedented access to Indonesia for European farmers and food producers”, Farm Europe raises serious doubts.

The main expected impact is on Indonesian palm oil exports that will benefit from a tariff free TRQ and a 3% tariff out of quota. That is the main Indonesian agriculture export. Regarding European potential export opportunities, the expected impact is rather limited. Indonesia imports mainly soybeans, beef, dairy, wheat, and rice (to cover for domestic shortfalls). 

The EU will face strong competition on beef from Brazil, Australia, and the US. On dairy from New Zealand. On wheat from Russia, US. The EU doesn’t export soybeans, and on rice, it can’t compete against South East Asia.

In addition, the potential EU imports of palm oil will depend on the seriousness of the implementation of the deforestation regulation as well as the phasing out of high iLUC biofuels, mainly palm-based biofuels — and the European Commission is floating the idea of further postponement of this regulation on the same day of the EU/Indonesia agreement, this country being one of the most important opponent to this regulation from the beginning. 

Therefore, we urge the the European Commission to be consistent and fully implement EUDR, with a clear simplification for EU farmers, considering that the EU is a no deforestation risk country, contrary to Indonesia, and to secure a real traceability for due diligence going beyond paper work, but mobilizing already existing satellite imagery to guarantee a sound and efficient implementation of the EUDR.

The European Commission published, on the 17th of September, the draft national allocations of the Common Agricultural Policy, for the period 2028-2034 in the context of the ongoing negotiations of the next multi-annual financial framework. Overall, the European Commission is proposing a multi-speed effort to the budget reduction proposal.
Given the stated desire by the European Commission to focus the CAP on “those who need it most”, questions arise as to the relevance and modalities of a distribution key. For example, the Netherlands is among the relative “winners” of the European Commission’s proposal, or on of the « best looser » together with Spain and the Portugal. Without undermining the importance of the agricultural sector in the Netherlands, and its high productivity per hectare, it’s important to remind that over the last years, farmers in this Member State benefited from a national top-up of comfortable State Aids which overall represents at least 100% of their direct payments during the last four years. Spain and Portugal would also benefit (in relative terms) from this distribution key in comparison to other Member States.

If France, Italy, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Romania and Slovakia overall keep their share of the (smaller) CAP budget, Ireland, Germany, Austria, Slovenia, Greece, Denmark and Luxembourg are on the side of the most bigger loosers.

This first assessment takes into account the fact that all Member States are not benefiting from the POSEI programme (outmost regions). It will have to be fine-tuned integrating the LEADER programmes and takes into account sectorial interventions, in particular Fruits and Vegetables. However, further fine-tuning of the calculation should not change substantially the trend.

Overall, France remains the first beneficiary of this policy, in front of Spain, Germany, Italy, Poland and Romania.

The European Commission’s President, Ursula von der Leyen, delivered this morning her annual State of the Union address (SOTEU) to the European Parliament, presenting the European Union’s priorities for the year ahead.

In her speech, she focused on 5 main areas : defense – Ukraine and Middle East, competitiveness and employment, standard of living and accessibility, trade, democracy and migration. 

Farm Europe welcomes the acknowledgement of the crucial role of farmers in ensuring EU high quality and affordable food.  However we regret the lack of vision on the fundamental role of agriculture for the whole EU and the lack of  concrete  commitments to build forward looking and ambitious policies  to ensure a competitive future for the European agricultural sector.

In this way President von der Leyen has buried most of the numerous promises that followed the farmers’ protests last year. The “farmers’ deal” promised by the EPP — her own political family — during the European elections seems already forgotten, the current policy orientations of Ms von der Leyen being antagonistic to a renewed ambition for EU agriculture.

Hence, here is what President von der Leyen should have said in order to deliver an honest assessment of the reality of European agriculture, and not of Vonderland, between acknowledgments of responsibility and foreseen measures for our farmers :  

1. What President von der Leyen said on agriculture:

“Farmers are the custodians of our land. In Europe, we have access to high-quality food that our outstanding farmers produce at affordable prices. They are key to our food security. We have to promote ‘made in Europe’. Our farmers need fair competition and a level playing field. I will propose to launch a European food campaign”.

What she should have recognised: 

“Too many concessions were made with trade deals, risking to undermine the viability of the European agricultural sector, opening EU single market to unfair competition”

With the conclusion of trade deals with the United States and the Mercosur countries over the past months, the European Commission should acknowledge that the sector is facing unbalanced trade relations that jeopardise its exports and export value and open the EU single market to unfair competition. And on the top of those agreements already finalised, the EU is working on making a new deal with India. 

