Author: Farm Europe

AGRI Council: The misleading concept of “green proteins”

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

The EU urgently needs a strategy on plant-based proteins. However this work must aim at increasing EU strategic autonomy, not at shaping shortcuts or lazy narratives designed to favour specific interests against the EU animal sector. Both type of proteins are complementary and needed.

Today, the EU Agri-fish Council is debating protein strategies. It is widely acknowledged that the EU faces a significant shortfall in plant protein production, and this must be addressed to meet both food and feed needs, while also enhancing the EU’s strategic autonomy.

However, the document presented by Germany and Denmark is vague on the proposed new concept of “green protein”. Rather than EU’s strategic autonomy ambition, this concept seems more aligned with the alternative protein agenda. This agenda, often promoted by some NGOs and global companies, advocates for synthetic proteins as a primary solution.

In this context, the agricultural discussion is once again confronted with misleading concepts trying to oppose and divide the sector at a time where complementarity must be fostered. In the tabled document, the “green protein” term is used as a marketing tool, based on unscientific and unsubstantiated claims.

Fact-Checking the Claim:

1.  The Increase in European Plant Production: Over the past three decades, the rise in European plant production has been largely driven by the development of the biofuel industry. In the EU, there is a complementary relationship between food and biofuel production, with more than 13 million tons of high quality protein co-produced by the EU biofuel industry valorising EU feedstocks, increasing EU protein supply chain, in addition to reducing transport emissions.

2.  Animal Protein Consumption: Contrary to claims made in the Strategic Dialogue report, animal protein consumption in the European Union has remained stable, not declining. According to the latest EU Agricultural Outlook, meat consumption is projected to slightly increase in 2024, reaching 66.8 kg per capita. When accounting for food waste, this figure aligns with both EU and WHO international health recommendations.

Therefore, the European Union must go beyond lazy communication narratives related to “alternative proteins” in Europe promoting instead the right of consumers to make informed choices between vegetal and animal protein sources and to understand fully the processes behind each products, including the potential use of GMOs, hormones, antibiotics, growth factors, level of processing and energy impacts. The proposed definition as “alternative sources of protein to soy or conventional animal products,” present the concept as a magic wand without any tangible assessment on their capacity to reduce land-use, emissions and be more respectful to nature and the environment.

Policymakers should follow in the footsteps of the future EU Commissioner for Agriculture and Food, Christophe Hansen, who underlined during the hearing in the European Parliament that “it’s tricky to impose top-down who has to eat what… meat products are part of a balanced diet”. Both vegetal and animal proteins are complementary and must be promoted.

FOOD IS COMING FROM FARMERS, NOT FROM LABs!

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

It is not acceptable that misleading narratives are leading the debate around the sustainable livestock sector, influencing European Commission and policy makers. 

Farm Europe and Eat Europe are grateful to have been invited to take part this week to the workshop organised by DG Grow of the European Commission on fermented dairy products, or – differently said – lab grown dairy products. It has been quite illuminating!

A workshop that is deemed to be based on science and facts should not start with misleading assumptions –- describing cows like “a bioreactor 10 times less effective”. Such allegation – that was the leitmotiv for all panellists – clearly shows that evidence-based approach and rigorous impact assessments are not at the core of the food system they promote. 

Such approach deliberately left unanswered and not debated questions that all EU consumers are asking. How the societal and environmental role of the use of genetical modified organism (GMOs) is considered? How is effectiveness measured? How the energy use is being calculated? Compared to which model of livestock production? On what basis synthetic or lab-grown dairy product can be presented as having a “better taste” or as a “better ingredient”? What is the assessment about the consumers’ acceptance in having chemical food in their plates?

Farmers and food producers should be given the possibility to address such concerns in a balanced debate and take a strong position. As underlined by Farm Europe and Eat Europe – notably during the debate – fermentation is just one of the lab processes at stake, but the debate shall be holistic, considering also ethical and environmental aspects, and the consequences for the competitiveness of the EU agri-food sector, avoiding simple statements not based on unanimous science.

