Farm Europe warmly welcome today’s adoption by the European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (COMAGRI) of the report by MEP Carlo Fidanza on “how to secure a sustainable future for the EU livestock sector in light of the need to ensure food security, farmers’ resilience and the challenges posed by animal diseases?”.

This vote represents a significant step forward in promoting a resilient, competitive, sustainable and diverse EU livestock sector. 

Farm Europe particularly stresses the report’s call to bring back production as a core policy orientation, taking into account the diversity of our models and the ambition to keep production all across the EU. The focus on performance by fully optimising the positive benefits of livestock farming and on investments to prepare for the future should also be a core political orientation to be reflected in the up-coming EU livestock strategy. . 

The EU must remove economic and regulatory barriers to revive investment in livestock farming through a comprehensive plan that enables large-scale modernization of the sector, implements a genuine decarbonization strategy, promotes genetic improvement, and encourages quality initiatives that meet consumer expectations. 

The decline in production and decapitalization is not irreversible; rather, these trends must be reversed. The sector should be recognised for its role in providing healthy, balanced nutrition and for its environmental contributions, including pasture management, while being supported in reducing emissions through targeted investments in genetics, nutrition, infrastructure, and the use of effluents for biogas and biofertilizer production.

We now urge the European Parliament to confirm this positive signal in plenary. A strong endorsement will lay essential groundwork for the upcoming Livestock Strategy announced by the European Commission for June 2026.

Farm Europe welcomes the adoption of the Council Conclusions on the European Commission’s Strategic Framework for a Competitive and Sustainable EU Bioeconomy. This constitutes an important step forward in strengthening and scaling Europe’s bioeconomy, unlocking innovation, investment and sustainable European production of biomass.

The conclusions rightly place stronger emphasis on the efficient use of biomass, recognising the integrated nature of bioeconomy value chains and their industrial processes, as it is the case for biorefineries, that simultaneously produce multiple outputs. This approach better reflects the reality of modern bio-based industries, than the cascading principle, and allows for optimisation of biomass use across materials, chemicals, food, feed and energy products. 

The text also includes a renewed ambition to develop a sustainable European production of biomass, acknowledging that a resilient and competitive bioeconomy requires a robust domestic supply base. Therefore, safeguarding EU agriculture’s capacity to produce sustainable biomass is crucial both for climate objectives and for reducing dependency on fossil-based resources. This is why the conclusions rightfully highlight the strategic role of the agri-food sector within the bioeconomy and the importance of enabling farmers to participate in higher value-added value chains. 

Another key element is the clear recognition of biorefineries among the core bio-based solutions for scaling innovation and industrial deployment. In this way, the Council acknowledges the importance of industrial platforms capable of transforming biomass into a wide range of high-value products, thus maximising value creation in Europe. However, scaling-up can only be achieved through significant investments and market measures to stimulate demand for bio-based products, both of which are cited as priorities by EU ministers.

Finally, the conclusions rightly recognise the role of sustainable bioenergy in the EU energy mix. While this recognition is welcome, Farm Europe considers that the current cap on crop-based biofuels should be reconsidered in future policy revisions in order to fully harness the contribution of sustainable agricultural feedstocks to the energy transition.

In sum, Farm Europe believes that these conclusions provide a constructive basis for the forthcoming initiatives of the EU Bioeconomy Strategy, where farmers and biorefiners should be put at the centre of the scene. This step forward should pave the way for concrete regulatory developments via concrete market opportunities for the multiple streams of bioeconomy products.

Farm Europe and EAT Europe welcome the provisional agreement reached by the negotiators of the European Parliament, led by the rapporteur Celine Imart, and the Cyprus presidency related to the revision of the Common Market Organisation (CMO) regulation.

While the agreement will need to be assessed in the details, the decision to protect key denominations as steak, to pave the way for further protection as well as to exclude cellular or lab grown products from the usage of meat related denominations is a major step forward to protect both producers and consumers. Farm Europe and Eat Europe also welcome the extension of mandatory contractual relations which will provide visibility and enhance farmers’ negotiating power. 

We congratulate MEP Céline Imart and her colleagues for their commitment as well as the persons involved in the European commission, Commissioner Hansen in particular, and Member States who brought their weight to reach this much needed agreement. 

