Tag: EU agriculture

President von der Leyen recognises that at least €400 billion are needed for the CAP

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

Yesterday, President Ursula von der Leyen sent a letter to the European Parliament and to the Council outlining some possible evolutions in the position of the European Commission with regard to the 2028-2034 EU budget.   

For the Common Agricultural Policy, namely, an amount of €45 billion may be added to the €297.3 billion ring-fenced CAP in addition to €48.7 billion rural fund which would be open to farmers (initially excluded) and €6.3 billion in crisis funds. In addition, greater possibility would be given to the Member States within their national plan for crisis management. 

It’s important to underline that at this early stage in the MFF negotiations, in the Commission’s letter, these proposed €45 billion and €48.7 billion are only options given to MS to preserve (or even slightly increase) the CAP funding for their farmers, not an obligation to mobilise these resources. Farmers would have to negotiate with their own capitals to make it happen, further undermining an already weakened C of the CAP. 

In total, potentially, this could give up to €400 billion in current euros, which is €13 billion more than the current CAP amount in current euros, which can be interpreted as compensating for inflation of 0.7% per annum over the period. But this is not secured, just a discretionary option for the Member States. 

The €45 billion are in fact 2/3 of the sums initially budgeted to adjust measures in the course of the 2028-34 financial period, made available from the outset. This sum was planned to be released mid-term in the context of the overall NRPP. It would give an advantage to the Common Agricultural Policy over the Cohesion. 

As regards the €48.7 billion, the explicit opening up to rural development-type agricultural measures is a concrete step forward, as initially these were rural measures that explicitly excluded agricultural measures. With this proposal, it seems possible to pursue traditional agricultural rural development in particular investments on farms. However, this must be validated by clear and explicit legal wording targeting the CAP measures concerned. 

Overall, this letter represents a potential improvement. If all options were unlocked by the MS, this would be the first time in a long time that the CAP budget could show (small) growth, but there is a big IF as nothing is secured at EU level, which shows the lack of appetite from the current Commission to defend common approaches. 

It also remains to ensure that the general NRPP performance framework (environmental indicators only) does not apply to the CAP, but that a specific agricultural framework is defined (with socio-economic indicators).

Ultimately, the Commission is moving forward with both accounting sleights of hand to give the CAP a boost and real progress. There is still a long way to go, as President von der Leyen’s letter is not a deal in the Council, this is just a letter, following bilateral contacts with one single Member State.

In the Council, some Member States still oppose the 2000 billion EUR overall budget. What is important to keep in mind from President von der Leyen’s letter is that the Commission considers now that at least 400 billion EUR are needed for the CAP, not 300 billion EUR.

The EU takes an important step towards soil preservation

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

Brussels, 23rd October 2025 – After the Council earlier last month, the European Parliament reunited in plenary finally adopted this Thursday the compromise agreement on a Soil Monitoring Directive, marking the end of the legislative process. The MEPs rejected the amendments rejecting the Council’s position with 341 votes against, 220 in favour and 10 abstentions, thus closing the second reading at the Parliament, leading to the adoption of the law. The definitive version of this legislation, agreed upon during the last round of trilogues in April 2025, requires Member States to monitor and assess soil health across their territories using common soil descriptors and an EU methodology for sampling points, and invites Member States to introduce non-binding targets, in line with the overall objective of achieving healthy soils by 2050 and maintaining them in optimal condition thereafter. 

Farm Europe welcomes the adoption of this directive. Soils health is crucial for the sustainability and viability of the European agricultural sector, and the capacity of farmers to have better monitoring tools with more robust and uniform methodologies. This new directive requires EU countries to help farmers improve soil health and soil resilience. Support measures may include independent advice, training activities, and capacity building, as well as the promotion of research and innovation, and measures to raise awareness of the benefits of soil resilience. Member states will also have to assess regularly the financial cost to farmers and foresters’ of improving soil health and soil resilience.

