Tag: EU agriculture

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. 

EU / Ukraine: analysis of the main agricultural crop sectors

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

As part of the process of enlarging the European Union to include Ukraine, Farm Europe has analysed both the weight and comparative competitiveness of Ukraine’s main crop sectors compared to those of the European Union. 

The difference in competitiveness ranges from 19% to 39% depending on the sector, with structural factors accounting for most of the difference. To this must be added the ‘carbon’ competitiveness conferred by the natural richness of Ukraine’s soils. 

At a time when the steps and conditions of accession are about to be drawn up and the pre-accession programmes defined and launched, we feel it is important that objective data can serve as a basis to define the European Union’s roadmap, without bias or avoidance.

Ukraine & European Union: key figures for the main agricultural crops 

In 2022, Ukraine’s utilised agricultural area covered 41.3 million hectares, including 32.7 million hectares of arable land (State Statistics Service of Ukraine (SSSU)). This agricultural area makes Ukraine the largest agricultural country on the European continent. 45% of the country’s surface area is made up of humus-rich, particularly fertile soils known as ‘rich’ chernozems.


Marked by its communist past, the Ukrainian agricultural sector is characterised by 110 huge vertically integrated agricultural companies, known as agro-holdings, which control all or part of the production chain (crop-livestock, processing, trade). These entities aim to maximize returns on invested capital, investing heavily in cutting-edge, large-scale equipment and the use of inputs. Twenty of these companies are estimated to control 14% of Ukraine’s Utilised Agricultural Area (UAA), and 57% of the UAA is farmed by enterprises of more than 1,000 ha. Agriculture plays a major economic role in the country, accounting for 10.9% of GDP in 2021 and almost 14.7% of employment.

Sugar

The organisation and competitiveness of the Ukrainian sugar sector is very different from that in Europe: agro-holdings, huge vertically integrated farms, cultivate 93% of the sugar beet area. The average cultivated area is 23,700 ha, 1,763 times more than in the European Union. 

Ukraine has much lower labour and investment costs. What’s more, the presence of fertile soils means that fewer inputs are used on crops: up to 1.5 times less fertiliser than in the European Union. 

The opening up of the European market to Ukraine has resulted in an influx of sugar, which has led to an increase in European stocks. Exports of sugar from Ukraine to Europe have increased by 230% between 2022 and 2023, with a forecast export capacity to the EU of 800,000 tonnes to 1 MT. The introduction of safeguard measures now limits exports for the time they are in force. 

Detailed analysis for the sugar sector

Cereals

Cereal production is not as dominated by large farming structures as the sugar sector: 51% of production is carried out by structures of less than 1,000 ha. It should be noted, however, that 22% of production is carried out by companies with more than 3,000 ha. 

If Ukraine were to join the European Union, the country would account for 20% of European cereals production, with 49% of maize production and 15% of wheat production. 

Ukrainian cereal production costs are on average 30% lower than those in Europe. 

For these reasons, grain imports from Ukraine have doubled between 2019/21 and 2023. The European Union has become a pillar of support for the Ukrainian economy, accounting for 51% of wheat exports in 2023, compared to 30% in 2021.

Detailed analysis for the cereal sector

Sunflower

While 58% of production is carried out by structures of less than 1,000 ha, companies with more than 3,000 ha account for 17% of production. In 2023, Ukrainian production alone was greater than the entire EU’s production. As such, if Ukraine were to join the European Union, the country would become Europe’s leading producer of sunflower seeds, as well as sunflower oil. 

Ukraine has been the EU’s leading supplier of sunflower oil for around ten years now. The opening up of the European market to Ukraine has had no significant impact on the flow of sunflower oil from the country.

Detailed analysis for the sunflower sector

Rapeseed

Farms of less than 1,000 ha account for 73% of rapeseed production, but oil production is dominated by 5 companies which accounted for 92% in 2021.

In 2020, the cost of rapeseed production in Ukraine was, on average, 1.5 times lower than in France.

Compared to the 2018-2021 average, Ukrainian production of rapeseed and rapeseed oil has risen by 57% and 174% respectively. Similarly, exports grew by 37% and 170% respectively. If Ukraine were to join the European Union, it would become the leading rapeseed producer in the EU, accounting for 24% of seed production and 4% of oil and meal production.

The EU was already the largest importer of Ukrainian rapeseed products before the war.

However,  imports of rapeseed have increased, and the EU now receives 93% of Ukraine’s rapeseed exports, compared to 83% in 2020/21.

Detailed analysis for the rapeseed sector

(Click on the image to enlarge it)

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.