- 2026-07-13 “29:24 - 12:31:42): Yes. Thank you, Martin, and I would like to thank as well Hungary for bringing this point to the agenda today. We are, of course, closely monitoring the situation and have been in contact with the Hungarian authorities since, they notified the outbreak.
And the emerald ash borer is indeed a major threat to European ash trees. We have been preparing for this pest invasion for several years and have put in place measures to react effectively. It is listed indeed as a priority passed in EU legislation due to its high economic, social and environmental impact that could potentially occur.
And we know it is present as well in neighboring countries. Richard just informed us as well about its presence in Slovakia. And in line with our common rules, Hungary has a contingency plan in place for this past allowing authorities to respond quickly.
In 2024, we also, set out EU rules for enhanced surveillance and eradication of the Emerald Asheboro ahead of its likely detection in the EU. And we, also have strict import requirements for commodities from countries affected by this past.
Its detection in Hungary is the 1st time it has been reported in the EU, making an early targeted response essential to minimize the damage. The immediate priority is to assess the scale of the outbreak. The next critical steps are the pests rapid eradication and movement restrictions on infested material to prevent further spreading in Hungary, Slovakia and the rest of the EU.
And we are ready to mobilize financial support for co funding measures to address the outbreak, and we can also swiftly deploy the Plant Health emergency team to share its expertise with authorities managing the outbreak on the ground should Hungary and other member states request it.
And we remain in close contact with Hungarian colleagues and wish them success in tackling this major challenge.”
Animal diseases prevention and management in the EU
- 2026-07-13 “35:51 - 10:43:33): Thank you very much, Martin. Dear ministers, as you just announced, Martin, last Tuesday, the commission adopted the livestock strategy together with the protein plan, 2 initiatives addressing a shared challenge aiming to guarantee the use food security for the future, strengthen open strategic autonomy and territorial resilience while also ensuring the competitiveness and sustainability of our diverse livestock and protein systems.
Livestock strategy, that we presented is the 1st ever strategy on livestock, which only proves that we value the sector as a strategic element of European economy. The EU livestock is a success story for the European Union. It accounts for around 40% of agriculture added value, generating around billion in turnover annually, and it supports 7,000,000 jobs.
And in many rural areas, it is also essential for landscape management and biodiversity. And for some territories with specific constraints, it is sometimes the only viable farming activity and the key measure to avoid depopulation.
And at the same time, the sector is under real pressure. Farmers are facing market volatility, rising input costs, animal disease risks, climate stress, labor shortages and generation renewal challenges. Farm exits are accelerating, risking land abandonment, and society also expects continued progress on sustainability and animal welfare.
The livestock strategy is grounded in dialogue and does not impose 1 single model. Instead, it provides a long term framework while respecting the diversity of livestock systems across Europe and shows showcases its excellence.
And the strategy is built around 5 priorities. 1st, resilience and preparedness are key. We need to move from reacting to crisis such as the recent heat waves towards better preparedness. And this means stronger risk management tools, improved access to insurance and mutual funds and laying the groundwork for a dedicated funding after 2027.
It also means stronger biosecurity at farm level, better surveillance, early warning, disease prevention, and where appropriate science based vaccination. Resilience in livestock farming also requires climate adaptation, digital innovation, and less dependency on vulnerable imported inputs.
For proteins, our objective is clear, 35 by '35. So by 2035, the share of homegrown protein for feed should reach 35% in 2035 compared with currently 25 today. And this is where the goals of livestock strategy and protein plan meet.
2nd, competitiveness. There is a clear investment gap in the diverse livestock sector, including for the transition towards higher sustainability and animal welfare standards. We need the right support framework through the future CAP, the European Competitiveness Fund and Horizon Europe and, of course, national and private investments.
We also need fairer remuneration for farmers from the market, stronger action against unfair trading practices and fair competition with imports, including through stronger controls and continued work on reciprocity.
3rd, sustainability. Investing in sustainability is investing in farming's long term future. This must be fair and workable transition. On animal welfare, responding to the end the KHH citizens initiative, the commission intends by the end of 20 26 to present a targeted revision for laying hens and broilers.
By the 2nd quarter of 20 27, we intend to present a similar proposal for pigs, including the move from crates to pen systems. More broadly, we will support better farm level emission measurement, mitigation tools and solutions for manure management, biogas, biomethane, nutrient recycling and circularity.
The measures must be tailored to local needs, which brings me to the 4th priority, territorial diversity. There is no 1 size fits all model in Europe. My approach builds on the diversity of the sector. Livestock plays a particularly important role in mountain areas, northern regions, grassland systems, islands and other vulnerable territories.
The strategy, therefore, recognizes the need for place based approaches and foresees work with member states on support for regions at the at risk of abandonment. We will also develop a road map on small scale and mobile slaughterhouses, which can support both rural viability and animal welfare.