The decision of the two co-legislators to push for the inclusion of microplastics and nanoplastics in the monitoring of soil contaminants is also an important step, as these substances represent a rising threat to agricultural soils health and fertility, jeopardising the correct development of crops and the EU agricultural production in the long term. We are therefore looking forward to the publication of the indicative list of soil contaminants to be presented 18 months after the law enters into force and vocally exhort Member States and the European Commission to include micro- and nanoplastics in it.

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

2026: ambitious actions for farmers and the bioeconomy needed

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

Brussels, 21st October 2025 – As every year, the European Commission presented earlier this week its work programme for the year 2026. The programme, named “Europe’s independent moment”, highlights the flagship policy and legislative initiatives that will be proposed in the year ahead.


On agriculture, the Commission announced two main new initiatives for the upcoming months.


First, the publication of an EU livestock strategy is expected by the second quarter of 2026. Indeed, the livestock workstream’s meetings are still running, led by DG AGRI, with the next one planned for 23rd October to discuss competitiveness and sustainability. Farm Europe emphasises the need for an ambitious strategy able to rely on a comprehensive toolbox for consolidating achievements, economic support and targeted investment. The EU needs a strong livestock sector to bring back production in Europe, to fully optimise the positive benefits of livestock farming and to invest and prepare for the future.


Secondly, an update of rules on unfair trading practices in the food chain is foreseen for the third quarter of 2026 with the objective of ensuring that European farmers and small producers are better protected. Yet, we are still waiting for the evaluation of the directive, which is expected by November of this year.


At the same time, there are various pending proposals relating to the agri-food sector, going through different stages of the legislative process. The Animal welfare during transport proposal is still awaiting its committee vote, while the Wine package is scheduled for a committee vote on 5th November. Progress is also being made on files under interinstitutional negotiation: the CAP Simplification Package went through its first trilogue recently, with adoption expected by the end of the year to ease administrative burdens for farmers; the UTP proposal has also completed its first trilogue; and both the CMO (Position of Farmers) and NGT (New Genomic Techniques) proposals have further trilogue meetings foreseen in mid-November. In parallel, a set of longer-term proposals (MFF & Performance Framework, CAP, NRP and the CMO Reform) were all published in July, marking the early stage of their legislative journey.


When it comes to the development of a European bioeconomy that puts farmers at the centre, a new Circular Economy Act is expected for the third quarter of 2026, complementing the Bioeconomy Strategy that will be published in November of this year. This legislative file presents a significant opportunity both for the agricultural sector, especially through the promotion of a sustainable use of resources, including water, waste reduction, and the recycling of organic by-products. The Act according to the Commission
aims at boosting agriculture’s transition toward a more sustainable, resource-efficient model that safeguards both food security and natural resources, while also supporting the deployment of the EU Water Resilience Strategy.


Secondly, the European executive has decided to divide the upcoming EU Biotech Act into two stages. The first part, to be published by the end of 2025, will concentrate mainly on health-related biotechnology, including measures to simplify rules on clinical trials and aspects relevant to the food and feed sectors. It will form part of a broader health package alongside the revision of medical device regulations. The second part, expected in the third quarter of 2026, will cover the wider biotech ecosystem. This two-step approach reflects the Commission’s view that different biotech sectors require tailored solutions, following extensive stakeholder consultations.


The European Commission’s 2026 work programme paves the way for an Energy Union package for the decade ahead in Q3 2026, as well as an Omnibus to simplify energy product legislation. The programme also signals a forthcoming revision of the renewable energy framework for the same period, which may reflect a shift toward the broader concept of ‘clean energy’, potentially paving the way for the principle of technological neutrality, which would allow farmers to play an active role in the decarbonisation of other economic sectors, namely transport, through the production of biomass used, for instance, to produce bioenergy and biofuels.

