Author: Farm Europe

Wine Package: an important step forward, dialogue must continue

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

The proposal presented today by the European Commission represents a necessary and positive response to the crisis currently affecting the European wine sector and to the requests expressed by the High-Level Group on Wine.

The measures outlined in the proposal presented by Commissioner Hansen are a positive first step, but it is crucial to continue working to listen to the sector’s operators and thus ensure positive developments in the medium and long term. This working method is necessary to restore the dynamism needed to overcome future challenges. It is essential that the discussion remains open, ensuring ongoing and structured support from EU institutions.

The wine sector, a pillar of European economy, faces not only internal challenges but also those arising from the international context. For this reason, it is necessary to adopt a coherent approach that integrates in a coherent way all European policies, particularly in key areas such as trade, promotion, water resilience and the digitalization of agriculture. Policies and measures should go further and address all areas impacting the sector, in order to create a comprehensive and long-term strategic vision.

Wine is strongly tied to international markets and needs to be supported by policies that ensure access to open and dynamic markets, capable of addressing global crises and international tensions. In this regard, it is essential to equip the sector with tools that allow it to respond promptly to external challenges and continue to thrive in the long term.

Another critical aspect is the work on consumption. It is necessary to listen to the needs of consumers, meeting their expectations while avoiding demonization of the sector. It is important to avoid unscientific approaches that deny the cultural and social significance of moderate wine consumption, an element deeply rooted in the traditions and habits of many European cultures.

The “bottom-up” consultation method that guided the Commission’s proposal has proven effective. In this case, collaboration between institutions, farmers and industry operators has yielded concrete results. This model could be successfully replicated in other sectors, such as livestock, where the need for quick and targeted responses is equally urgent.

Farm Europe calls on all Institutions and stakeholders to continue the constructive dialogue to further strengthen a resilient, competitive European wine sector that is able to face future challenges with renewed momentum.

The EU must defend its agriculture offensive interests

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

It is now highly likely that the US decision to reinstate import duties on steel and alumina from the EU, and the inevitable EU response with retaliatory measures, will lead to the beginning of a trade war whose end is not in sight.

The EU has in the pipeline a decision to reinstate its retaliatory measures, suspended for several years following a negotiated truce, which include some US agriculture exports, such as maize and soya, but also other key products – such as bourbon – that could trigger the US to take other heavy counter-retaliation measures.

The US President has actually publicly declared that the US would up the ante to counter-retaliate, threatening 200% duties on EU wines.

The scene is set for a US-EU trade war, and unfortunately agriculture is part of it, although it was not the starting point.

We will examine what that means for the EU agriculture sector, who has the best cards, and what the outcomes could look like, which to a large extend depends on the capacity of the EU to stand together, leverage its firepower to protect its offensive interests, in particular in the agri-food sector already suffering from a lack of competitiveness and tensions with China.

THE RISK OF LOSING MARKET SHARE FOR EU AGRICULTURE & FOOD

The EU has enjoyed for a long period a large agriculture trade surplus with the US. In 2023 we exported EUR 27 180 million and imported EUR 11 744 million – a EUR 15 436 million surplus.

The US is our second largest export destination, after the UK, making 12% of our exports.

A closer look at the composition of EU trade with the US shows that it mainly exports some form of processed products, whereas it mainly imports commodities.

Looking at the very latest 2024 data, amongst our top exports are wines (EUR 4 894 million), spirits (EUR 2 890 million), olive oil (EUR 2 056 million), and cheeses (EUR 1 306 million). Beer, chocolate, pasta, hams, butter, other food preparations, also rank over the hundred million EUR worth of annual exports. 

The US top exports are soya (EUR 2 588 million), fruits and nuts (EUR 2 200 million), and spirits (EUR 1 076 million).

The disparity in the composition of our exports and imports raises another very important issue. Whereas the US can easily find other destinations for their soya exports in the event they are blocked in the EU, the same cannot be said regarding EU wine exports. Soya is a commodity, and if we stop importing from the US and instead import from South America, the many other world destinations will easily see previous South American exports be replaced by the US.

With respect to wine, if the EU is blocked in the US, it cannot simply shift exports to other destinations. The marketing and commercial specificities are totally different. It cannot easily compensate for the billions lost in the US by increasing exports to other markets. The EU would be able to increase to a certain extent its market share in other markets, but at the expense of lower prices and margins.