When it comes to the role and the impact of the livestock sector the debate should be based as well on science and real figures, that must take into consideration not only the emissions of the livestock sector, that no one denies are impactful – even though in a decreasing trend in the last decades – but also the positive externalities of the livestock production circle as well as the differences between emissions and their effects on the environment (- CO2 remains in the atmosphere 300-1,000 years, after 100 years all the CO2 emitted at time zero will still be in the atmosphere, while the original emission of methane (CH4) will already have disappeared 11.2 ± 1.3 years after emission) – as well as the positive externalities of the livestock production circle).

The 80% of water “consumed” in the production cycle of a cow go back to the field with a better quality in terms of organic matter, contributing to make our soils healthier. What about water and polluted waters resulting from a bioreactor process?

Manure and by products produced by a cow are transformed in a positive and virtuous bioeconomy model as energy (biogas, biomethane), or as organic fertilizer (digestate, Renure), just to give some examples. 

Bioreactors would need to use a lot of energy that is assumed to come from renewable sources, whereas we know that even renewable energy is limited, unless we do not want to make our agricultural land fit only for solar panel production. Photosynthesis is the only free energy, and it is the very base of EU livestock production. 

Finally, let’s not forget the risks for rural areas to be abandoned reducing the competitiveness of the livestock sector for the sake of few highly capitalistic companies ambitioning to concentrate on their hands food production. Who will die first? Farmers located in remote areas: are we ready to accept all the related risks linked to possible soil erosion, hydrogeological instability, or desertification?

On the legislative framework, as already reminded in a letter we sent to the European Commission, and backing the calls from the EU Agricultural Council and the European Parliament, there is a need to assess if the “novel food” Regulation as it stands is fit for purpose, asking to consider future modifications that take into consideration the need to align some aspects of the evaluation of food produced in laboratories with the evaluation procedures of medicines, in particular the request to include pre-clinical and clinical studies to be used as criteria for assessing the safety of lab-grown products, to take duly into consideration the regulations on GMOs and to address ethical issues. 

Deforestation: Farm Europe welcomes a simplification for EU farmers, keeping the level of ambition untouched

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

The European Parliament made a positive step forward in its vote on imported deforestation (EUDR-2023/1115). This position will remove unnecessary red tapes for EU farmers, while securing the level of ambition in the fight against deforestation. 

The perimeter of the regulation covering operators and traders is unchanged. The delay is  limited to one year, necessary to finalise the implementing acts of this regulation which is cornerstone for trade reciprocity, sustainability, and fair value chains for agriculture and food products.

MEPs approved the amendments introducing a new “no risk” category for countries, which comes in addition to the existing “low,” “standard,” and “high” risk categories for deforestation. Countries designated as “no risk”— defined as those with stable or growing forested areas—would face notably reduced compliance requirements. 

The current version of the text was agreed upon by the Parliament with 371 votes in favour, 240 votes against  and 30 abstentions. It is now crucial for the Council of the European Union to join the Parliament’s approach as soon as possible, and for the Commission to fully complete the implementation of the regulation, including the platform providing an “early warning system” to assist the competent authorities, operators, traders and other relevant stakeholders, as established by Recital 31. 

The Commission is also expected to complete a country benchmarking framework by June 30, 2025.

Regulation on imported deforestation (EUDR): reducing red tape on EU farmers while keeping the overall ambition is possible!

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

The regulation on deforestation (2023/1115) is a cornerstone for trade reciprocity, sustainability, and fair value chains for agriculture and food products. A postponement of one year is now unavoidable considering the late presentation of the implementing rules, but any further delay should be avoided.

In order to comply with WTO requirements and guarantee a fair treatment for all operators worldwide, the regulation on deforestation has been designed to cover the entire planet, regardless of the level of deforestation risk in the countries covered. 

A simplified due diligence procedure has been set up to avoid placing a disproportionate burden on operators producing and marketing raw materials from countries with a low risk of deforestation. 

However, as highlighted in previous analysis by Farm Europe, this simplified due diligence procedure only allows a partial derogation from the administrative requirements and data collection, placing unreasonable burdens on operators for low or zero deforestation risks. 

Simplification yes, dismantling no.

