Today, the Council presidency and European Parliament’s negotiators reached a provisional agreement on the wine package, addressing challenges that wine producers face and unlocking market opportunities.

Farm Europe warmly welcomes the work of Commissioner Hansen alongside rapporteur Esther Herranz García, as well as the Danish Presidency on this crucial improvement for the EU wine sector, following the first and last trilogue.

​​This agreement represents a necessary and long-awaited positive response to the most pressing challenges faced by the European wine sector. It also addresses the related requests expressed by the High-Level Group on Wine.

The deal introduces clearer rules for de-alcoholised wines, in particular for the use of the terms “alcohol-free” and “alcohol reduced”. Wine producers will also benefit from greater flexibility in the face of natural disasters, plant disease, or pest pressures, with an additional year to plant or replant affected vines. EU funds may now be used for grubbing-up, and national payment ceilings for wine distillation and green harvesting are set at 25% of globally available funds per Member State.

The agreement also strengthens support for wine tourism and promotional initiatives. Producer organisations managing protected designations of origin (PDOs) and protected geographical indications (PGIs) will have additional support to promote wine tourism. Promotional campaigns targeting third countries will benefit from enhanced co-financing: up to 60% from the EU, with Member States able to provide additional support, and funding may extend up to nine years.

Farm Europe sees the agreement as a positive result of structured collaboration between EU institutions, producers, and industry stakeholders. The wine sector, a pillar of the European economy, requires coherent, long-term support spanning trade, promotion, climate adaptation, and digitalisation. This provisional deal demonstrates the effectiveness of bottom-up consultation, ensuring policies respond to producers’ practical needs while creating growth opportunities in domestic and international markets.

The provisional agreement must now be confirmed by the Council and the European Parliament before the legislative act is formally adopted by the co-legislators.

Last night, the Council presidency and European Parliament’s negotiators reached a provisional agreement on a set of rules that establish a legal framework for New Genomic Techniques (NGTs). 

The provisional deal on New Breeding Techniques is a glimpse of blue in an overcast sky for European farmers, finally paving the way to facilitate the uptake of innovation in European agriculture. 

The distinction between NGT1 and NGT2 will facilitate market access to innovative seeds. The modifications that can occur in nature will be operated more effectively and more quickly than conventional breeding practices. This will help overcome some challenges EU agriculture is confronted with like water resilience, climate change or increased pressure from pests and diseases. This will help to move on the path of sustainable intensification, most needed to produce more and better, and lay down the foundations of a carbon-neutral economy leveraging agriculture as a solution. 

The deal is a compromise. The implementation of the deal only two years after its final adoption is a delay which will undermine the level playing field for EU farmers in comparison to their competitors globally ; the exclusion list applied to NGT1 category is contradicting the principle that those modifications could occur in nature.

However, the agreement represents a light at the end of the tunnel after years during which farmers have been constrained by political choices that placed ideology ahead of science, and consumers left uncertain about the real nature of their food options.

A EU framework based on shared scientific criteria will help reduce the confusion between NGTs and traditional GMOs, which has long fuelled public mistrust.

Despite the division among EP rapporteurs, EU farmers and consumers need this text to be adopted as quickly as possible, in order to be equipped with the necessary tools for a more resilient, competitive and sustainable agriculture.

The provisional agreement must now be confirmed by the Council and the European Parliament before the legislative act is formally adopted by the co-legislators.

The automatic trigger is welcome, but the EBA scheme should not be turned into a European EBR – Everything But Rice! With this approach von der Leyen’s Commission will facilitate import of products that pose threats to public health, including some that are linked to child labour practices

Farm Europe and Eat Europe take note of the agreement reached last night in the final trilogue on the revision of the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) Regulation, while denouncing what we consider a missed opportunity to provide the sector with an effective mechanism capable of anticipating market disruptions caused by excessive imports from countries with low environmental and social standards.

“The introduction of an automatic trigger for the safeguard clause is a step forward, especially at a time where the European Parliament is assessing the safeguard clauses of the Mercosur Agreement” commented Yves Madre, President of Farm Europe. “Yet the activation conditions do not ensure real and effective protection for EU rice against imports from Asian countries whose production standards are far from those of the EU, putting the resilience of our sector at serious risk.”

We acknowledge and appreciate the efforts of the European Parliament negotiators, in particular of MEPs M. Mato and M. Polato, who defended the sector with determination. At the same time, we denounce the unacceptable stance of the Danish Presidency and the Commission, which refused to reopen a discussion on the functioning of the mechanism itself, reducing the negotiations to a mere bargaining exercise over rice volumes.

Crucial elements —such as the duration of the safeguard clause once triggered or the introduction of an automatic system to prevent circumvention practices— were completely ignored.