Transparency means calling food by its correct name. Naming is not a marketing gimmick—it directly affects citizens’ health and wellbeing. Consumers must be accurately informed, especially regarding the nutritional value and level of processing of the products they purchase. We particularly support the explicit recognition of the need for EU-wide harmonisation of terminology related to meat products—bringing the rules closer to the standards already in place for the dairy sector.

This is an important step forward, in line with the joint appeal by Farm Europe and EAT Europe to Commissioners Várhelyi and Hansen, giving voice to the “Words Matter” campaign launched in October 2024. Our campaign underlines the need to ensure consumers can clearly distinguish between animal-based products and their imitations — many of which are highly processed and have different nutritional profiles — thus avoiding misleading marketing and market confusion. This is why we will continue defending the need to keep open the possibility of adding other key meat denominations in the list agreed yesterday.

Farm Europe and Eat Europe also welcome that the deal — in line with what the European Parliament asked —  constitutes an important step to improve the functioning of the EU food chain and overcome the chronic weakness of the agricultural link, clarifying contractual relations — including written contracts as a general rules, despite exceptions and opt-out that still need to be analysed, and enhancing farmers’ capacity to get organised by consolidating offer. 

Today, Farm Europe will open the 9th edition of the Global Food Forum, bringing together nearly 200 farmers and their partners across the value chain, in the presence of Ms Annie Genevard, Mr Francesco Lollobrigida, and Mr Stefan Krajewski—respectively the French, Italian, and Polish Ministers of Agriculture—before welcoming Members of the European Parliament: Mr Carlo Fidanza, Ms Cristina Maestre, Ms Carmen Crespo, Mr Stefano Bonaccini, Mr Benoît Cassart, Mr Herbert Dorfmann, and Mr Dario Nardella. The Forum will also welcome Mr Christophe Hansen, Commissioner for Agriculture, on March 3.

Farm Europe will launch a call to EU decision-makers: agriculture lies at the heart of the European Union’s strategic autonomy, investing in its future cannot be optional. This will be an opportunity for participants to work together on shaping a European investment strategy to prepare the future of EU agriculture.

Securing income support is essential—but not sufficient. The EU must therefore ensure that the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and its budget are dedicated to a truly common agricultural sovereignty, not to 27 national agricultural strategies that would compete against each other in the internal market and undermine the Union’s ability to exert influence globally. The CAP must remain a strong policy, not be reduced to an ineffective patchwork of programmes.

Beyond the ring-fenced budget proposed by the European Commission (€300 billion), the missing €120 billion must be found and secured—both within the CAP and beyond—in order to prepare the future of EU agriculture.

Therefore, while allowing Member States to adapt the CAP toolbox to local conditions, EU leaders should agree on a limited but strategic number of priorities at European Union level, to collectively address the challenges facing all EU farmers, build the agriculture of tomorrow—ready to meet the challenges of:

• strategic confrontation, through resilient food systems capable of coping with geopolitical, climate, and economic crises;
• adaptation of agricultural systems, through investment to secure access to water, optimize production routes through digital technologies, mobilize the potential of genetic innovation, invest in livestock infrastructure, and strengthen risk-management tools;
• agricultural growth, to meet the challenges of decarbonisation and the strategic autonomy of bioeconomy sectors developing new markets. Circular and biogenic agricultural carbon is one of the strategic molecules needed to enable carbon-neutral transport, chemicals, plastics, and other bioproducts.

Unprecedented support for agricultural investment—on farms and at local level—is the foundation for meeting these challenges. It will enable higher productivity and, in turn, strengthen resilience, the EU’s geopolitical role and presence on global markets, adaptation to and mitigation of climate change, and sustainable growth in production. This should go hand in hand with an autonomous performance framework for the CAP, ensuring a clear common approach while taking into account the specificities of the EU agricultural sector.

BACKGROUND

Water
Agriculture faces the challenge of adapting to climate change. All EU territories are now confronted with climate shocks—water scarcity or excess, shifting seasons, and an increase in extreme events—which have become the norm. This new reality requires farmers to be more flexible and responsive, to implement systemic changes, and to make major investments to anticipate and manage new cycles. A comprehensive adaptation strategy at European Union level should be launched, mobilising investment measures within and beyond the CAP.

Digitalisation
The digital revolution is reshaping every level of action in agriculture and within the CAP. It is an opportunity to lay the foundations for an agriculture that is doubly performant—economically and environmentally—regardless of farm size. It is also an opportunity to build a CAP grounded in a robust framework of performance indicators. To ensure all farmers have equal access and opportunities, the EU should launch an investment plan for digital agricultural infrastructure across all territories and ensure the interoperability of tools, in order to foster innovation and unlock the full potential of digital technologies.

