SOTEU: what President von der Leyen failed to say on the state of EU agriculture
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 :
- 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.
- 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 10th September, due to an ongoing investigation on potential unfair subsidies.
- 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.
- 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.