Unfortunately, the same reasoning applies to the EU cheese and ham exports, and to olive oil.

If the EU loses the US market for its top-quality cheeses and hams, it would face a close to impossible task to find alternative markets, or to grow in current markets. The case is even clearer regarding olive oil, where the EU is by far and large the world top producer facing little competition, which means there is little room to displace other competitors. In addition to that, it is close to impossible to displace other edible oils in the market, as both price and food habits are powerful head-winds.

We could go on making similar arguments on other high-value processed products.

The key conclusions to draw from this analysis are that:

  • As the EU enjoys a sizeable agri-food trade surplus with the US, it has potentially more to lose in this sector in an escalating trade war;
  • As the EU agri-food exports are more difficult to be diverted to other markets, the actual trade losses would be larger.
  • As the EU must defend its offensive interests in agriculture and food, retaliation measures and escalation must target other sectors and leverage the consumer markets that, for example, GAFAM cannot afford to lose. 

TRADE WARS BRING PAIN ACROSS THE BOARD

A trade war between the US and the EU will bring pain to both sides of the Atlantic. The economy will suffer, jobs will suffer. We will however focus on the consequences for the EU.

The extent of the pain depends on the width and depth of the dispute, on how many products it will concern and which tariff levels would be applied.

If the US completely scraps its WTO obligations, and imposes across-the-board higher duties on imports from the EU, the pain will be large and the US will not get out unscathed on the justified retaliation from the EU. The economic losses would be steep to both sides.

That is however not the likeliest scenario. Having said that, it makes little doubt that there will be some measure of application by the US of the new trade concept of reciprocity. At least for several products the US will impose tariffs that it finds commensurate to those it faces in the EU, with the aggravation that non-tariff barriers and VAT might be part of the calculations.

It is crystal clear that in so doing the US will tear apart the acquis of the GATT and the WTO.

Consolidated tariff schedules would become obsolete for the US. The US would no longer feel obliged by the world trade rules. 

The US openly admits that is precisely what it wants to do: fundamentally rebalance world trade.

The EU would feel compelled to apply retaliatory measures. In so doing the EU would stay in the boundaries of the WTO rules.

The US President has however indicated that if the EU retaliates, the US would escalate with counter-retaliations (200% tariff on wines). Where would it stop? What could be done to prevent a trade war that escalates with no end in sight?

A problem that negotiators will face is that the US and the EU would enter a potentially very harmful and escalating dispute following two radically different stances. 

The EU sees itself as a champion of WTO rules, will seek to impose respect of those rules, and is not prepared to break them. 

The US has departed from that standpoint, and seeks to pursue its national interest through the imposition of a new level playing field mixed with a mercantilist, or transactional, view.

This fundamental divergence makes it harder to find compromises. To give an example: if the EU and the US were to agree to a new set of tariffs to some products, the EU would feel obliged to apply those erga omnes, whereas that would be out of the equation for the US. To be clearer, the tariffs that the EU would agree with the US would apply to China and all the other WTO members, whereas the US would feel free to do as it sees fit.

Conceptually, under WTO rules, the only way for the EU to address the US push for reciprocity is through a Free Trade Agreement, but it is far from clear that the US is interested.

To make a solution to this dispute even more complex, we must factor in strategic, defence concerns, and unity of purpose and command.

The fact that the EU is dependent on the US to defend itself, and that even if it will now invest heavily on defence it will need some time to give all the expected fruits, gives the US an additional negotiating card that this Administration will not shy from using.

Moreover, EU Member States have different trade interests, different defence concerns and priorities, which might compound the difficulties of having to reach difficult decisions. On trade issues the EU has to some extent it easier to act, but this dispute has a strategic, and foreign policy dimension. 

CONCLUSION

The tensions initiated by the US are particularly harmful to the EU agriculture sector.

On agriculture, the EU has more to lose from an escalating trade war than the US. It has a sizeable trade surplus, and it exports products that cannot easily find alternative markets.

Whilst it is understandable and justified for the EU to retaliate, our core interests and cold-blood analysis call for working hard to minimize the impacts of those political developments, avoiding escalation and retaliations within the agriculture and food sector that would call for further measures from the US. 