Fertilisers and the agricultural decarbonisation strategy
Fertilisers are a key point of contact between the Green Deal and agriculture through their inclusion in the ETS, which in practice brings arable production into the mechanism. While the European Commission has integrated downstream products into the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) to prevent carbon leakage, it is unable to do so for arable crops. Arable producers are placed in an untenable situation—facing a loss of competitiveness without a mechanism to finance the agricultural transition. The European Union must therefore revisit its decarbonisation strategy for fertilisers. Rather than discouraging fertiliser production in the EU, the European Commission should support the emergence of a viable economic model for farmers using low-carbon fertilisers, enabling them to generate carbon credits from reduced agricultural emissions and sell them on regulated markets, without bringing agriculture into the ETS. The EU can incentivise the valorisation of carbon-farming credits, preserving food sovereignty while accelerating decarbonisation and improving access to high-quality carbon credits for ETS-regulated companies.

Livestock
The livestock sector is facing an unprecedented erosion of production, alongside rising imports. It sits at the heart of a societal paradox: calls for emissions reductions, while simultaneously blocking the construction of new, more efficient infrastructure. The EU must therefore remove the economic and regulatory barriers that are holding back investment, through a plan enabling large-scale modernisation of the sector, the deployment of a genuine decarbonisation strategy, genetic improvement and promotion, and support for quality initiatives that meet consumer expectations. The decline in production and decapitalisation are not inevitable; the trend must be reversed. The sector should be recognised for its contribution to healthy, balanced nutrition and for its environmental benefits in pasture management, and supported in reducing emissions through investments in genetics, nutrition, buildings, and the use of effluents for biogas and biofertiliser production.

Bioeconomy
Agriculture and its value chains are a key lever for decarbonisation and for achieving the ambition of a carbon-neutral economy, thanks to their ability to underpin neutral biogenic carbon cycles through photosynthesis. Overall, EU agricultural production must increase by 25% to meet this challenge. To enable the emergence of bioeconomy sectors, the European Union should build on existing value chains to strengthen investment capacity and promote synergies across food and feed, bioenergy, biochemistry, bioplastics, and biomaterials. This should be supported through clear mandates similar to those established for biofuels—mandates that should be increased to at least 10%—thereby accelerating the deployment of other bio-based products.

Risk & crisis management
European solidarity is the most effective way to manage agricultural risks and crises—and it is five times less costly than each country acting alone. If Member States acted individually, it would take no less than €10 billion to cover a risk that requires only €2 billion at European level. The crisis reserve reinforced by the European Commission is therefore a step in the right direction. It should be complemented by clearer trigger mechanisms—tailored to different types of risks—and by a clear allocation of responsibilities between the farm, the Member State, and the European Union, in order to build a predictable and effective system that safeguards investment and ensures continuity of production.

Asiago, Black Forest Ham, Brie, Camembert, Chorizo, Emmental, Fontina, Gorgonzola, Gouda, Grana, Feta, Kiełbasa, Mortadella, Munster, Pecorino, Parmesan: these are just a few of the European cheeses and meat products that are Geographical Indications (GIs) — or names intrinsically linked to GI systems — protected at EU level and included in the recently signed EU-Mercosur Agreement.

“Yet today”, warns Luigi Scordamaglia, President of Eat Europe, “even this claimed protection appears increasingly fragile following a recent bilateral trade agreement between the United States and Argentina.”

Eat Europe and Farm Europe underline how under the deal signed between Washington and Buenos Aires, the United States has secured the protection of these same names in Argentina as “generic” terms. In practice, this prevents Argentina from restricting U.S. market access based on the use of these denominations, effectively opening the door to products that imitate Europe’s most renowned specialties.

“This development raises a fundamental question: what real value does GI protection under the EU-Mercosur Agreement hold if parallel bilateral deals can neutralize its enforcement?” commented Yves Madre, President of Farm Europe.

GIs are not mere commercial labels. They are legal instruments that safeguard quality standards, territorial identity, biodiversity, and social cohesion. They protect agricultural models rooted in environmental stewardship, respect for labor standards, and centuries-old know-how. When these names are treated as generic, entire production systems are weakened. Value is shifted away from rural territories and authentic producers toward industrial replication and globalized commodity markets.