Therefore, the amendments proposals seeking to create a “no risk” category goes in the right direction. But any further modifications would change the nature and be a blow to the level of ambition of the regulation. In particular, to secure a robust regulation, the responsibility of important global operators should not be diluted. 

Corrections should be limited to the parts of the text that threaten its own credibility, namely the ultimate risk of having a new standard that would weigh more heavily on EU farmers and food producers, faced with a fussy and disproportionate implementation of the regulation, than on global actors. 

These changes should be made quickly, taking into account the need to limit as much as possible the delay in the implementation of this important regulation, to avoid destabilizing European value chains and threatening their fragile economic equilibrium.  

A full implementation from the European Commission needed. 

In the meantime, the implementation of Recital 31 of the regulation which calls upon the European Commission to build a platform providing an “early warning system” to assist the competent authorities, operators, traders and other relevant stakeholders must be fully put into practice, which is not the case until now. 

This plateform has been added by the co-legislator to the Commission’s initial proposal to provide “continuous monitoring and early notification of possible deforestation or forest degradation activities”, and to be operational as soon as possible. It is be a building block for an easy, uniformed and simplified implementation of the regulation by third countries, and in particular for developing countries that should be set up. 

EU/Mercosur: the agriculture section, incompatible with EU political coherence

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

While the pressure on EU negotiators to close the Mercosur deal is increasing due to the perfect storm affecting EU carmakers flooded by Chinese producers, this agreement remains antagonistic to EU agriculture interests and would offset most — if not all — EU producers’ efforts on the difficult path of climate transition.
It would not only undermine major EU agricultural value chains, but also, as it stands, the policy coherence and the alignment of EU policies, as requested in different recent reports. A dedicated fund would be far from enough to compensate for its economic impacts considering the firepower of the Mercosur agribusiness sector, not mentioning the detrimental effects on the Amazon, the planet’s lungs.
Therefore, Farm Europe regrets yesterday’s renewed commitment of Commissioner Šefčovič to move forward in the talks with Mercosur and considers that the conditions are not met for including agriculture in this deal. Free trade agreements can offer important opportunities for the EU economy, but only if and when the principles of reciprocity are duly taken into account, in particular for EU agriculture. Those conditions are not meet and far from being achieved in the Mercosur negotiations.

Deforestation

  • The European Union has seen a reduction of more than 10 million hectares in its agricultural area over the last three decades (equivalent to two-thirds of Poland’s agricultural area). Forests in the EU have increased by 12 million hectares.
  • Meanwhile, Brazil lost 90Mha of forests. And the EU has become the second-largest importer of tropical deforestation and associated emissions (16% of tropical deforestation linked to international trade). Over the last 30 years, EU imports are estimated to have caused more than 11 million hectares of deforestation.

Pesticides

  • The use of hazardous pesticides has declined by more than 25% in the EU in less than 10 years.
  • In the Mercosur area, the increase in areas cultivated with soy, maize, and cane has led to a significant increase in the use of pesticides. In Brazil alone, the volume of pesticides sold quadrupled from 2000 to 2020. But it is not just about quantity: 27% of the products used in Brazil in 2020 were banned in the EU. Chlorothalonil, a fungicide, was banned in the EU since 2019, and an insecticide like Novaluron was banned in 2012. These are just some examples.

Hormones

  • Since the 1980s, the European Union established a ban on using growth-hormones in cattle ; this ban has been reinforced several times in the ‘90s and in 2006 with the exclusion of antibiotics used a growth promoters. 
  • In a recently published audit report on controls on residues of active substances, pesticides and contaminants in animal and animal products, the European Commission recognized the need to suspend imports of bovines from Brazil due to the lack of guarantees on hormone use. Keeping in mind that even if the imports from the Mercosur area of meat where production involves growth hormones for cattle are forbidden, this constraint is partly overcome through the use of certain antibiotics as growth promoters.