2. What President von der Leyen said on trade relations:

“On Mercosur: We have robust safeguards in our trade deal with Mercosur – baked up by funding if compensation is needed”

“On EU-US: when you account for the exceptions that we secured and the additional rates which others have on top – we have the best agreement. Without any doubt.”

What she should have recognised: 

“The EU-US agreement is “win–lose” deal because some Member states forced me to make concessions to protect the automotive industry, exposing European farmers to lower revenues, weaker market positions and unfair competition. It also breaches WTO rules, creating further risks of legal challenges”.

The EU–US trade deal signed in August 2025 plays heavily in favour of the United States, with the EU granting most concessions. Premium wines, pasta, biscuits, cheese, beer and spirits will all see reduced competitiveness, with losses counted in billions of euros. On top of this, the EU has granted sweeping concessions, including the abolition of tariffs on fruit, vegetables, dried fruits, seeds, jams and juices, and new tariff-rate quotas, such as 25,000 t for pork, 500,000 t for nuts and 400,000 t for soybean oil. The fruit and vegetable, seed and nut sectors are expected to suffer most from increased competition.

“I am fully aware of the serious risks coming from the Mercosur for our farmers as Mercosur is an agri-food powerhouse with different norms and standards, affecting the level playing field”. 

In order to appease the strong concerns expressed by some Member States (notably France, Italy, and Poland) regarding the harmful impact of the deal on European agriculture, the EU executive committed to put forward reinforced bilateral safeguards, which appear however largely ineffective in protecting European farmers. 

“This is coming on the top of trade tensions with other partners, already affecting our farmers”. 

Indeed, this situation is further worsened by China’s decision to impose provisional anti-dumping duties ranging between 15.6% and 62.4% on European pork imports, starting from 10^th September, due to an ongoing investigation on potential unfair subsidies. 

3. What President von der Leyen said on the MFF proposal and the future of the CAP:

“We have simplified CAP and ringfenced income support in the next MFF”.

“And made sure that funding can be topped up by national and regional envelopes”. 

What is the reality she should have recognised: 

“With my MFF proposal, Member States should be aware that their agricultural sector will face a proper existential crisis. They need to increase by at least 95 billion EUR the CAP budget to invest in the future of our agri-food sector together”

The plan reduces the CAP budget to €300 billion (including the newly introduced Unity Safety Net), constituting a 17.6% reduction in current euros (integrating the new ring-fenced parameters), far below the €482.5 billion required to maintain the 2020 level, or the €395 billion for 2027. While the crisis reserve increased to €6.3 billion, the way in which it could be deployed needs to be redefined to concretely offer an efficient response to farmers. 

4. What President von der Leyen said on European markets: 

“Single market is our greatest asset”

What is the reality she should have recognised: 

“In addition, the new performance framework and single fund aim at being a wake up call for Member States and Members of the European Parliament. Do they want EU policies or confrontations within the single market ? They should take their responsibilities and promote a true EU ambition instead of always calling for flexibilities”.

The single fund proposal would jeopardise the commonality and autonomy of the Common agriculture policy. The broader economic dimension of the policy is sidelined, with exclusively environmental and social indicators dominating the single performance framework to evaluate budget expenditure.

Farm Europe and Eat Europe warmly welcome today’s adoption by the European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (COMAGRI) of the report by MEP Céline Imart on strengthening the position of farmers within the food supply chain.

This vote represents a significant step forward in promoting fairness and transparency across the EU agri-food sector. In particular, the report takes a strong stance on the critical issue of product labelling and includes robust provisions aimed at protecting the names of meat products — an essential measure to prevent misleading practices and support the European livestock sector.

We strongly commend COMAGRI’s clear position in favour of transparency and consumer protection, especially at a time when marketing practices increasingly blur the distinction between traditional animal-based products and their plant-based or lab-grown imitations.

Today’s vote also sends a strong message ahead of upcoming discussions on the future of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the Commission’s proposed revision of the Common Market Organisation (CMO) regulation. That proposal—following sustained advocacy by Farm Europe and EAT Europe—already includes a first step toward protecting meat-related terms, but further progress is needed.

In this regard, MEP Imart’s report is particularly important. It sets a long-term political objective and calls for the swift introduction of a solid and comprehensive framework for the protection of meat product denominations.