5th, excellence. Rewarding farmers for quality is at the heart of our action because change can never happen if the transition is not supported along the value chain. Mainstreaming European excellence to valorize highest standards coupled with a stronger communication on EU origin, a voluntary European excellence approach through optional reserve terms and better use of promotion policy, geographical indications and organic production.
Now on the protein plan. The protein plan addresses a closely connected vulnerability, our dependency on imported high protein feed. In 2025, only 25% of protein from oilseeds and protein crops were sourced domestically. Recent crisis have shown the risks of such dependency.
The plan takes a systemic approach. It aims to expand sustainable EU protein supply, strengthen value chains, diversify import origins through reliable partnerships, improve circularity and promote local and regional solutions.
It also supports research and innovation building on more than €190,000,000 already invested through Horizon Europe programs.
The key point is in this is these 2 initiatives reinforce each other. A resilient livestock sector needs better access to regional and domestic protein sources. And the stronger EU protein system creates new opportunities for farmers, supports mixed farming systems, reduces vulnerabilities and contributes to sustainability.
And now I welcome as well to hear your views on delivering these objectives because we need to do this together. Thank you.”
Animal diseases prevention and management in the EU · Agriculture (green)
- 2026-07-13 “Again, I mentioned the necessary investments and we have a lack of investment for the adaptation to climate change to have as well precision irrigation to invest again, more. I spoke about the competitiveness fund. We need to invest more again, in water infrastructure because we see that in almost all the member states. This has become an issue. And again, this is without water. You will not be able to produce. You will not be competitive. So I think that will will be very important. And we are indeed working with the European Investment Bank on reinsurance, because we see that in some member states, the insurance systems work quite well already. In several others, it's almost non-existent because no company wants to insure this kind of risks. And therefore this reinsurance is so important. And we are looking together with the EIB as well to launch, hopefully already this year, a pilot project in this domain. Risk management is something we have often neglected. And again, you would think maybe in the beginning that it is too expensive to go into that way. That requires as well, that the member states want to do that. And I think they really should, because, again, this prevention financially speaking of an insurance is way less expensive than afterwards. Cleaning up and covering for all the damage. Therefore, we will never find enough money except if as well a certain member states would be available to contribute more to the MFF or have a larger budget. But of course, you know that this is very unlikely to happen.”
EU policy on water management
- 2026-07-13 “31:41 - 10:34:11): Martin Akora, it's good to see you as the Chair, and I want to wish you and your to you and your team the best of luck for the months ahead. And your priorities that we just saw, I think, are very well chosen, and we fully align with them.
And you are taking over several crucial files from Maria, who has done a great job in advancing that work. Thanks, Maria. You look a little bit more relaxed since you changed the seat, so that's very good.
So the priority files are clearly the future CAP and the CMO proposals in the context of the future MFF. And we could we count on you, of course, to deliver the as you mentioned, at least partial general approaches rather soon so that we can catch up with the rest of the package as well.
And we all count on your close involvement also in the MFF negotiations on the numbers and on the next NIGO box, so which are, of course, crucial as well for us.
And then as you see, we keep you busy with new initiatives, the livestock strategy and the protein plan that we will also discuss today. So thank you for taking it on the agenda. And there, this is, of course, just the strategy. So there will be many actions that will follow on this.
And later in the year, we will also present a revised UTP proposal. Also, you still have on your table the organic proposal to finalize, and I'm very happy that you're also keeping generation renewal and the fertilizer action plan among your priorities.
We hope for smooth sailing and no new crisis, hopefully, because I believe you have enough work as it already currently stands. And you can also count on me and my cabinet and our excellent DG team to help you deliver on these points.
And I'm also very pleased that today, the council adopted the proposal on flexibilities in the cap framework that we proposed as part of our fertilizer action plan. So thank you very much. And as I said, smooth sailing ahead, which is very convenient for an island nation. Thank you.”
Use of fertilisers
- 2026-07-13 “Yes. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. And first, I would like to congratulate Martin Hayden for his first Fish Council under the Irish presidency and with him chairing. And I wish you all the best for the next six months to come, because you will be busy. And you mentioned some of the priorities. And of course, we will have the future MFF, the future cap and the Common Market Organisation where we will need to deliver. And we started the meeting well with the official adoption of the Commission proposal on flexibilities in the Cap to help as well in the frame of the fertilizer crisis. Second, I presented today to ministers our first ever livestock strategy, accompanied by our Protein Action plan. We need the European livestock sector that remains economically viable, resilient and sustainable, and we need a protein system that is less vulnerable and more diversified because we are currently depending too much on external sources. And I was also glad to see that this balanced and pragmatic approach gained as well, the support of the member states. What I told everyone is that now delivery matters and all actors of the supply chain must work together, from our farmers to consumers, from the EU to national and regional levels as well. And the upcoming Cap programming period is a huge opportunity to support these goals as well. Trade was also on our agenda today with a focus on the geographical indications.”