The agreed thresholds and surge percentages remain far too high, considering that imports have already exceeded 540,000 tonnes this year, with direct consequences on price trends for premium varieties, whose value has dropped by 35% compared with last year.

Without an effective automatic clause, the uncontrolled surge in imports observed since 2009 could intensify under future agreements between the EU and India, as well as with Mercosur, which—once fully implemented—foresees duty-reduced imports of 60,000 tonnes.

Any agreement, including with Mercosur, must therefore provide for automatic and effective safeguard clauses. We urge Members of the European Parliament’s Committee on International Trade to fully consider these dynamics when assessing the safeguard provisions linked to the Mercosur agreement.

The European Commission adopted today its communication for a European Bioeconomy strategy, which will play a crucial role in the European Union’s ambition to transform its economy and make it more sustainable, circular, and carbon neutral, in order to reach its climate and energy goals by 2030 and climate neutrality by 2050, while reducing its dependency on imported fossil fuels.

“We welcome the bioeconomy strategy developed under the leadership of Commissioner Roswall with the support of Commissioner Hansen. It has a real potential to be an opportunity for EU farmers and biorefiners. While we raised concerns on the initial versions that circulated in the press, the final strategy adopted by the Commission today fully recognises the essential role of EU agriculture and the need to build on existing value chains to unlock the potential of EU bioeconomy and scale up bio-based solutions”, underlined Stefan Schreiber, Chair of Farm Europe’s Green Economy Platform.

The communication acknowledges the role of biorefineries model as a lead market technology converting biomass, including woody biomass, agricultural residues, bio-waste and processing side-streams, into a range of products such as food ingredients, feed, biofuels, biochemicals and biomaterials. The ambition to create market space for bio-based content in a wide range of bioproducts has the potential to create a new impetus for investments in bioeconomy.

In this view, Farm Europe welcomes the intention of the Commission to focus on domestic biomass production, and the recognition of the need to encourage sustainable intensification of EU agricultural production. This would give EU farmers a central position within the value chain and constitutes a first step in reducing Europe’s dependence on biomass imports from third countries, which often entail unfair competition for domestic producers. However, the strategy does not sufficiently address the issue of tackling fraud on bio-based markets, especially when it comes to imports.

The strategy rightly emphasises the paramount role of sustainable biofuels in decarbonising the transport sector and announces a wide range of initiatives to foster bio-based products, such as bio-based polymers, fibres, chemicals, construction materials, fertilisers and plant protection products, by removing regulatory and non-regulatory barriers that hinder their deployment, further reinforces the economic potential for both farmers and bio-based industries.

Importantly, the strategy explicitly commits to involving farmers and biorefiners in its implementation. It recognises that sustainable primary biomass production enhances both productivity and environmental performance. However, the strategy should also mobilise the simplification agenda to unlock the potential of bioeconomy, including via an increase of the food and feed cap on biofuels drawing all conclusions of the recognition of the synergies and sustainability of the integrated EU biorefinery model.

Today, the European Parliament reunited in plenary adopted its amendments to the European Commission’s proposal, presented on 21 October 2025, aimed to simplify the EU anti-deforestation regulation (EUDR). This regulation is of utmost importance to European farmers and constitutes an essential tool to combat global deforestation and promote sustainable, fair trade, especially considering that the European Union remains the second largest importer of tropical deforestation and associated emissions.  

Farm Europe welcomes the adoption of the amendments requiring the European Commission to carry out a simplification review of the EUDR and present a report by 30 April 2026. The Commission is also invited to table a legislative proposal to further simplify the regulation for operators, downstream operators and traders in countries with negligible risk of deforestation. This provision echoes the Council’s position adopted earlier this month and represents an improvement to the Commission’s proposal which falls short in effectively addressing the excessive administrative burden and complexities that would weigh on the shoulders of European farmers. 

MEPs also voted in favour of measures to reduce the administrative obligations for downstream operators and traders, by deleting the mandatory requirement to pass on the reference numbers or declaration identifiers to their buyers and by limiting traceability obligation to the ‘first’ downstream operator or trader. They will have to collect reference numbers of due diligence statements but are not required to pass them on. This obligation will not apply to others further down the supply chain.

Furthermore, the Parliament decided for a general postponement of the application of core articles of EUDR from 30 December 2025 to 30 December 2026, and for a specific postponement to 30 June 2027 for micro and small undertakings.   

In view of the upcoming review by the European Commission, Farm Europe calls for real and meaningful simplification for EU farmers. First, due diligence requirements applied in the case of low-risk countries (like EU Member States) should be further simplified and when it comes to livestock, the existing traceability system should be extended to all the value chain and not only to micro and small operators.

Farm Europe welcomes the decision from the European Parliament to withdraw the urgent procedure concerning the Regulation on the bilateral safeguard clause of the EU-Mercosur Association Agreement.

