Farm Europe welcomes the European Parliament’s letter to President Ursula von der Leyen rejecting the European Commission’s current proposal for the National and Regional Partnership Plans (NRPP) as a basis for negotiations. The Parliament’s stance aligns with Farm Europe’s long-standing view that the European Union must maintain strong, distinct policies with clear rules and a level playing field for farmers. 

The European Parliament has made it clear that the current NRPP proposal:

• Risks re-nationalisation by allowing “à la carte” approaches that undermine EU priorities, fragment funding, and threaten cohesion;
• Fails to preserve the distinct roles of key EU policies such as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and Cohesion Policy, risking predictability, accountability, and proper funding allocation. These policies need proper budgetary accountability through an autonomous performance framework.
• Weakens the involvement of regions and local authorities, sidelining multilevel governance and the partnership principle;
• Reduces the European Parliament’s powers over budgetary decisions, programming flexibility, and oversight of EU funds;
• Lacks a coherent link to Rule of Law mechanisms and fundamental EU values, creating a democratic deficit in the allocation of EU resources.

Farm Europe supports the Parliament’s insistence on returning CAP provisions to a dedicated legislative framework, ensuring a level playing field for farmers and clear rules for strategic plans. We also welcome the call for distinct budgets for cohesion, agriculture, fisheries, and social policies, as well as legally binding participation of the European Parliament in steering decisions and flexibility allocations.

Farm Europe urges the Commission to reflect these demands in a revised proposal that can form the basis for constructive negotiations with the European Parliament, ultimately reinforcing Europe’s cohesion, agricultural competitiveness, and democratic accountability.

The European Wine Day 2025 brought together over 100 participants today at the headquarters of the Région Grand Est in Strasbourg. This successful event gathering winemakers, stakeholders and policymakers from across Europe, was an occasion to make an appeal for a proudly wine-producing Europe and build a common and shared vision of the policies needed to strengthen the sector. 

Strasbourg, 21st October 2025 – This new edition of the European Wine Day brought together more than 100 participants in Strasbourg — a key location chosen as the European Parliament meets in plenary session this week — to discuss the future of Europe’s wine sector at a key moment for EU agricultural policy. The event, driven by Farm Europe, La Coopération Agricole – Vignerons Coopérateurs, the AREV, and Iter Vitis, has become an essential platform for dialogue between professionals, policymakers, and civil society, aiming to build a shared vision for a competitive, sustainable, and culturally vibrant European viticulture. This event was also an occasion to launch a manifesto for a proudly wine-producing Europe. 

Opening the conference, Yves Madre, President of the European Wine Day and of Farm Europe, underlined the strategic context in which the meeting was taking place. He highlighted that winegrowers across Europe are facing profound transformations — from shifting consumption patterns and generational renewal challenges to climate change and the growing impact of unbalanced narratives on health and alcohol consumption. He stressed the need for the EU to provide a coherent policy framework that supports the sector’s sustainability and competitiveness, while recognising its cultural and economic importance.

Throughout the day, speakers and participants examined the main challenges and opportunities facing the European wine sector. Discussions focused on the need to combine economic, environmental, and social performance, rather than pursuing one dimension at the expense of others. The sessions also addressed the importance of maintaining consumer trust, ensuring fair competition in international trade, and promoting a balanced approach to health communication based on science and moderation.

Franck Leroy, President of the Grand Est Region and of AREV, underlined the importance of hosting this year’s edition in Strasbourg, at the heart of a major winegrowing region. He recalled that Alsace embodies the close link between viticulture, territory, and identity, and stressed the role of the regions in defending Europe’s wine heritage and supporting its renewal.

Christophe Hansen, EU Commissioner for Agriculture and Food, welcomed the spirit of dialogue that defines the European Wine Day and recognised the contribution of the wine sector to Europe’s excellence, identity, and sustainability goals. He reaffirmed the European Commission’s commitment to supporting the sector through innovation, climate adaptation, and generational renewal.