The sector has every interest that a negotiated agreement be found. However, if such an agreement is out of reach for EU negotiators, they should try minimize the pain for agriculture and food, via retaliations outside this sector and also economic compensations to help the sector go through out the crisis until a solution is found, showing to the US that it is ready to protect European interests.

The EU is committed to the world trade rules, and its objective is to foster world trade under these rules.

The US pursues a paramount national interest policy (“America First”), and is seeking to change the rules to rebalance trade under a new reciprocity concept. 

It is important to strengthen the transatlantic partnership at a historic moment that demands cooperation to tackle global challenges – from climate change to food security and put into action any diplomatic effort aimed at fostering greater stability and sustainability in international trade.

Negotiators must find ways, out-of-the-box, to come to an agreement. As other strategic and defence issues are on the table, they could be addressed to settle the dispute as well, not mentioning the fact that on certain sectors like digital, trade relations is dramatically unbalanced in favour of the US, which the EU could target.

125 organisations call for a new impetus in the EU food policy, valorising livestock farming

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

Farm Europe is delighted to have signed and sent, on behalf of 125 organisations representing the diversity of Europe’s livestock supply chains, a united appeal to the European Commission calling for a comprehensive, science-based EU Food Strategy that values animal protein and supports a resilient, balanced agricultural model across the continent.

The appeal highlights the essential role that livestock plays in ensuring food security, nutritional balance, rural vitality, and environmental sustainability within the European Union, as well as the fundamental complementarity between arable and livestock farming. It calls upon the European Commission to support diversity in EU agricultural production, including livestock, mixed farming and sustainable intensification methods that optimize resource efficiency without compromising food security or rural livelihoods.

Entitled “Nourishing Europe: The Importance of Animal Proteins”, the appeal urges EU policymakers to:

  • Develop a holistic EU Food Strategy based on the scientific method of experimentation, integrating both crop and livestock farming while ensuring fair treatment for all agricultural sectors.
  • Support scientifically based environmental assessments that consider the full life cycle of food products, avoiding misleading interpretations that unfairly penalise livestock farming, potentially encouraging imports and thus increasing emissions.
  • Support science-based nutritional assessments that confirm the importance of animal-based foods for human health, particularly for vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly, and those with nutritional deficiencies.

The appeal also warns against the unintended consequences of policies that undermine animal protein, noting that reduced EU production would inevitably increase reliance on imports, exacerbate global emissions, and threaten the livelihoods of millions of European farmers.

With this initiative, Farm Europe and its partners signing the Appeal reaffirm their commitment to a future where agriculture is both productive and sustainable, and where Europe’s citizens have access to healthy, balanced diets grounded in scientific evidence and economic realism.

Europe needs to a well funded Common Agricultural Policy

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

Farm Europe calls for a strong budget for agriculture in the upcoming MFF negotiations

As the European Union approaches one of the most crucial and complex budgetary discussions in recent decades, in a letter sent to all EU Leaders, to the President of the European Council António Costa, and to EC President Ursula von der Leyen, Farm Europe urges EU leaders to prioritize the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and ensure its sustainability amid EU strategic autonomy and other rising challenges. With the European Council meeting this week, critical issues surrounding the future of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2028-2034 will be at the forefront of the debate, including European defence, global positioning, national constraints, inflation, COVID-related debts, and enlargement talks with Ukraine.

Farm Europe highlights the urgent need for a well-funded and robust CAP, given its pivotal role in European food production, bioeconomy, and energy. The agriculture sector is vital to enhancing the EU’s internal strategic autonomy, ensuring global food security, and driving decarbonization efforts. Without adjusting the CAP budget to account for inflation, the EU risks losing 54% of its value (equivalent to €250 billion) by 2034, severely impacting the sector’s ability to meet the demands of Europe and the world.

The situation is compounded by a steady decline in farmers’ income, which has dropped by 12% per hectare over the last two decades. Additionally, the EU has lost 37% of its farmers, and farmers’ debt has surged by 30%. The loss of 11 million hectares of agricultural land and the 10 million “imported” hectares highlight the growing pressure on European agriculture, further threatening EU strategic autonomy.

“We are facing a disinvestment shock that has been ongoing for over a decade, and it is putting European agriculture at risk,” said Yves Madre, President of Farm Europe. “To maintain our sovereignty in food production and bioeconomy, we must prioritize agriculture and ensure that the EU budget reflects this priority.”