At present, key terms such as “burger,” “sausage,” and “steak” remain outside the scope of the Commission’s draft provisions, despite being among the most commonly misused names for marketing imitation products. Words matter ! Clear and honest labelling is not simply a marketing issue—it is a matter of public health, consumer trust, and fair competition.

We now urge the European Parliament to confirm this positive signal in plenary. A strong endorsement will lay essential groundwork for the upcoming interinstitutional negotiations on CAP reform and will help reinforce the protection of meat denominations while tackling misleading marketing practices.

Future legislation must not only ensure a fairer economic environment for European farmers but also empower consumers to make fully informed food choices—particularly in relation to nutritional value and processing levels.

The “Words Matter” campaign, launched in 2024, has highlighted the vital role of transparent labelling in building a sustainable food system. Protecting the names of meat products is a key part of this broader vision—ensuring that Europe’s agri-food policies support social, economic, and environmental sustainability.

Farm Europe welcomes the breakthrough to strengthen farmers’ position in the agrifood supply chain, after the vote, by  the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development today of the draft report of MEP Céline Imart, amending the single Common Market Organisation reform, during its extraordinary meeting in Strasbourg.

Following the adoption of the Council’s position on 19th May, the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee of the European Parliament adopted a crucial report, with key proposals to rebalance the functioning of the food supply chain and better protect EU farmers, in the context of the reform of the Common Market Organisation (CMO). 

Even if the compromises adopted are by definition compromises, most of them represent an important and very positive step forward for farmers, and send an important signal ahead of the upcoming discussions on the new CAP reform.

They constitute an important step to improve the functioning of the EU food chain and overcome the chronic weakness of the agricultural link, clarifying contractual relations, enhancing farmers’ capacity to get organised by consolidating offer, and recognise the specificities of cooperatives with adequate provisions to underline and valorise their high standards of fair relations with their members. Those modifications do not constitute a definitive end point in this matter, but they do make a real step forward to the need of rebalancing.

The negotiating position that the European Parliament will adopt in this regard is important, not only to provide some short-term answers, but also to send a clear signal ahead of the negotiations and decisions that will have to be taken in the context of the CAP reform, the process for which was launched with the Commission’s proposal on July 16th.

As the European Commission reportedly prepares to present the EU-Mercosur agreement for ratification tomorrow, Farm Europe and Eat Europe strongly denounce this move as a damaging political shortcut that threatens the integrity of European agriculture and the credibility of the EU’s environmental and climate commitments.

“Coming on the heels of the deeply flawed MFF package agreed in July and the recent imbalanced trade deal with the United States, this attempt to push through an agreement that remains unchanged in substance—particularly in its agricultural chapter—highlights a serious disconnect between political declarations and real policy choices, confirming the line President von der Leyen is taking in the recent months, against her own commitments last year” said Yves Madre, President of Farm Europe.

This latest initiative is yet another sign that agriculture is being treated not as a strategic asset, but as a bargaining chip. If confirmed, it will add to a series of negative developments for EU farmers in recent months—from cuts to the CAP budget to concessions granted in transatlantic negotiations—demonstrating that the agricultural sector is falling ever lower on the EU’s list of priorities.

Luigi Scordamaglia, President of Eat Europe, underlined that “The suggestion that this agreement could somehow encourage Mercosur countries to move towards more sustainable production is misleading. The deal contains no binding commitments, no enforceable sustainability clauses, and no credible mechanisms for accountability. Any claims of environmental progress are, at best, aspirational. In its current form – continued Scordamaglia – the EU-Mercosur agreement is fundamentally incompatible with the EU’s own political and policy coherence—especially regarding climate targets, environmental standards, and fair trade principles. It would directly undermine the EU’s key agricultural value chains and expose European farmers to unfair competition from producers operating under significantly lower standards for environmental protection, food safety, and animal welfare”.

We therefore urge the decision makers to show responsibility and immediately reconsider moving forward with this agreement. As it stands, the EU-Mercosur deal would:

• Weaken the EU’s internal agricultural market and threaten the viability of rural economies;
• Undermine the principle of reciprocity by allowing imports produced under lower standards;
•  Jeopardize the EU’s environmental and climate objectives;
• Erode the EU’s credibility as a global leader in sustainable development.

Trade agreements can be powerful tools for economic growth—but only when they are built on fairness, reciprocity, and environmental responsibility. The EU-Mercosur deal fails on all these fronts.

