EU agriculture ministers disagreed sharply on 27 April 2026 over proposed record-keeping requirements for plant protection products, with a large bloc led by Germany warning of disproportionate bureaucracy, while France and Bulgaria defended the measures as essential for monitoring and credibility. The debate took place at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Brussels.
Record-keeping: Germany-led coalition pushes back
Germany, backed by Austria, Czechia, Finland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland and Portugal, argued that new requirements on crop names, growth stages and digitalisation create excessive administrative burdens, especially for vegetable growers, tree crops and small farms. Poland warned of a digital divide, and Finland proposed postponing mandatory electronic accounting. In response, Commissioner Christophe Hansen clarified that EPPO and BBCH codes are not mandatory, but common names must be provided. France and Bulgaria stressed that the data are needed for monitoring and credibility of the system.
The divergent positions reflect a cleavage between reducing administrative burden for farmers (supported by the German-led group) and increasing data quality for enforcement (favoured by France and Bulgaria). If the German view prevails, small farms and vegetable growers would benefit from lower compliance costs, but EU and national authorities would have less detailed data for monitoring pesticide use. Conversely, stricter record-keeping would improve oversight but impose higher costs on farmers, particularly those with diverse crops or limited digital capacity.
Wildfire management: broad support for holistic approach, but funding divides persist
On integrated wildfire risk management, ministers broadly supported a holistic prevention approach combining active land management with EU, national and private funding. Italy, Greece, Spain and Romania stressed the CAP's role, while Lithuania, Belgium, Portugal and others argued CAP alone is insufficient. Sweden, Austria and Romania insisted on local flexibility, while Slovenia and Croatia called for stronger EU coordination. France highlighted infrastructure investments, and Finland and Czechia emphasised public awareness.
The Presidency concluded with broad backing for a resilience approach and announced a Euro-Mediterranean workshop on 5-8 May. The main cleavage is between those favouring stronger EU coordination and dedicated funding (Slovenia, Croatia) and those prioritising local flexibility and existing instruments (Sweden, Austria). Affected stakeholders include farmers, foresters, national administrations, and EU institutions.
Expected follow-up
The Commission is expected to present formal legislative proposals later this year, taking into account the divergent views expressed. The Euro-Mediterranean workshop in May may feed into future policy design on wildfire resilience.