MEPs from different political groups contributed actively to the discussions. Herbert Dorfmann highlighted the need for a Common Agricultural Policy that gives winegrowers the means to remain resilient and autonomous in the face of market volatility and climate challenges. Céline Imart underlined the importance of strengthening Europe’s position in global markets and ensuring fair trade conditions for producers. Carlo Fidanza stressed the interdependence between economic viability, environmental protection, and social sustainability. Esther Herranz García insisted on the need to safeguard the sector’s competitiveness and cultural dimension through coherent European policies. Dario Nardella and Carmen Crespo called for an ambitious, future-oriented European framework that recognises wine as both a strategic economic sector and a pillar of rural life, while Eric Sargiacomo reiterated the need for the EU to defend its viticultural model in the face of global challenges.

The conclusions of the working sessions highlighted a set of key measures for the future of the sector: reconnecting wine with consumers through adapting the offer, maintaining a strong and common CAP, addressing climate change through adaptation and crisis management, and fostering innovation throughout the value chain.

The event closed with a strong message of unity and optimism. Participants called for a renewed European policy framework that supports growth, recognises the social and cultural value of wine, and invests in the future of those who make it possible.

As Yves Madre concluded, the European Wine Day stands as a space for open, constructive dialogue between all parts of the sector — a platform to define together the vision and ambition needed for the rebirth of European viticulture.

For questions and reactions please do not hesitate to contact us at info@farm-europe.eu

Farm Europe and Eat Europe call on the European Parliament rapporteur, Mr. Mato, not to give in to opposing pressures and to continue defending European rice growers without hesitation or compromise.

The rice sector has welcomed the openness shown for over a month by the European institutions toward the automatic activation of the safeguard clause — a fundamental instrument to protect European production from market imbalances and unfair competition.

This was a demand that Farm Europe and Eat Europe had been advocating since the very first actions launched last spring.

However, we cannot accept any onerous conditions or watered-down compromises that the rapporteur might be prepared to negotiate. European rice growers are already facing a deep crisis, worsened by massive imports at unsustainable prices and by unequal production standards compared to those imposed on EU operators.

A step forward that is not shared by all European Parliament rapporteurs would risk dealing a fatal blow to a strategic sector, one that stands as a symbol of quality, sustainability, and agricultural tradition.

European rice growers cannot be sacrificed on the altar of other economic or geopolitical interests. It is time for the European institutions to show coherence and courage in defending those who, every day, work to ensure food security, environmental protection, and the stewardship of rural territories.

For questions and reactions please do not hesitate to contact us at info@farm-europe.eu or info@eat-europe.eu

Farm Europe and Eat Europe welcome the step forward to strengthen farmers’ position in the agrifood supply chain and to defend transparency and consumer protection, after the adoption by the European Parliament today of the report of MEP Céline Imart, amending the single Common Market Organisation reform.

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

The EP negotiating position 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, enhancing farmers’ capacity to get organised by consolidating offer, and recognise the specificities of cooperatives with adequate provisions to underline and valorise their high standards of fair relations with their members. 

Voting the report, the EP has adopted a strong position in favour of labelling and origin’s transparency and consumer protection. At a time when marketing practices increasingly blur the distinction between traditional animal-based products and their plant-based or lab-grown imitations, it asks for the swift introduction of a solid and comprehensive framework for the protection of meat product denominations, notably concerning key terms such as “burger,” “sausage,” and “steak” which are among the most commonly misused names for marketing imitation products. Words matter ! Clear and honest labelling is not simply a marketing issue—it is a matter of public health, consumer trust, and fair competition. Furthermore the report gives an answer to the vast majority of consumers asking to know the specific country—or even region—of origin of their food, intended as the place of farming. 

We also welcome the approval of the amendment aiming at promoting and enhancing the value of European agricultural products, through prioritising food and agricultural products originating in the Union—particularly local and seasonal products in public procurement contracts.

The clear positions adopted by the European Parliament in plenary confirm the positions proposed by MEP Céline Imart. They enable the European Parliament’s rapporteur to enter into trilogue negotiations from a position of strength.

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

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

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

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

1) A protected budget—or not

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

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

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

2) A simpler framework—or not

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

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

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

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

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

3) A greener framework—or not

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

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

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

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

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

4) Farmers consulted—or not

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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