Therefore, rather than opening wide the doors of the European Union to the agricultural giants of Latin America, at a time of difficult challenges for EU producers, it is a matter of urgency:

  • To be credible in the fight against deforestation with a simple and solid implementation of the EU regulation on deforestation for standards and high-risk countries, while avoiding administrative burdens for low or zero-risk countries, particularly for EU producers ;
  • To protect our agriculture against unfair competition, not only when it comes to consumer safety, but also in terms of EU environmental standards, with full reciprocity on production norms ;
  • And, of course, to shape a new vision for EU agriculture and food, matching a real ambition for the “Made in Europe”. 

Christophe Hansen’s hearing: beyond the strategic dialogue ?

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

November 4th will be a defining moment for the future of the European agricultural policy, during the European Parliament’s hearing of the designated Commissioner Christophe Hansen. Will he be able to chart his own political course or will he strictly follow in the footsteps of the strategic dialogue? This is the main question that MEPs will ask themselves at the end of the hearing to determine if a strong commissioner is taking the helm of European agriculture in this period of turmoil.

The commissioner candidate knows the intricacies of the European Parliament and its political dynamics perfectly. He has had the opportunity to work in Parliament as a parliamentary assistant at the beginning of his career, and then as a Member of the European Parliament. He has been heavily involved in trade issues – Brexit in particular – and deforestation, for which he was the rapporteur.

Members of the European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture will be tasked with assessing the candidate’s competence for the assigned portfolio, as well as his adherence to Union values and his communication skills. The Commissioner has already had the opportunity to provide initial policy orientations in his responses to the written questions sent to him by the MEPs.

The hearing will begin with a 15-minute opening statement, followed by questions from all political groups, with the candidate having twice as much time for his or her reply as the time given for the question.

During the hearing, undoubtedly, many topics will be addressed — the future of the CAP, and direct payments in particular ; the challenge of Ukraine’s accession for European agriculture ; the candidate’s approach to reforming the food value chain, combating unfair trading practices and improving farmers’ income ; as well as his stance on trade, particularly when it comes to the on going talks with Mercosur.

Beyond these important topics, it is clear that the question of the strategic dialogue and the follow-up to this exercise, in which Parliament was not involved, will capture the MEPs’ attention. The Commissioner-designate will have the difficult task of following in the footsteps of the European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, who has placed the implementation of the strategic dialogue at the heart of her mission letter, while at the same time distancing himself from the specific recommendations of this report to assert his autonomy and his own political identity, essential for acquiring his stature as a European commissioner.

It is primarily in this exercise of balance and subtle dosage that his performance will be evaluated and will allow him to gather the political support he needs, not only to win the approval of the rapporteurs representing 2/3 of the committee’s votes, but also to begin his mandate and build his own strategic vision for the next five years in agriculture.

This political capacity will be all the more important and necessary as the majority that supported Ursula von der Leyen for a second term at the head of the European Commission will not be sufficient to obtain confirmation at the first hearing. If he intends to be confirmed without going through a second hearing and a majority vote, the Commissioner-designate will need to convince beyond the EPP, S&D, Renew, and Greens groups, as these only provide him with 31 votes out of the 33 necessary. He will therefore also need the support of the ECR group.

BUDGET 2028-34: EC INITIAL IDEAS RAISE QUESTIONS

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

In preparing the financial perspectives for the period 2028-2034, the European Commission is indulging in its favourite exercise: on the one hand, creating margins without any new financial margin, and on the other, trying to force the hand of the Member States on the financing of the European budget while retaining its role as principal.

Traditionally, the Commission primarily sounded out the capitals on acceptable cuts to the budgets of the main European policies and the acceptability of a slightly increased total European budget. In this first-round exercise, the CAP was put forward as a target (proposed to be cut by up to 30% in 2018 for instance).

In the current context of budgetary frugality, the Commission is trying a different route, ultimately drawing on the proposal for (administrative) reform of the CAP that it made in 2018.

It proposes grouping the 530 European programmes (representing a total budget of more than 12 trillion euros) into a single large European fund, called Pillar I. Alongside this pillar, two others would exist: one aimed at the financing of the services (thus allowing negotiations on the Commission’s operating budget to be decoupled a little more from discussions on the funding of European policies) and a third relating to enlargement and major investments of collective European interest, including defence (a pillar for which money has yet to be found).