  • Concerning the Union’s action in reducing GHG emissions and fighting climate change, the Commission plans on publishing its Climate Package in Q3-4 2026. The text will revise the frameworks for effort-sharing on greenhouse gas emissions not covered by the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS), as well as for LULUCF and forestry. These updates are particularly relevant for the agricultural sector, which plays a central role in both carbon sequestration and emissions reduction, ensuring that farming contributes equitably to Europe’s climate goals while providing a new source of income for farmers.


Complementing these measures, the European integrated framework for climate resilience, with legislative and non-legislative components scheduled for Q4 2026, has the ambition of enhancing Europe’s resilience to climate-related impacts. By supporting adaptive strategies in agriculture, water management, and rural infrastructure, the plan can be an opportunity to further safeguard food production and water resources against climate risks, as well as to scale up carbon farming practices.


Looking ahead, the negotiations will continue on pending proposals such as the amendment to the EU Climate Law, which would set a 90% emissions reduction target for 2040, and the Green Claims Directive. The first legislative initiative should acknowledge the agricultural sector’s full potential to contribute to the decarbonisation of other industries, while restricting the use of international carbon credits, since they are difficult to verify, open the door to fraud, and could undermine domestic decarbonization incentives by not reflecting the true costs of EU-based climate efforts. The second proposal would be an opportunity to give the right value to farmers’ transition towards more sustainable practices.


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

MFF : Listening and discussing is not enough

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

Farm Europe takes note of the European Commission’s statement on the EU budget (MFF), emphasising its openness to dialogue and to listen. Unfortunately, since the strategic dialogue on agriculture, European farmers have become accustomed to this mode of communication from the European Commission, which, under the leadership of its President, Ursula von der Leyen, has neither heard nor taken into account the messages sent to it by the agricultural community. 

Consequently, Farm Europe asks the question: will this Parliament accept as a basis for negotiation the worst proposal ever presented by the European Commission, unravelling 60 years of Common Agricultural Policy? Going down this path would sow discord in the internal market and should not be accepted by the co-legislators, in particular the European Parliament. MEPs would be stripped of their essential role in guiding the EU’s agricultural economic policy, the policy being replaced by a programme serving as a top-up of national budgets.
Despite the strategic dialogue, President von der Leyen proposed to marginalise the specific agricultural institutions from the negotiating table. Despite many consultation processes, none of the requests of the European Parliament have been taken into account. In fact, the proposal of a single fund is a smokescreen for a simple cost-cutting exercise, undermining also the co-legislation process set by the Lisbon Treaty in favour of an administrative oversight of EU funds. 

Our full assessment of the Commission’s proposal is available following this link. 

Balanced diet, economy, environment: livestock farming is an opportunity for Europe

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

Farm Europe welcomes the European Commission’s announcement of the launch of a dedicated work stream on livestock farming and wishes to contribute fully to its development by presenting its proposals for a renewed EU strategy for the livestock sector. Farm Europe believes that the European Union must turn the page on five years of preconceived ideas and an erroneous, pessimistic and negative view of livestock farming. In the face of nutritional, economic, climatic and environmental challenges, ‘Made in Europe’ livestock farming is an opportunity, both for our continent and for the planet. In the context of geopolitical tensions, the EU must secure its strategic autonomy more than ever. 

“An ambitious strategy for the EU livestock sector must be able to rely on a comprehensive toolbox for consolidating achievements, economic support to better protect and help the sector to bounce back, and targeted investment to meet the challenges and build the livestock sector of the future, capable of permeating all the territories of our continent, from less favoured areas like mountains to intermediate and more productive areas where the complementarity between crop and animal farming is an asset”, underlined Ettore Prandini, Chair of Farm Europe’s strategic committee on the occasion of the Conference on the vision for agriculture and food organised by the European Commission. 