The Argentine opening to U.S. “European-sounding” products significantly amplifies the structural risks already embedded in the Mercosur framework. The agreement lacks full reciprocity and does not provide robust, automatic safeguard mechanisms. It risks allowing duty-free imports of products that may not meet the same environmental, phytosanitary, and labor standards imposed on European farmers — creating an uneven playing field and undermining the credibility of EU quality policy itself.

In this context, the political responsibility becomes unavoidable. “The European Commission, under the leadership of Ursula von der Leyen, has repeatedly presented the Mercosur deal as a strategic success capable of defending European excellence. Yet if one of the key signatories can simultaneously dismantle the practical enforceability of GI protection through separate trade concessions, the agreement risks becoming not a shield, but a vulnerability”, said Luigi Scordamaglia.

Promoting and valorising authentic agricultural products must remain at the core of EU trade policy. Strong, multi-layered and enforceable protection of GIs is not a symbolic demand — it is essential to defend quality, sustainability, rural economies, and Europe’s cultural heritage.

If trade policy fails to defend its own standards, it does not merely compromise market access; it erodes the foundations of the European agricultural model itself.

Yesterday, the European Parliament approved the provisional agreement resulting from interinstitutional negotiations on cross-borders unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain. 

With 555 votes in favour, none against and 26 abstentions, Members of the European Parliament gave their final approval to new rules requiring national authorities to work together to tackle unfair trading practices. The objective is to ensure that farmers are fairly paid for their work. As a result, cross-border unfair trading practices that harm farmers and small agricultural producers will be 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 text will help improve farmers’ position in the agrifood supply chain and 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 – at least extending the list of UTPs (black list) and simplifying the rules governing complaints and sanctions –  and in parallel through an effective conclusion of the trilogue negotiations on the 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), to clarify contractual relations. 

Concretely, the new rules approved by MEPs today support the following objectives: 

• Stopping cross-border unfair trading practices on member states’ initiative
• Tackling unfair trading practices by buyers located outside the EU
• Exchanging cross border information 

The provisional agreement now needs to be approved by Council. It will apply 18 months after being published in the EU Official Journal.

When the European Commission presented its proposals to apply the Green Deal to agriculture, Farm Europe took the lead to point out what they implied for the EU: lower production, higher food costs, less food security, lower exports, lower revenues.

That analysis was widely shared. It was followed by a strong reaction from farmers’ organisations and political representatives, in particular in the European Parliament.

The Commission heard the criticisms and has either withdrawn or shelved the initial proposals. Farmers were therefore shielded from the economic damage that would result from applying contractionary policies to address environmental and climate challenges without properly taking into account the need to combine economic and environmental performance.

Farm Europe stressed that the way to address those challenges was through more investment and innovation on technologies and practices that reduce the environmental footprint without sacrificing growth and revenues.

Unfortunately, the sector is at the brink of being hit by the application of the Green Deal to the rest of the economy.

A structural loss of competitiveness 

Farmers have been warned that the price of fertilisers for 2026 would go up sharply due to the application of the CBAM – the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. The CBAM is to be imposed as of 2026, and it will initially apply to imports of cement, iron and steel, aluminum, fertilisers, electricity, and hydrogen.  

The CBAM is an import tax to ensure that the carbon price of imports is equivalent to the carbon price of domestic production. The CBAM is thus linked to the EU Emission Trading System (ETS) and it is specifically designed to protect the domestic market from imports from countries where there is no carbon emissions price.

It reflects the philosophy of the Green Deal which is to increase production costs of high carbon intensive products, undermining their competitiveness, rather than incentivizing low carbon solutions. The focus is to “green” the offer rather than the demand. In most of the sectors, this strategy is leading to a dead-end, as companies take the risk to invest in green products, without guarantees on a corresponding market. They face a major financial risks as the current situation of the automotive sector is showing.

According to the French institute Arvalis for the French wheat producers (AGPB), the production cost of soft wheat was 240 €/t on average between 2019 and 2024, with a range from 180 to 320. The fertilisers cost varied from 25 to 60 €/t (i.e. 13 to 23 % of the total cost). The CBAM cost would represent 5 to 10 % of the production cost and between 35 and 200% of the net revenue of the average typical French farm over the recent years. It could result in an increase between €13 and €24 per ton of cereal produced in the EU, and €16 to €31 per ton of oilseeds, which is simply unbearable.