Prior to the vote, Farm Europe warned the MEPs that the urgent procedure would have undermined the capacity of the European Parliament to properly work on how to improve such a mechanism. In its current form, the draft safeguard clause would simply be inefficient.

Only an automatic mechanism – with clear triggering mechanism – would offer a minimum safety net, yet without replacing real reciprocity measures that are still lacking in the agreement, which is still unbalanced, offers no guarantees of safety and economic viability for EU farmers and consumers. 

Opposing today’s request for urgent procedure is a first step to stop the permanent attacks again the European Parliament’s responsibilities. Such a discussion on safeguards is not a mere formality. It is instead a strategic matter where the European Parliament shall fully exercise its mandate.

The timing of the urgent procedure envisaged initially — on the eve of the December plenary and European Council — revealed an intention to secure the Mercosur deal, while limiting democratic, parliamentary, and public scrutiny. 

The rejection of the request for an urgent procedure will open the possibility of amending the text on a proposal with far-reaching implications for EU agriculture and consumers and constitutes an important opportunity to make this clause effective. 

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, jeopardise the EU’s environmental and climate objectives, and 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.

“European rice urgently needs innovation to develop varieties that are increasingly resistant to climate change, as well as automatic safeguard instruments capable of protecting EU production from the massive inflow of products from countries that apply inadequate environmental and social standards.”

This was the message delivered by Farm Europe and Eat Europe at an event held in the European Parliament by MEP Carlo Fidanza (ECR), attended by the Italian Minister of Agriculture, Francesco Lollobrigida, and numerous Members of the European Parliament – including the rapporteurs of the GSP and NGT dossiers, Gabriel Mato, Daniele Polato, and Pietro Fiocchi – on the priorities of the European rice sector regarding innovation and international trade.

The events of the last five years have profoundly affected the rice market in the European Union. Producers have faced a sharp increase in costs, a consequence of the Russia–Ukraine conflict, as well as extreme weather conditions – from drought to excessive rainfall – which have reduced yields and cultivated areas. At the same time, competition from non-EU countries, especially in Asia, continues to grow: the failure to comply with labour standards and the use of plant-protection products banned in Europe allow them to export processed rice at prices that, converted to paddy rice, are more than 50% lower than European production costs.

Recent developments and the increasing number of alert notifications on the RASFF portal confirm the importance of strengthening and protecting European rice production, reducing dependence on imports and ensuring citizens have access to safe products, both in terms of availability and quality.

In this context, the need to introduce into Regulation 978/2012 on the Generalised Scheme of Preferences an automatic safeguard mechanism emerges strongly—one that is truly effective in protecting European production and avoids quantitative thresholds that would render the system ineffective. As Farm Europe and Eat Europe emphasise, automaticity is essential: the system must become a preventive crisis-management tool supporting European rice growers. The EBA regime represents an important instrument of support for developing countries, but it is necessary to verify who actually benefits from tariff concessions and under what conditions those goods are produced (child labour, use of pesticides banned in the EU). Added to this is the framework of bilateral agreements, which risk further increasing rice imports under unfair competition conditions—consider, for example, the 60,000-tonne, zero-duty quota provided for by the Mercosur agreement, which lacks adequate safeguards.

The roundtable was also an important opportunity to examine the role of innovation in the future of the sector and, in particular, the New Genomic Techniques (NGTs). The trilogue of 13 November was expected to close the chapter on sustainability, but the absence of an agreement has postponed discussions to the technical level.

As the Council and the European Parliament continue negotiations, Farm Europe and Eat Europe urge both institutions to move forward swiftly and constructively towards a final agreement.

“Further delays would undermine the EU’s ability to fully harness the most advanced innovations in plant breeding, which are essential to ensuring global food security and achieving environmental objectives,” concluded Luigi Scordamaglia, President of Eat Europe. The rice sector, in particular, represents a key area for the development and application of these innovative production technologies.

We encourage negotiators to conclude the agreement without further delay, enabling European farmers to benefit from the full potential of NGTs, rejecting unnecessary labelling requirements for NGT1 categories, and adopting a sensible approach to patents and sustainability that does not hinder research.

Today, the Council presidency and European Parliament’s negotiators reached a provisional agreement on cross-borders unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain. 

Thanks to the agreed text, cooperation among national authorities responsible for the enforcement of the EU ban on unfair trading practices will be strengthened. This ensures that cross-border unfair trading practices affecting farmers and small producers of agricultural products by large buyers — including retail chains and their alliances — are effectively prevented, investigated, and sanctioned.

Farm Europe welcomes the work of Commissioner Hansen alongside rapporteur Stefano Bonaccini as well as the Danish Presidency on this long awaited improvement of the internal market. This agreement will help improve farmers’ position in the agrifood supply chain and to enhance transnational cooperation in case suppliers and buyers are in different Member States. It will be an important milestone, to be completed through the upcoming broader revision of the Directive on UTPs. 