Instead of opening the floodgates to powerful agri-food giants in Latin America, the European Union must stand up for its producers, safeguard high standards for its consumers, and chart a new, ambitious vision for agriculture and food systems—one grounded in sustainability, resilience, and the strength of the “Made in Europe” model.

ANALYSIS NOTE

The EU-US trade agreement reached in August by Presidents von der Leyen and Trump departs from the usual trade deals in many aspects. To begin with it is a totally unbalanced deal, where the EU makes practically all the concessions. 

To convince the US not to apply to the full extent the so-called reciprocity tariffs, i.e. a whole new set of tariffs on top of the existing MFN tariffs (Most Favoured Nation WTO compliant US tariffs), in particular in the automotive sector, the EU agreed to zero its industrial tariffs and provide a range of additional concessions in the agriculture sector.  

The EU also accepted that the US raises its WTO tariffs to 15% (there are a few exceptions but amongst them only cork concerns agriculture) whenever its previous MFN tariffs were lower. If the US MFN tariff was higher than 15%, the higher tariff applies. 

It should also be clarified that the previous US April top-up tariffs no longer apply, the August deal replaces them. The August US top-up tariffs are not additional to the MFN rate. This is an important element as so far only the EU has obtained this provision. For all other countries that have negotiated new tariffs they add up to the US MFN tariffs. That is the case for the UK that faces a 10% top-up in addition to the US MFN tariff, the aggregate result being however close to 15%. 

The EU has not obtained any concessions on wine and spirits, on the contrary. In the Joint Declaration sealing the deal there is a rather general reference to pursuing talks to broaden it, which in fact leaves little hope that the EU will obtain new concessions in the future. 

In this note we will focus on agriculture in this deal. But before entering the detail two observations: the deal is a win (US)-lose (EU) one; and the deal infringes basic WTO rules as the EU concessions are not extended to all the other WTO members, and the US applies higher tariffs than it is allowed to. 

The fact that the deal breaches core WTO rules is not just a reputational issue for the EU, one of the strongest defenders of international trade rules. It can become a tricky trade issue as the EU has exposed itself to be challenged by other countries for not extending the concessions made to the US to the other members of the WTO. As the EU is currently committed to a multilateral binding dispute settlement it can be forced either to withdraw from the US deal still under a Trump Presidency, or to compensate grieving countries. Both would have serious consequences.  

The deal is now before the European Parliament and the Council. Will the co-legislators adopt such an unbalanced deal, where so many concessions are made in an attempt to soften the blow to EU’s automotive industry? 

We’ll now turn to scrutinising the deal. First, we’ll analyse the impact of higher US tariffs on EU agriculture exports. Then we’ll do the same to EU agriculture concessions on imports.  

Minimum 15% tariff impact 

The EU currently has a big agriculture trade surplus with the US. The EU has exported over 30bn euros of agri-food products to the US in 2024. 

Top exports are wine, by far the largest with over 5bn euros; cereal preparations (pasta, biscuits) and spirits, both close to 3bn euros; olive oil and olives with 2.6bn euros; followed by dairy, coffee and tea, beer, and mixed food preparations, each close to 2bn euros. In the range of well over 1bn euros worth of exports we find preparations of fruits, nuts and vegetables, chocolate, and other animal products. 

The Commission has argued that it stroke the best possible deal that puts EU exports in a better position, as other competitors pay even higher tariffs. We find this argument disingenuous as in fact EU exports will be less competitive with respect to US products. The US being a major agri-food producer, that is a major factor. It accrues that for other competitors like Australia, Chile, Argentina, New Zealand, the new tariffs are very similar to the EU’s. 

EU export losses will thus be inevitable. Either volumes or margins will decrease, or a combination of both. 

• Wine: exports had to pay a specific MFN tariff per liter (6,3c for still wines, 19.8c for sparkling wines). The actual tariff paid if calculated ad valorem was well under 15%, and relatively higher for the cheapest wines than for the more expensive. Now the tariff will be calculated just on the basis of the value of imports. That will penalise all EU wine exports and even more those with the higher value.  
• Cereal preparations: for pasta and biscuits the duty also goes markedly up. For non-stuffed pastas exports were tariff free. Again, exports will become much less competitive towards US products, and losses will follow in one form or another. 
• Spirits: tariffs will also go up generally. The MFN tariff was specific, per liter, but considering the value of the exports the new 15 % tariff will be well higher. Loss of market share or reduced margins on our exports will follow. 