In Italy, according to Coldiretti and Filiera Italia, over the past six months, the price of fertilisers has increased by 17%, and it is expected to rise by a further 2–3% in the coming months, on the top of previous increases since the war in Ukraine started. A further rise resulting from the application of the CBAM is expected, estimated at up to 15%. 

Not only a short term challenge

Recently the Commission made some reassuring declarations to the effect that she would stabilise the price of fertilisers. The Commission envisions as a first step to eliminate import tariffs, thus reducing the price of imports that account for close to half of the EU needs. If this first step were to come short of stabilising prices, the Commission floated the possibility of suspending the application of the CBAM for fertilisers.

The problem with this approach is that whilst aiming to soften only partially farm input costs, it sacrifices the EU fertiliser industry, and does not address the real issue at stake : a true competitive business model for financing the climate transition of EU agriculture. The issue is not only a short term price issue, but a medium to long term strategy to lay down the foundation of a value chain from fertilisers to cereals, located in the European Union, competitive on global market. The EU cannot afford to lose export markets, which are even more strategic as Russia uses wheat exports as a geopolitical asset.

EU domestic fertilizers industry has lost a significant share of its production capacity due to the gas price increases that followed the invasion of Ukraine by Russia and the sanctions that were applied against the aggressor; and the gradual application of the ETS that increased the price of CO2 emissions. According to the sector, it lost 7 million tonnes of Nitrogen production capacity, and an additional 2.7 million tonnes are stopped — which means that they could eventually be available to operate again.

If the measures envisioned by the Commission are applied, the industry would suffer the full blast of tariff free imports from producers who do not pay for their CO2 emissions. It would expose domestic producers to “reverse carbon leakage” as imports of high-carbon fertilisers would increase.

It is not in the interest of the EU to be even more dependent upon imports for their key inputs, and certainly it is not in the interest of the EU to be even more dependent upon third countries to ensure its strategic autonomy and food security.

Fixing the fertilization problem at its root

Therefore, Farm Europe urges the Commission to take a immediate and holistic approach that leaves no strategic sector exposed and shape a new business model for a credible and sustainable decarbonation strategy for agriculture and the fertilizer sector together. This challenge is directly connected to EU strategic autonomy and to its geopolitical influence in the world. How to reduce emissions in the fertiliser sector should be fundamentally revised. Measures should be taken without delay in order to avoid detrimental impact on EU farmers in 2026. 

The immediate remedy is to exclude fertilisers from the application of the ETS, which would automatically exclude the sector from the application of the CBAM. An ad hoc decarbona-tion strategy for the farmers and the fertilisers industry altogether should be defined, fo-cusing on the demand, via true incentives rather than trying to create an artificial offer with-out market. 

The path to reducing emissions in the production of fertilisers could be pursued through a balanced mix of incentives to encourage lower emissions and increase the production of green fertilisers. 

A key component should be to allow farmers to sell carbon farming credits (emission reduction) to ETS companies who need allowances. As a crucial element of agriculture emissions comes from the use of fertilisers, farmers could buy certified low-carbon fertilisers, generate emission reduction carbon credits on a voluntary basis. The additional price of green fertilisers would be covered via the ETS market without agriculture being include in this market as a sector, neither fertilisers as the decarbonation strategy. This approach would be exclusively focusing on incentives for farmers, whilst generating a true demand for the EU fertilizers companies. In addition, a target of a 5% incorporation mandate for green fertilisers could be considered, offering the possibility to use biomethane.

Those incentives should be limited to EU-produced fertilisers, as it is essential to guarantee the veracity of certification. Unfortunately, the experience with certification of imports has shown that it is prone to fraud, and so far, the Commission has been unable to stop massive fraud occurring in imports of biofuels.

In the meantime, the use of organic fertilisers should also be incentives via a targeted revision of the Nitrate directive allowing to go beyond the limits of nitrogen application from manure to 170 kg N/ha/year depending on local conditions. 

Those initial proposals could be the backbone of an ambitious strategy to be set on the occasion of the fertilisers action plan which is due to be presented later this year. 

This morning the European Parliament adopted the trilogue agreement reached with its co-legislator last December, concerning the European climate law (ECL) amendment introducing a binding intermediate climate target for 2040 of a 90% reduction in net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions compared to 1990 levels. 413 MEPs voted in favour of the text, 226 against, and 12 abstained. A majority of members rejected an amendment tabled by the Patriots for Europe proposing the rejection of the proposal as a whole. This vote concludes the Parliament’s first reading.