The future strategy should allow to : 

  • Bring back production in Europe
  • Fully optimising the positive benefits of livestock farming
  • Invest and prepare for the future
  • Put an end to the frenzy of standards and instead focus on a strategy that creates added value and market segmentation
  • Fully value and contribute to the deployment of the bioeconomy 

These five basic principles should enable the livestock sector of the future to be economically resilient, at the heart of a genuine strategy of European agricultural sovereignty and, finally, fully committed to the fight against climate change, to animal welfare and to the protection of natural resources through a real valorisation of its contributions and an optimisation of its impacts, as well as a source of prosperity. 

They must also make it possible to build a common and shared vision at the level of the European Union, turning the diversity of the Union’s territories and know-how into an asset. Finally, they will be a fundamental lever for restoring the attractiveness of livestock sectors to a new generation of livestock farmers who are committed and confident in their future. 

To enable the construction of a solid consensus, we recommend to the European Commission to resume the approach that proved effective for the wine sector with the creation of a High Level Group by bringing together European officials, representatives of economic actors and representatives of the national ministries and regional authorities most involved in the future of livestock farming in the Union. 

Such an initiative should not only facilitate the emergence of a consensus, but also enable the development of a precise roadmap for its implementation over the next 5 years, providing the necessary visibility for economic actors shaken by the climate of uncertainty created by the orchestrated and instrumentalised negative campaigns of recent years. 

In this context, bringing together the results of recent work and reflections, Farm Europe has prepared its initial contribution to what could be a livestock strategy, in the form of a brochure highlighting that this sector is an opportunity for Europe and the importance of complementarity between the animal and plant worlds. This document is available here, and will serve as a basis for the future work of Farm Europe: 

The EU must defend its agriculture offensive interests

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

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

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

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

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

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

THE RISK OF LOSING MARKET SHARE FOR EU AGRICULTURE & FOOD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The key conclusions to draw from this analysis are that:

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

TRADE WARS BRING PAIN ACROSS THE BOARD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Europe needs to a well funded Common Agricultural Policy

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Farm Europe Welcomes Council’s Adoption of NGTs Negotiating Mandate

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some major concerns

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

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

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

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

State aid to agriculture: more than €18 Bn since 2021

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

As part of its considerations on the CAP and crisis management, Farm Europe analysed the State aid granted to the agricultural sector since the start of the budgetary period.

Between 2021 and 2024, Member States allocated over €18 billion in State aid to the agricultural sector, representing no less than 11% of the  total aid under the first pillar of the CAP — a proportion that rises to 14% when focusing solely on the 2021-2023 period.

The volumes of aid granted vary considerably between Member States, revealing a ‘three-speed Europe’.

The Netherlands has by far provided the most support to its agricultural sector, both in absolute terms and relative to direct payments or the national agricultural production value. Over the period studied, aid accounted for 101% of the first pillar received by Dutch farmers, totalling almost €3 billion. Denmark, Greece, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia also granted substantial funds, ranging from 20% to 43% of their respective direct aid. During the 2021-2022 period, Spain distributed the equivalent of 28% of its first pillar. Finally, while the total amounts provided by Italy, France and Germany remain substantial, these States have limited their support to between 5% and 10% of their respective direct aid, a level below the European average.

On average across Europe, these State aids only partially compensated (70%) for the loss in the real value of CAP first pillar payments resulting from their lack of indexation to inflation. The situation, however, varies significantly from one Member State to another.

  • Four countries overcompensated for the decline, providing farmers with liquidity that could boost their investment capacity. The Netherlands stands out in particular, with support 8 times greater than the inflation-related decline. Poland and Spain (1.4 times), and Greece (1.3 times) follow.
  • The other countries that provided the most support for their agriculture offset the decline by between 50% and 75%.
  • Finally, it should be noted that some countries granted very little state aid to their agricultural sectors (e.g. Latvia, Estonia, Ireland, Romania, Belgium, Luxembourg, Bulgaria and Portugal).

In the “Our work” section, you will find a more detailed analysis of the subject, as well as an infographic showing the situation in each of the countries of the European Union, over the period and by year.