At the EU Agriculture Council on 30 March 2026, Italy and Slovakia clashed with the European Commission over rice import safeguards and dairy market interventions, demanding stronger protection for domestic producers amid market volatility. The meeting, held under the Polish Presidency, saw member states push back against Commission proposals they deemed insufficient to address sectoral crises.
Rice safeguards dispute Italy led a group of member states calling for immediate activation of safeguard clauses under the Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP) Regulation to curb surging rice imports from Cambodia and Myanmar. Italian minister Francesco Lollobrigida argued that imports had risen 40% year-on-year, threatening EU rice farmers' viability. The Commission resisted, citing ongoing impact assessments and warning that unilateral safeguards could disrupt trade relations. Slovakia supported Italy, adding that the crisis required urgent action rather than prolonged studies.
Dairy market intervention Slovakia raised concerns over the deteriorating dairy market, with milk prices falling below production costs in several regions. It urged the Commission to activate private storage aid and intervention buying under the Common Market Organisation (CMO) Regulation. The Commission acknowledged the pressure but noted that current price levels did not yet trigger automatic intervention thresholds, proposing instead enhanced monitoring and voluntary supply reduction schemes. Several member states, including France and Germany, backed the Commission's cautious approach, warning against market-distorting measures.
Direct payments debate The Council also revisited direct payment distribution, following the AGRI committee debate on 19 March 2026 where Commissioner Hansen advocated retaining common EU instruments with targeted tools. Several member states, led by Poland and Hungary, argued for maintaining area-based payments to ensure income stability for small and medium farms. Others, including the Netherlands and Sweden, pushed for a shift toward needs-based support, aligning with economist Roel Jongeneel's proposal from the March debate. The Commission reiterated its intention to present a legislative proposal by mid-2026, balancing simplification with targeting.
Policy orientations and trade-offs The session revealed a cleavage between protectionist and market-oriented approaches. Italy and Slovakia's push for safeguards and intervention reflects a desire to shield domestic producers from global competition and price volatility, potentially benefiting farmers in vulnerable sectors but risking higher consumer prices and trade retaliation. Conversely, the Commission's preference for monitoring and voluntary measures aims to preserve open markets and fiscal discipline, favouring taxpayers and downstream industries but leaving farmers exposed to market swings.
Impact on stakeholders EU rice farmers could gain from safeguards, but import-dependent processors may face higher costs. Dairy farmers in crisis-hit regions might benefit from intervention, but EU taxpayers would bear the cost of storage and purchases. National authorities face pressure to balance farmer demands with EU trade commitments. The Commission's cautious stance protects its trade policy autonomy but risks alienating member states seeking rapid relief.
Expected institutional follow-up The Commission is expected to report back on rice safeguard assessments by May 2026 and on dairy market developments by June. The Council will revisit the issues at its next meeting in May, with the European Parliament's AGRI committee likely to hold a parallel debate. The direct payments reform proposal is anticipated in the third quarter of 2026, triggering co-decision negotiations.