This agreement maintains the -90% GHG emissions target by 2040, as proposed by the European Commission. This new target implies an extremely ambitious decarbonisation trajectory for the European economy, when the current EU approach to the green transition is already challenged by global competitors like China and the United States. In this context, Farm Europe considers that beyond the target, a new pathway should be defined at the European Union level in order to progress on the climate ambitions while creating a true opportunity for the economy, including for farmers. Therefore, we welcome the new wording inserted in the provisional deal inciting the European Commission to “ensure and support a fair and just, pragmatic, cost-effective and socially balanced transition for all [..] paying particular attention to impacts on […] farmers”. 

In order to put this statement into motion, the European Commission should unlock the potential contribution of the agricultural sector’s own decarbonisation and that of other industries, such as energy, chemicals, plastics and biomaterials. To achieve this, the European agricultural sector’s capacity to capture carbon and supply circular biogenic carbon to other sectors must be scaled up and this carbon value chain fully acknowledged. To this end, the EU must ensure the creation of a stable and solid market for agricultural carbon removals and emission reductions, so as to provide real incentives to farmers. An effective solution in this sense would be to allow economic actors covered by the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) to meet part of their obligations through EU carbon farming credits. The fact that the agreement includes a possibility for domestic permanent carbon removals to be used to compensate for hard-to-abate emissions in the ETS seems to be a step in the right direction, but further measures need to be taken to cover emission reductions in the farming sector as well.

Furthermore, Farm Europe expresses deep concern regarding the agreement’s provision establishing that, starting from 2036, up to 5% (two additional percentage points compared to the original proposal) of the emissions reductions counting towards the -90% target for 2040 can come from international carbon credits (Member States will also be allowed to apply to outsource a further five percentage points). Although the European Parliament obtained the inclusion of conditions to ensure that these credits will be linked to emission reductions in third countries that are permanent, would not have happened otherwise, and do not result in double counting (by both the EU and the third country), this principle paves the way for unreliable certificates and risks of large-scale fraud. This is particularly worrisome at a time when the Commission is already struggling to control fraud within global green value chains like imported Annex IX biofuels. Such certificates would be impossible to adequately verify, thus undermining their credibility. Moreover, since their value would not reflect the true costs of decarbonisation efforts put in place within the European Union, this risks discouraging investments for domestic actions.

On Tuesday, the European Parliament approved the provisional agreement resulting from interinstitutional negotiations on the wine package.

MEPs approved the provisional agreement reached with EU Member States on 4 December 2025 by a vote of 625 to 15, with 11 abstentions. The new  rules aim to tackle the challenges faced by wine producers while opening up new market opportunities.

Farm Europe 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 positive vote of the European Parliament represents a necessary and long-awaited 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.

The provisional agreement needs to be approved by the Council before the new rules can enter into force.

Farm Europe warmly welcomes the approval by the ENVI Committee, today, of the provisional agreement resulting from interinstitutional negotiations on New Genomic Techniques (NGTs). 

The favourable vote in the ENVI Committee sends an important signal of the European Parliament’s commitment to promoting responsible, science-based innovation, in support of the sustainability and competitiveness of EU agricultural enterprises. European farmers and consumers alike need this text to be adopted as swiftly as possible, in order to be equipped with the necessary tools for a more resilient, competitive and sustainable agricultural sector.

Farm Europe believes that the compromise reached during trilogue negotiations represents a crucial step towards providing European agriculture with a clear, balanced and competitive regulatory framework, finally enabling the concrete application of innovations that have become indispensable to address the challenges posed by climate change, increasing pressure from pests and diseases, water resilience, and the progressive reduction in available crop protection products.

The agreement offers a much-needed opportunity for both farmers and consumers. This will support the path towards sustainable intensification, enabling European agriculture to produce more and better, while laying the foundations for a resilient and increasingly carbon-neutral economy in which agriculture is part of the solution.

While the deal is necessarily a compromise, it nevertheless represents a light at the end of the tunnel after years in which European farmers have been constrained by political choices that placed ideology ahead of science, and consumers have been left uncertain about the real nature of their food options. 

Regarding the next steps, the Council is expected to adopt its formal first reading position in the AGRIFISH Council of 30th March allowing a formal adoption by  the EP plenary scheduled for 27th April.