Use of fertilisers
- 2026-07-13 “For my side. First of all, I'm very glad that Ireland is in the driving seat because Ireland is known as well to be well a farmers presidency, I would say. So I'm quite confident that they will as well save the furniture. I would say when it comes to, to the MFF discussion, to those who are saying that the agricultural policy is a policy of the past. Then I would ask them, what are you going to eat in the future? And I think they need as well to study eventually a little bit more the history, because the European continent was not self-sufficient at its foundation of the Common Agricultural Policy. It is not the agricultural policy that is too expensive. It is its absence. That would be way more expensive, because everyone of us needs to eat 2 or 3 times some healthy diet a day. And I think we best produce it domestically as well, because here we have as well the conditions and the standards, how products are produced under control. We have sufficient of it, and we don't want to draw into dependencies that we have with so many other products. Still, for the moment, when it comes to medicines and other products that we need as well for our health medicines, fortunately we only need them when we are sick. Food and sufficient healthy food. We need it every day. So I think that is very important. And then there are, of course, challenges. And I think we see that in the agriculture and food sector we don't invest anymore sufficiently.”
Agricultural funding
- 2026-07-13 “Yes. Thank you for that question, Julia. Indeed. We have as you know, we had 240 million that from our agricultural reserve, which we propose to top up by 40 by by 300 billion. So we are ending up there at 540 million. This can still be topped up by 200% by the member states. So if all the member states use the full potential, we would enter somewhere around 1.6 billion, which is, of course, substantive. Is it sufficient to impact on on the decisions of the farmers? That is maybe too early to know, but nonetheless, I think that is a very strong signal that we have the back of our farmers and that we want them to continue to produce. Of course, we know at the same time that the prices for cereals, for example, that are very fertilizer intensive on the input side are still very low. And we see as well that there is with the droughts that many regions in Europe are facing, the harvest is probably not going to become a record breaking one. So of course, this is a moving target.”
Agricultural funding
- 2026-07-13 “So I think it is very important to see as well the broader MFF. We have the cap, of course and the funding of it, that is as well driving sustainability, adopting new practices, driving investment in agriculture to become more productive and more sustainable at the same time. And this helps as well with the triangle that the minister has described from sustainability, which needs to be economic, but as well social, and it needs as well to be environmental together, because one without the other is not working. And for me, it is very important as well to see opportunities in different parts. There is the Common Agricultural Policy, but there is, for example, as well the competitiveness fund, where there is as well the window for agriculture, for bioeconomy, for health in. And that is really a future sector, in my opinion, because we can do so much more homegrown if we really go into the innovative part, keep as well the jobs here in Europe and see what. And to be sure that in the future we have these opportunities for our consumers and producers. So if you want to look into future, have as well a look into the past and build on that in order to get it to the next century, but because we need it even in the future, even if some people are a little bit looking down on the Common Agricultural policy, I think we need to take it further and not destroy it.”
Agricultural funding
- 2026-07-13 “15:29 - 12:17:31): Yes. Thank you very much, Martin, and I would like to thank all the ministers for the very constructive discussion. I have the feeling that there is a rather warm and positive acceptance of these 2 proposals. And I believe that your interventions show as well as shared understanding of the direction of travel before us.
And therefore, of course, taking careful note of your views, we need a European livestock sector that remains economically viable, resilient and sustainable while also reflecting the diversity of our territories and maintaining our high standards. And we need a protein system that is less vulnerable, more diversified and more firmly rooted in European production capacity.
And that is precisely the ambition of the 2 initiatives. My approach is pragmatic. We are not proposing a single model of all for all the regions. We are proposing a long term framework that gives farmers more predictability, strengthens their preparedness, supports investment and rewards quality and excellence.
And at the same time, we want to reduce excessive dependencies, improve circularity and create new opportunities for European producers. Delivery will not will now matter the most. Our ambition will only become reality if all actors of the supply chain work together from farmers to consumers, from the EU and to national and regional levels.
And the upcoming programming period is therefore a huge opportunity to support these goals when we make the best use of the CAP and other funds. And I look forward continuing this work with you so that together we can translate this strategic direction into concrete results for farmers for rural areas and Europe's food security. Thank you.”