Farm Europe emphasizes that the discussion on the future EU budget should not only focus on the quantity of resources allocated but also on the quality of the budget structure. Proposals to introduce a single fund or a single plan would undermine the Rural Development Pillar and risk renationalizing EU policies, weakening the common approach that has been a cornerstone of the CAP. This could lead to fragmentation, increased administrative burdens, and a lack of coherence across the EU.

“We call for a dedicated and adequate EU budget for a genuinely common CAP. The two pillars of the CAP must be cohesive, ensuring that the policy remains efficient and consistent,” added Yves Madre.

The organization stresses the importance of establishing a new direction for EU policy that focuses on rebuilding the economic attractiveness of agriculture, ensuring production across Europe, and fostering genuine agricultural sovereignty. This approach will enable the EU to meet both its food and non-food demands, contributing to global growth while strengthening resilience in an increasingly uncertain world.

Farm Europe urges EU leaders to show strong leadership and commitment to securing a future for European agriculture that is both sustainable and capable of meeting the challenges ahead.

Farm Europe Welcomes Council’s Adoption of NGTs Negotiating Mandate

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

Farm Europe warmly welcomes the Council’s adoption of its negotiating mandate on new genomic techniques (NGTs), marking a significant step forward for the future of EU agriculture. This milestone paves the way for a regulatory framework that supports both economic and environmental performance, enhancing Europe’s agricultural competitiveness and sustainability.

The adoption of the negotiating mandate demonstrates a strong political will to modernize EU regulations in line with scientific developments.

As the Council and European Parliament move forward in their negotiations, Farm Europe urges both institutions to advance swiftly and constructively towards a final agreement. Delaying progress on this vital dossier would hinder the EU’s ability to leverage cutting-edge plant breeding innovations to address global food security challenges and environmental goals.

We encourage the negotiators to finalize an agreement without delay, ensuring that European farmers can benefit from the full potential of NGTs rejecting unnecessary labeling requirements for the NGT1 categories and following a sensible approach not hindering research when it comes to patenting.

No clean industrial deal without a stronger EU agriculture

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

Today, the European Commission adopted its Clean Industrial Deal.

Presenting the roadmap and main policy initiatives to follow, the Executive Vice President, Stéphane Séjourné, summarized the ambition as a need to do more and better and create a real business plan, while underlining the will to focus on “Made in Europe.” This new political impetus is a welcome and clear step in the right direction for the European Commission. It will need to be the first milestone before further bold initiatives to truly reconcile competitiveness and the green transition.

The role of agriculture must be stressed in this context : there will be no Made-in-Europe Clean Industrial Deal without more and better agricultural products. Whether it concerns renewable energy, chemicals (including bioplastics), textiles, or biomaterials for buildings, a large share of input will have to come from agriculture.

The role of agricultural biomass must be further underlined and fully reflected into the future bioeconomy strategy. Also in this sector, Europe should seek for sustainable intensification, in other words, to produce more and better. The bioeconomy agricultural values chains are strategic if Europe is willing to build a sovereign, efficient and affordable carbon neutral economy.

Therefore, Farm Europe calls upon the European Commission :

•⁠ ⁠To further integrate its agricultural and industrial strategies to unlock the potential contribution of farmers to the bioeconomy without unnecessary obstacles. For example, the crop cap on biofuels should be increased, the limitations in the taxonomy lifted and additional incentives created for other bioeconomy sectors going beyond traditional targets to create markets ;

•⁠ ⁠To strengthen its controls and certification mechanisms to stop unfair competition from imported products and establish robust sustainable value chains. Currently, fraudulent labelling, certification practices and lack of controls undermine the development of Made in Europe bioproducts. For example the credibility Annex IX A biofuels require urgent actions from the European Commission.

SHADOWS ON THE FUTURE MFF BLUR THE VISION FOR AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

The Vision for Agriculture and Food presented today by the European Commissioner for Agriculture and Food, Christophe Hansen, aims to show that the farmers’ distress, which culminated in a significant protest a year ago, has been well understood in Brussels. However, how this renewed political message will concretely translate into action remains an open question, especially in light of the concerning ideas initially put forward by the European Commission regarding the Multi Annual Financial Framework and the CAP budget .