Concretely, the provisional agreement supports the following objectives: 

• Introduction of a mutual assistance mechanism, enabling national authorities to exchange information, collaborate on investigations, and coordinate enforcement actions. 
• Establishment of rules on cost-sharing, data protection, and confidentiality to ensure suppliers are protected from retaliation. 
• Setting up of a mechanism for coordinated action in large-scale cross-border cases involving at least three EU countries, with one member state designated to lead the response. 
• Initiation of  cooperation with non-EU buyers, aiming to better protect European farmers from unfair trading practices originating outside the EU.

The provisional agreement must now be confirmed by the Council and the European Parliament before the legislative act is formally adopted by the co-legislators.

The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, has hinted at a few minimalist concessions she might consider during the day to the President of the European Parliament, Ms. Metsola, in an attempt to ease the criticism surrounding her proposed single fund unveiled on July 16. However, the elements of flexibility she is offering in no way respond to the clear demands expressed by the main political groups in the European Parliament. Moreover, the European Commission is not proposing at this stage any formal modification to its proposal but merely suggesting amendments for Members of the European Parliament to table themselves.

On the issue of the autonomy of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), transferring a few articles from the NRPP regulation to the CAP implementing regulation is far from solving the structural problem created by the single fund. The Common Agricultural Policy would remain dependent on discussions taking place outside its framework, and its governance would still be constrained by an ill-suited performance framework, detached from agricultural realities.

Concerning the role of the co-legislators, and of the European Parliament in particular, the new “strategic” discussion framework proposed by the Commission only adds further confusion to the overall governance of the single fund. The President of the European Commission proposes that MEPs hold annual “strategic” discussions on national envelopes that have already been allocated within the framework of the national strategic plans. Either this proposal shows contempt for the role of the European Parliament, or it represents yet another step towards even less predictability for European farmers.

Finally, regarding the financial aspect, the proposed 10% “rural target” that Member States would have to dedicate —beyond the agricultural envelope— to so-called “rural” issues, they roughly corresponds, on average across the EU, to the measures excluded from the protected scope of the initial proposal, such as cooperation measures, school fruit distribution schemes, or programs for outermost regions. For countries like Ireland or France, however, fully financing these measures excluded from the CAP by the European Commission would require not 10%, but rather around 25% and 16%, respectively. Furthermore, this suggestion does nothing to solve the budgetary equation for the core CAP measures, which continue to face a 17.6% cut, and does not provide additional investment capacity for former rural development measures.

In short, the President of the European Commission continues to shift the burden onto regions and Member States to make up for the budget cuts she plans to impose on the CAP and its measures—while maintaining an unconvincing narrative of ample financial resources within the NRPP fund, which is itself shrinking by 40%.

BACKGROUND 

The European Commission has put forward a radical proposal to overhaul the EU budget, largely inspired by the governance of the post-COVID recovery fund (RRF), which is mainly structured around national envelopes, leaving aside the Community method. Within the framework of a requested overall allocation of EUR 2 trillion, the European Commission proposes to distribute the funds among four main funds: the Regional and National Fund (incorporating the CAP, Cohesion, Frontex, Climate, Interreg, etc.); the Competitiveness Fund; the Global Europe Fund for third country actions and Ukraine; and the Fund for Administrative Expenditure.

The Commission proposes to merge traditional EU policies and their financing into a single regulation and fund. The current CAP, cohesion, ESF+, fisheries, climate & social fund, and the EU crisis fund would be merged into a single framework: the “National and Regional Partnership Plans” regulation, with a reduced overall allocation of €865 billion for the 2028–2034 period. This budget would be distributed among Member States, except for the Interreg budget (€10.5 billion), leaving an EU reserve margin of €15 billion only. €293.7 billion would be ring-fenced for the new CAP and allocated to Member States, along with an additional €6.3 billion earmarked for agricultural crises. The CAP budget would decrease sharply by 17.6% between 2021–2027 and 2028–2034.

Considering the sharp reduction in the CAP budget tabled, the Commission leaves it to Member States to top up the CAP budget by drawing on other funds from their allocated NRP Plans’ envelopes. To maintain the CAP budget in current euros alone, Denmark, Ireland, & Austria would need to dedicate more than three-quarters of their remaining NRP allocations (NRP funds after deducting CAP, Social Climate, and Border allocations). The Netherlands, France, Finland, Sweden, and Luxembourg would need to allocate around 50%, while Italy, Spain, Belgium, and Germany would have to mobilize between 18% and 35%.Yet, these NRP funds are supposed to finance, among other things, future cohesion and ESF+. The Commission’s assertions do not withstand a careful analysis.