Pillar I would therefore bring together all the major European policies. The Member States would be asked to draw up national strategic plans, setting out their priorities and their wishes as regards the mobilisation of the money allocated to them under the various policies.

The creation of such a fund undoubtedly implies a certain degree of fungibility of budgets previously allocated to one policy or another. We can assume that both the CAP and cohesion policy – whose budgets are always a source of envy in the absence of other truly common policies – would no longer see their funding protected over the programming period. Funding would be set at the beginning of the period according to national priorities and would no doubt be adjusted along the way, particularly if disbursements turned out to be lower than expected.

Under this scheme, transfers of funding to the Member States for the various policies would be conditional on respect for the rule of law and the implementation of priority measures defined at European level. The Member States would then be able to activate the measures provided for in the various policies, which would act as toolboxes that the Member States could activate or not.

In the case of the CAP, the Commission illustrates its point with two examples that raise questions about the detailed knowledge of agricultural issues on the part of a side of the European Commission. As a condition of Member States’ access to CAP money, it imagines “promoting organic farming”. An original example, when it is clear that the objective put forward by the Farm to Fork of 25% of land in organic farming corresponds neither to the expectations of the markets, nor to the imperatives of food sovereignty, nor to those of sustainability in Europe. As for the CAP’s ‘investment’ chapter, the Commission takes the example of direct payments. While these payments are certainly vital for farmers’ incomes at the moment, is this the most relevant example when we are aiming for investments to resolutely win the dual performance challenge: getting European agriculture back on the road to profitability while pursuing the path of greater sustainability? Not to mention the arrival of Ukraine.

This suggestion to overhaul the European budget and the way it operates raises a number of questions that the European Parliament raised when it considered the Commission’s 2018 CAP proposal, before reformatting it to give it a minimum common meaning.

This scheme would leave it up to the Member States to implement the bulk of European policies in accordance with their national priorities at the time, with the exception of a few ‘gateway’ measures to funding, a condition which the European Council (which must act unanimously on financial matters) would no doubt seriously water down.

As with the 2018 CAP proposal, we are now in a situation where all European policies under Pillar I are to be renationalised across the board. At the end of the day, Europe will only remain common to Pillar III (enlargement, major European investment plans).

So what of the single market?

What would be the economic efficiency of such a renationalised system, with the temptation for some to concentrate funding on a few sectors in order to subsidise them more so that they can gain an advantage over their European competitors? The money used in this way would not lead to European growth, but to more fractures and, in the end, a waste of the taxes paid by Europeans.

This idea of a large common pot is no doubt also related to the Commission President’s leitmotiv over the last few weeks (at least with regard to the CAP) of having a more targeted budget and more targeted measures. If the aim is to have more effective measures, everyone can agree. But if it’s a rhetorical device to get people to accept a lower budget by explaining that, despite everything, everything will be fine with more targeting, then doubts are permitted. At this stage, doubts exist about the European executive’s intentions with regard to agriculture and its funding.

Just one figure: if the CAP budget for the period 2028-2034 were to be maintained in current euros, this would mean that Europe is opting for a CAP whose economic value in 2034 (if inflation becomes low again) will be only 46% of the 2020 figure. Faced with the challenges of sovereignty, the loss of competitiveness over the last 2 decades, and enlargement to include Ukraine…

What’s true for milk must also be true for meat!

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

Following our assessment of the Court of Justice statement on Meat Denominations, Farm Europe launches a Call for Action to European Institutions.

Since 1987, milk and milk products have been protected by European legislation to ensure clear information for consumers and to prevent the ambiguous marketing use of these terms by alternative products and imitations. 

Questioned on the validity of the French initiative to ban the use of meat names to designate a product containing vegetable proteins, the European Court of Justice has just concluded that a Member State may not enact national measures regulating or prohibiting the use of names other than legal names.

Faced with the surge of ultra-processed alternative products on the shelves, this legal interpretation by the Court of Justice now puts the European institutions to the sword: it is above all up to them to take up the issue. It’s up to them to protect consumers, ensure transparency in the names used in the meat sector and put an end to the double standards for meat and milk that have gone on for far too long. 