The Vision presents farmers as entrepreneurs and emphasises the need to prioritize incentives over constraints, and the strategic challenge for Europe to build genuine agricultural sovereignty through a renewed focus on production. This objective is directly linked to sustainability imperatives, the fight against climate change, and innovation. These are all welcome directions that have been proposed for several years by Farm Europe.

The emphasis put on the external dimension, with the European Commission’s stated intention to ensure “reciprocity” and “regulatory alignment” between imported products and those produced within the EU, also represents progress. However, vigilance will be required regarding the concrete measures to come, which must not undermine current EU production standards, given the considerable efforts already made by European farmers to comply with them.

The fact that the Commission recognises the essential role of livestock farming and announces a future strategy for this sector is a step in the right direction. Nevertheless, this work should be conducted within a high-level group to avoid top-down approaches.

Similarly, the approach to plant protection products has been renewed by applying the principle that ban on use should be considered based on whether alternatives are available. This tangible shift must go hand in hand with an acceleration in the adoption of New Genomic Techniques (NGTs) and biocontrol products.

Finally, the document highlights the food dimension, recognizing the importance of transparency for consumers through the labeling of food origin and strengthening the link between food, territory, seasonality, and local traditions. The warning regarding ultra-processed foods is welcome, as it echoes numerous scientific studies on their harmful effects on health.

Some major concerns

However, this policy document also raises significant concerns. To establish a clear direction, the EU needed to explicitly state the necessity of sustainably increasing production to address the challenges of agricultural sovereignty. This is a dual challenge: repositioning itself geopolitically in terms of internal and external food security and gaining sufficient strategic autonomy to independently develop its bioeconomy and achieve its decarbonization goals.

Moreover, in a context of strong concern among farmers, a clear signal regarding the CAP budget is missing. Strengthening the EU’s strategic agricultural autonomy requires putting an end to decades of CAP budget reductions. A commitment to compensating for the impact of inflation, which, between 2021 and 2027, has resulted in a loss of more than €85 billion, is essential.

In this regard, doubts about the intentions behind targeting “those who are most in need” are real. This phrase has frequently been used as a euphemism for prioritizing budget constraints over a concrete vision for the future of European farms.

CAP subsidies represent more than 50% of farmers’ income and, in some Member States, more than 70%. For example, a 10% degressivity threshold beyond 16 hectares would only generate €3.2 billion in redistributive payments. However, such a measure would have harmful effects on many key agricultural structures for European production, particularly in already vulnerable areas, where farms have been forced to expand or consolidate to better control costs, compensate for low yields, and cope with agricultural prices pressure.

Our Key Priorities presented to M. Olivér Várhelyi, Commissioner for Health & Animal Welfare

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

After their meeting with Commissioner for Agriculture and Food, Christophe Hansen, yesterday, Luc Vernet, Secretary General of Farm Europe, and Paolo Di Stefano, Executive Director of Eat Europe, met with Commissioner for Health and Animal Welfare, Olivér Várhelyi, today. 

They discussed opening a collaborative effort to build a new agenda for agriculture and food. 

“At the start of this new political mandate, we urge the EU to slow down processes that have been initiated or revived without scientific support — such as warning labels, punitive taxation on wine, or the approval of new lab-grown products. At the same time, we must accelerate the initiatives that are genuinely needed, including innovations like NGTs to enhance sustainability and productivity, as well as biocontrol measures that provide farmers — along with a more realistic approach to PPPs—with effective tools to safeguard their investments from the risks posed by pests and diseases. Additionally, we must prioritize consumer protection, including with a clear approach to meat denominations and the provision of transparent information to consumers.”

This meeting also provided the opportunity to present the Roadmap on Agriculture and Food developed by Farm Europe, which also table proposals for future nutrition and health policies. 

It also marked the beginning of a constructive dialogue on the future of animal welfare policies, which must be aligned with the competitiveness of the EU’s livestock sector, both within Europe and globally. 