• Olive oil: the EU is by far the largest producer of olive oil in the world. US production is small. Thus, there will be no real domestic competition to our exports. The problem is that the price of olive oil will most likely raise due to the increased tariffs, much higher than MFN. US consumers can replace olive oil by seed oils, much cheaper, and that is likely to happen to some extent. 
• Dairy: this is a highly diverse sector with diverse MFN tariffs. On cheeses the MFN tariff for most common cheeses was 10%, therefore it will suffer a 50% increase. Some cheeses like Roquefort had a lower 8% duty, Cheddar higher at 16% (which will stay at that level). Butter MFN tariffs were lower, under 2% in average. In addition, product branding and recognition are lower than for cheeses therefore the negative market impact will be larger. 
• Hams: MFN tariffs were very low or even duty-free, therefore EU top quality products and brands will become more expensive, hurting exports. 
• Beer: although the knock-on effect of higher tariffs on beer to farmers is lower than for wine and spirits, or many other products, it is worth noting that MFN imports were tariff free, and now they will pay 15%.  European brands will be priced out of the market.  

We have highlighted the new situation facing the larger export sectors. In general, and for all sectors, the new tariffs will result in significant tariff increases for. Only a few products will see no change, but those were already taxed over 15%.  

Lower exports means that EU agriculture loses a valuable outlet. EU domestic prices and farmers revenues will suffer. The impact risks being higher in the wine sector, as exports represent a sizeable share of production and the sector has experienced recurring crisis recently.  

The losses, through a combination of reduced exports and reduced margins, will be accounted for in billion euros. 

Agriculture trade concessions  

The deal foresees two sets of trade concessions: abolition of tariffs for a group of products; and opening of TRQs for another group of products. 

Abolition of tariffs includes potatoes, onions, and several other vegetables, a range of dried fruits (including sultanas and grapes), sorghum and millet, a large set of seeds (including sugar beet), preparations of fruits and vegetables, jams, and fruit juices (excluding citrus).  

For citrus fruits, fresh grapes, apples, pears, plums, cherries, tomatoes, cucumbers, artichokes, courgettes, grape juices, the duties are suspended except for situations where the entry-price system applies. 

TRQs include 25 000 t for frozen or prepared pork, bacon and hams; 3 000t for bison meat; 10 000 t for some dairy products including milk, yogurt, spreads, ice cream; 10 000t for processed cheeses and Cheddar; 500 000t for nuts; 400 000 t for crude soybean oil; 40 000 t for animal food; 40 000 t for chocolates; 50 000 t for a mix of food preparations including infant food, malt, pasta, biscuits, pizzas; 250 000 t for coffee products, tomato ketchup and sauces, and some fatter ice cream. The three latest TRQs have some in-quota rates, whereas the previous are duty-free. Mannitol and sorbitol have a 2 500 t duty-free TRQ, and modified starches 11 000 t. 

These concessions are diverse, and its impact is difficult to evaluate. There will be an impact on the seeds industry, on the fruit and vegetable growers, tomato growers, and to some more limited extent to dairy and pork producers. Almond and chestnut growers might face a bigger impact, as the US is a major producer and the TRQ is quite large. 

Conclusion 

The EU-US trade deal is undoubtedly heavily unbalanced in favour of the US. 

The EU offered concessions, including in agriculture, to reduce the blow of higher US tariffs in particular in the automotive sector. 

The impact on EU agriculture will be significant. Most will come through a reduction of exports, or of export values, as the tariff hikes hit practically all export lines. The wine sector will likely be the most affected, but many others will feel to some extent the losses. 

Some additional impact will come through the trade concessions. The fruit and vegetable sector is the most affected. 

The impact of this unbalanced deal does not come alone, unfortunately. It follows a bad Commission proposal on the MFF and CAP reform, which drastically reduces support and weakens the unified policy framework.  

One last word on the prospects for the deal itself. The text foresees a suspension clause in case the US does not respect its terms. That sheds a glimpse into a larger issue: how stable is the deal when the US is willing to use trade measures to pursue all sorts of goals, economic, financial, and strategic?  

This lingering unpredictability is compounded by the compliance of the deal to US law. The legal process is ongoing, and will likely be judged by the Supreme Court, but so far the US Government has been found partly in breach of the law by the lower courts.  

The new tariffs are in place by now. Whether they will stay, and for how long, is impossible to predict.