In recent weeks, there have been significant developments in agricultural policy within the European Union. A central issue is the ongoing approval process for the commissioner who will lead the Directorate-General for Agriculture in the new EU structure, contingent upon successfully navigating all approval stages. Initially, his candidacy received positive feedback from various stakeholders in the agricultural sector. However, following written responses from Christophe Hansen, Luxembourg’s representative, to questions from Members of the European Parliament, the tone has changed—especially among voices in the food industry. Economic actors involved in food production, representing sectors beyond primary agriculture, are increasingly concerned that there is “too great a focus on agriculture, with food issues being overlooked.”
Representatives from key associations advocating for food producers across various EU countries have insisted that the candidate for Commissioner for Agriculture and Food should offer more insight into the competitiveness and sustainability of the EU food industry, which faces economic and regulatory challenges. In Hansen’s twelve-page written responses to questions from Members of the European Parliament, the food industry is mentioned only once. Considering that a significant part of this sector is made up of small and medium-sized enterprises, it also needs attention from the European Commission’s relevant Commissioner. Issues such as promoting investment in innovative technologies, managing energy costs, improving financing and lending, and reducing regulatory pressure are all critical areas that require focus.
Christophe Hansen views his main role as Commissioner in enhancing the market position of farmers and boosting their negotiating power with retailers. This goal may involve revising the Directive on Unfair Trading Practices (UTP), which was adopted five years ago. Unfortunately, the implementation of this directive has been somewhat disappointing; it remains largely unimplemented at the national level, with significant discrepancies among a number of EU member states in how regulations are applied. As a result, tackling the imbalance of market power within food supply chains will be a top priority for the new European Commission. However, whether the new agricultural commissioner can effectively navigate the interests of diverse groups—from farmers to supermarkets—remains uncertain and is likely to be one of the most challenging aspects of his role.
One particular disappointment for some stakeholders in the EU agricultural market has been the absence of commitments in the recent responses regarding the further development of sustainable food systems—a vital component of the EU’s From Farm to Fork Strategy. This isn’t the only sign of a retreat from the ambitious green agenda championed by the European Commission and President Ursula von der Leyen. Recently, it was announced that the European Commission has decided to postpone the implementation of the EU Regulation on Deforestation and Forest Degradation (EUDR) for a year—until 30 December 2025 for large companies and until 30 December 2026 for micro and small producers. This regulation is seen as one of the landmark initiatives of the EU Green Deal in the agricultural sector.
Overall, more than half of the initiatives outlined in the 2020 From Farm to Fork Strategy for a sustainable agricultural sector have yet to be implemented as of mid-2024. This means they will need to be included in the work plan of the new Commission for further consideration. However, advancing such controversial proposals—like regulations on pesticides and the aforementioned deforestation regulation—will be difficult, especially given the shifts in the European Parliament’s composition and the growing polarisation within the sector.
Amidst these troubling signals, Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, hailed the report from the “Strategic Dialogue on EU Agricultural Policy” as a major achievement for the agricultural sector. Published in early September, the report appeared to reassure both dissatisfied farmers and concerned NGOs, potentially serving as a balanced foundation for future legislative efforts. The final document of the Strategic Dialogue covers numerous essential points for the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy, from strengthening farmers’ roles in agri-food chains to enhancing sustainable farming practices. It calls for urgent, ambitious, yet realistic actions at all levels to ensure that the agricultural sector not only guarantees food security but also contributes to the protection and restoration of the climate, ecosystems, and natural resources, including water, soil, air, biodiversity, and landscapes.
Less than a month later, however, Copa-Cogeca, the leading association of EU farmers, expressed strong dissatisfaction with the results of the Strategic Dialogue. They suggested that discussions and consultations on agricultural issues should transition to slower, more transparent formats, arguing that it was inappropriate for only 4 out of the 29 participants to directly represent farmers. Additionally, some national agricultural producer organisations from EU member states have voiced their concerns about the outcomes of the Strategic Dialogue. Given that this process was initiated in response to farmers’ protests across the EU, they believe the results should primarily benefit the farmers.
Representatives from Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary in Copa-Cogeca sent a strongly critical letter to the farmers’ association’s secretariat, urging it to retract its endorsement of the Strategic Dialogue’s conclusions and reconsider its stance on the issue. In light of this backlash from the EU’s farmers’ association, it is crucial to recognise that any inequalities or issues with the Strategic Dialogue are particularly unwelcome for Ursula von der Leyen. She had intended to present a vision for developing the EU’s agricultural sector based on this dialogue within the first hundred days of the new European Commission’s term, marking a significant milestone for the Common Agricultural Policy. However, whether this goal is still attainable remains uncertain and will depend on the outcomes of a so-called ‘farmers’ diplomacy’ within the EU in the coming days. Unfortunately, navigating this diplomacy is likely to be anything but smooth for the President of the European Commission and her candidate for the crucial role in agriculture and food.
Another hot topic in the corridors of Brussels is the planning for the next EU budget period starting in 2028, which includes changes to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) budget. By 2027, the seven-year funding for European agricultural policy will total €387 billion, accounting for roughly one-third of all EU expenditures. Currently, there are proposals to merge the EU agricultural budget with over 500 other programmes covering a range of issues, from economic to social. This would mean linking fund allocations to member states based on their implementation of specific reforms. Unsurprisingly, the agriculture ministers of EU member states are firmly against this idea, arguing for the importance of keeping the agricultural budget as a separate line item in Brussels’ expenditures. The outcome of this financial standoff remains uncertain, as discussions are still ongoing.
The months ahead and the coming years promise to be anything but easy for the European Commission and its Director-General for Agriculture and Food. This complexity is further intensified by the ongoing discussions surrounding Ukraine’s potential accession to the EU. Given the multitude of challenges on the horizon, a timely piece of advice for all parties involved might be: “Buckle up.”