In our Roadmap for agriculture and food, we emphasize the following points regarding nutrition and health policies:

  • The European Union must maintain its high standards for human health and the quality of its food supply chain, which begins with the high sanitary standards at the farm gate. These standards must also apply to imported products. Controls on imports must be strengthened and certification rules be more robust.
  • The protein plan for Europe should not be in a collision course with the livestock sector, but on the contrary build on the complementarity between arable and livestock farming. This plan should refrain from promoting plant-based alternatives narratives or synthetic food alternatives. In recent years, certain capital-intensive players, supported by pressure groups, have sought to push for the production of synthetic proteins as a supposedly unquestionable sustainability benefit to replace animal proteins (e.g., dairy proteins, meat). A comprehensive, evidence-based debate is needed, considering ethical and environmental aspects, rather than relying on simplistic statements based on inconclusive science.

Regarding Non-Communicable Diseases and the EU’s Beating Cancer Plan, the need to address the real, scientifically backed concerns was highlighted. The EU should focus on the actual issue of rising consumption of ultra-processed products — an issue notably absent from these key EU strategies — rather than undermining the wine sector with a punitive approach that ignores consumption behaviours and scientifically proven health benefits.

Farm Europe outlines its key priorities to agriculture to Commissioner Hansen

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

Today, Luc Vernet, Secretary General of Farm Europe together with Ettore Prandini, chair of Farm Europe’s strategic committee and President of Coldiretti, presented Farm Europe’s key priorities to Mr Christophe Hansen, European Commissioner for Agriculture and Food.

Those orientations are based on key trends that should be taken into account :

  • If we continue not integrating inflation to adjust the value of the CAP in 2034, 54% of its value will evaporate (or 250 billions EUR), in 14 years only. 
  • Over the last 20 years, farmers’ income dropped by 12% per hectare, the EU lost 37% of its farmers and farmers’ debts increased by 30%. 
  • The European Union lost 11 million hectares of agricultural land while its agricultural footprint in the world increased by 10 million hectares. 

These indicators turning red, we urgently call for a new direction for the EU policy so that the farming communities across Europe see concrete and positive developments coming from the European Union. EU policies in the next five years should focus on: 

  • the need to rebuild the economic attractiveness of agriculture, including for boosting generation renewal. 
  • the need to secure agricultural production all across Europe and not only in the most productive areas. 
  • shaping a true agriculture sovereignty in Europe to meet the food and non food demand for our Continent and beyond.

Therefore, as core principles for the future of EU agriculture policy, we call for: 

  •  a strong and dedicated EU budget for a truly common CAP. This budget should be adjusted to inflation (in constant EUR), with strong leverage effect on investments, territorial balance, risks and crisis management, and generational renewal. 
  •  a clear farmers’-centric CAP focusing on entrepreneurs and incentives to enhance a sustainable intensification of EU production rather than norms discouraging farmers. 
  • a permanent combination of economic and environmental performance, integrating the capacity of EU agriculture to decarbonize other sectors and accelerating innovation. 

Those principles should be applied to the toolbox of the CAP with a refocus of the policy on entrepreneurs, production and optimal use of natural resources and cycles. 

EU budget: agriculture needs clarity and ambition

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

While the European Commission adopted its first milestone ahead of the negotiation of the next EU Budget, Farm Europe underlines the need to anchor the negotiation in clear facts and figures. Therefore, Farm Europe publishes today an overview of the key drivers and figures at stake to secure a strong support to agriculture as a strategic sector for Europe.

THE THREE CHALLENGES AROUND EU BUDGET NEGOTIATIONS

Inflation, the enlargement to Ukraine, the capacity or not to rebuild a common vision and the willingness to overcome global challenges together will be some of the major drivers for the next Multiannual Financial Framework negotiations.

  • Without an indexation to inflation for the period 2028-34 – and assuming modest inflation of 2% per year – the economic value of the CAP by 2034 would be more than halved (-54%) in comparison to its 2020 value. The CAP budget should be adjusted to inflation. 
  • The Commission’s initial proposal for a single fund would transfer greater responsibility to MS, with a clear risk of renationalising most of EU policies, loosing the common approach and internal market. This approach, which undermines the common dimension and runs the risk of losing funds earmarked for the CAP, must be rejected.
  • As a member of the EU, Ukraine could claim around 20% of the CAP budget and a substantial share of the budget allocated to cohesion policy.

Those drivers call for a new impetus in the budget negotiations at EU level, with the need to channel new financial capacities at EU level. Europe should be able to overcome new challenges, while at the same time strengthening its capacity to deliver a real agricultural ambition, which requires substantial investments. The commonality of the CAP should not be undermined.