The Court has open ways for Member States to take new initiatives within a clearer legal framework. But it is above all up to Europe to preserve its internal market and protect consumers. 

Today, when it comes to meat, there are very precise rules on what, for example, the French “steak haché” or “escalope hachée” must contain at least 99% meat and less than 1% salt! It is a lightly processed product, with mainly one ingredient. 

With the Court’s approach, meat substitutes and imitations – including ultra-processed ones – could legally use these names without any requirement as to the natural character of the product. 

This opinion clearly raises the issue of discrimination between meat and meat substitutes and imitations, and of effective consumer protection. We therefore call on European decision-makers to intervene as quickly as possible and put order on the shelves and in the internal market! 

Join the call scanning the QR Code here !

Background 

On the basis of Regulation (EU) Noo 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, the Court of Justice holds that a Member State may not lay down national measures regulating or prohibiting the use of designations, other than legal names, consisting of terms from the butchery, charcuterie and fishmongery sectors to describe, market or promote foodstuffs containing plant proteins instead of proteins of animal origin.

This decision excludes these sectors from the provisions that the co-legislators deemed necessary for dairy products as early as 1987 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1898/87 of 2 July 1987), when imitation and substitute products began to be placed on the market. It also discriminates against the meat sector in terms of consumer protection regulations. 

Legislation to protect consumers from being misled by various everyday consumer products using meat is drastic. Only minced meats meeting the definition in point 1.13 of Annex I to EC Regulation 853/2004 are allowed to use the designations steak or minced steak (beef), minced grill, minced escalope (veal, pork). Minced meat is defined in point 1.13 of Annex I to EC Regulation 853/2004 as boneless meat that has been minced into fragments and contains less than 1% salt. To qualify as 100% minced meat from (species), even the simple addition of salt is not sufficient. 

Meat products are defined in point 7.1 of Annex I to EC Reg. 853/2004 as “processed products resulting from the processing of meat or from the processing of products so processed that the characteristics of the fresh meat can be discerned from the cut surface at the heart”. “Moulded minced meat may be called: steak or minced steak (beef), minced grill, minced escalope (veal, pork)”. 

Can it be considered legitimate for only minced meats that meet a strict definition to be able to use the name minced steak, while substitutes and imitations that are often ultra-processed could unconditionally benefit from the possibility of using this name or others such as sausage, ham or hot dogs[1] ? 

So that European consumers can benefit from the same level of information, transparency and safety, it is up to the European institutions to take up the issue of meat names. They did so inconclusively during the 2020 discussions on the Common Market Organisation as part of the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, for the butchery and charcuterie sectors.  However, they must take the initiative again to finally guarantee that the law applying to consumer information is brought into line with that already applying to the milk and dairy products sector and with the consumer protection provisions of Regulation 853/2004, which tightly regulates meat products.

[1] For example, the average composition of vegetarian hot dogs is as follows: water, rapeseed oil, table salt, starch, pea protein, potato protein, citrus fibre, thickener: E 407a, E 461, acidifier E 330, natural flavour, spices, dextrose, spice extracts, colouring E 160a, red radish concentrate, beechwoodsmoke. 

Agriculture Commissioner : all ingredients for a new positive impetus 

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

The structure of the new European Commission represents a promising step forward to open a new chapter of European policy in the field of agriculture and food. The reorganisation of the portfolio will potentially give to the future Commissioner the necessary room for maneuver to provide a consistent and coherent policy framework, overcoming the fragmented approach of the previous mandate which generated unnecessary polarisation and led to massive demonstrations of farmers in 17 Member States.

Commissioner-designate Christophe Hansen will have to work closely with Executive President Raffaele Fitto, in charge of Cohesion and Reforms. In his mission letter, Mr Fitto is tasked with guiding the work of the Commission’s college “notably to strengthen the competitiveness, the resilience and sustainability of the food and farming sector, to ensure that (the EU) supports farmers who need it most, promote positive environmental and social outcomes and support the right to enabling conditions”.  

To a certain extent, it is regrettable that the Commissioner-Designated for agriculture and food doesn’t hold a higher rank in the European Commission’s protocol and lacks authority on concrete food related issues. This does not fully reflect the title and strategic importance of his portfolio. However, this is offset by both the Executive Vice President position and the fact that Mr Christophe Hansen brings all the skills to succeed in his new position. As a highly respected former MEP, with influence extending well beyond his EPP political group, he is well-positioned to lead the economic and environmental aspects of his portfolio.

The mission letter given by President-elect von der Leyen to Mr Hansen is general on many points, leaving a wide room for maneuver to the future Commissioner. He will have to deliver on the simplification agenda and to strengthen the competitiveness, resilience and sustainability of the sector. Ensuring that the “future Common Agricultural policy is fit for purpose” will be one of his main tasks together with finding ways to leverage private funding. Climate risk preparedness and developing tools for crisis management are underlined. 

A major challenge will be his ability to demonstrate autonomy and distance himself from the conclusions of the strategic dialogue which is put forward as a baseline to the Commissioner-designated. He will need to shape and implement his own vision, integrating also the recommendations of the Draghi’s report and urgent competitivity needs of the sector. This is likely to be a key focus and potential point of contentious during the hearings, in particular considering yesterday’s reactions of the European Parliament to this report. 

Tensions are also expected concerning the trade agenda. As negotiators work to finalize a deal with Mercosur, the statements from the Commissioner-designate regarding the fight against deforestation and, more broadly, the reciprocity of standards in the EU’s trade strategy will be closely watched by decision-makers in the European Parliament. The mission letter clearly emphasizes that the Commissioner for Agriculture and Food will collaborate closely with the Trade Commissioner to ensure reciprocity and a level playing field at the international level. 

Lukewarm reactions to the Strategic Dialogue report in the Parliament 

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe
Mr Dario Nardella, MEP, S&D ComAGRI Coordinator. © European Union 2024 – Source : EP

On 16 September, the European Parliament held a plenary session to discuss the Strategic Dialogue on Agriculture and its final document. Commissioner Mairead McGuinness, representing the European Commission, presented the outcomes of the dialogue, emphasizing that it was a productive initiative that brought together all relevant stakeholders, helping to bridge the divide between agriculture and environmental concerns that has emerged in recent years. However, McGuinness clarified that the final document from the strategic dialogue is not a formal proposal from the Commission, which has instead committed to publishing the Vision on the Future of Agriculture within the first 100 days of the Von der Leyen II mandate.

Numerous MEPs participated in the debate, including those from committees other than agriculture. While most acknowledged the positive aspects of the document and agreed on the importance of consulting all involved actors, several voiced significant criticisms. Cristina Maestre (ES, S&D) and Céline Imart (FR, EPP) both pointed to the document’s insufficient focus on competitiveness, stressing that agricultural profitability and productivity must be central to future policies.

S&D COMAGRI coordinator Dario Nardella (IT) also underscored the importance of competitiveness in his remarks, connecting the issue to the Draghi report, and highlighting the need for innovation and resources to ensure a just transition within the agricultural sector. Similarly, Herbert Dorfmann (IT, EPP AGRI coordinator) and Veronika Vrecionova (ECR, Chair of COMAGRI) stressed the European Parliament’s crucial role in shaping the next CAP reform, emphasizing that the Strategic Dialogue serves as a first base for further discussion.

Several MEPs, including Carlo Fidanza (IT, ECR COMAGRI cordinator) and Céline Imart(FR, EPP), criticized the document for merely reflecting the goals of the Farm to Fork strategy, without delivering the anticipated paradigm shift in response to recent farmer protests. Benoit Cassart (BE, Renew) focused his intervention on the livestock sector and the need for mirror clauses in international trade agreements.

Finally, some MEPs expressed support for many elements of the document, particularly regarding the essential ecological transition in agriculture. Notably, Maria Noichl (DE, S&D), Camilla Laureti (IT, S&D), and Thomas Waitz (AT, Green coordinator in COMAGRI) highlighted the importance of addressing environmental concerns in shaping the future of the agricultural sector.