Agriculture (green)
- 2026-07-13 “Yes. On, on the GIZ. Indeed. We have to know to know that for for example, if you are producing a cheese under a GI, for example, the the added value and the benefits for the producers are around three times higher for a comparable product without the GI. So that is as well on its own already A strong signal how important the GIS are. We have included GI chapters with 41 of our trade partners. I think that is good, but we can do better because we know that not everywhere in the world our GIS are seen with, let's say, open arms, because of course they want to benefit from the know how eventually. But this is something where we need to be very vigilant to enforce as well the protection on our GIS. And indeed we see as well in the terms of exports, the GI products, of course, have a very high percentage in this. So it is, we have foreseen to to launch as well an action plan for our GIS. It is working well, but you can always do better. And that is why we are going to that way. But of course we will consult as well with the Member States and the stakeholders very strongly. What can we even do better. It is about promoting and making it eventually as well, easier to join the club of the GIS, but also about the enforcement and the protection of the existing ones. And especially this important since, as I said, not everybody sees this positively. So it is important to engage with the Latin American supporters of the GIS, with the African, where we see a lot of willingness as well to protect their products in Asia as well. So I think we have to engage even stronger with our partners, where they have the same interest and the same concerns against or in the face of those who don't like it.”
Export of EU agri-food products
- 2026-07-13 “Well, first of all, on the unity safety net. I once pronounced this word with a little let's say anecdote in the College of Commissioners. And it had been taken up that it is we have really the necessity of keeping the member states as well aligned. Also, when it comes to major market disruptions that could arise, for example, from trade issues where farmers cannot export anymore, for example, or when there would be too much imports on on certain sectors. So it is mainly designed as a market stability instrument and not about let's say a little bit peanuts when there are crisis going on. And I can tell you, I visited in the beginning of the year after the heavy storms, Portugal and and Andalusia if we would only the damage in Portugal, which is not the biggest member state, even the future 900 million that we have annually would not be sufficient to cover that. I think we need to be very clear. I could know with a lot of problems for for Portugal find 30 million according to our rules. But this is just a drop in the ocean compared to the devastation that I have seen on the spot. So now, of course, member states don't want eventually or want to get a share out of this money, but even 900 million, if we have to take everything on board, what they are asking would be ridiculously low. So I think we really need to focus with this instrument on market disturbances, but at the same time, do our homework when it comes to risk management.”
Agriculture (green)
- 2026-07-13 “Also, how the situation is going to develop in the Middle East and particularly in the Strait of Hormuz. So this there is a lot that still is unknown when it comes to the package that has been adopted today. It is, of course, the possibility to frontload funds and to, to the to be disbursed earlier on. And that would, of course, come a little bit later. Then it is also about the the we purposing of certain funds of the second pillar that are in some member states, not all because some member States use them quite substantially, if not to say all of it. But in other member states there are reserves, so it is about as well to see that this money gets there in time. I'm confident that for the agricultural reserve, the top up, the one that the money will be available if the member states, of course, come up with their notification in time, that is the responsibility of the member state, but the Commission is ready to disburse it for the winter sowing season. So this is possible.”
Agricultural funding
- 2026-07-13 “Martin, you have mentioned it. So protecting EU GIS abroad has been a clear priority of the EU trade agenda for more than a decade now. And this is about our excellence and about our heritage. Overall, the EU agri food trade showed resilience despite the developments in the Middle East. Between January and April of this year, the EU agri food trade balance recorded a cumulative 15.6 billion surplus and it is important to remain confident in our strength. Then we discussed the important topic, an important topic for me women in agriculture. And I thank the Irish Presidency for raising this important point in their first council meeting. The first kick off meeting of our Women in Farming platform took place last month, with 600 women from 25 different member states, and in our coming Cap recommendations, we will make sure to push for a more inclusive and balanced EU farming sector. Action again at all levels will be needed to deliver the results we all want, and we also addressed a few items, including on the promotion policy, and I have reassured the ministers that, as in previous years, the final budget for the promotion policy will only be known at the end of the year, and we will continue to work together to have an appropriate funding for next year and for the competitiveness of our EU agri food sector. Thank you.”
Gender roles, equality and inclusion
- 2026-07-13 “Well, of course we have limitations in the current cap, as you know. But nonetheless, this is foreseen. We have as well for the future Cap foreseen the so-called transition payments, which could could be eventually a tool. And we are working with the member states in the recommendations already on this. So it will be very important as well to help the the the producers to skip to a more animal welfare production system that costs money. That is true. And that is why today as well the ministers some of them asked at least to have a transition period. Of course, the commission is committed to deliver on upon its promise, and that is why we are maintaining the dialogue with as well on the financing side, how we can help the producers.”
EU requirements on animal welfare for farmers
- 2026-06-29 “(17:24:08 - 17:29:08): Good afternoon. I am stepping in this afternoon for Commissioner Hanssen. He's not well today, but nothing to worry about, and we hope he will be back on stage very quickly. And I'm going to deliver his speaking points to you this afternoon. To start with, the actions on fertilizer prove once again that the European institutions altogether can act fast to support farmers in terms of crisis. With the publication of the Fertilizer Action Plan on the May 19, the Commission brings forward an ambitious agenda for the fertilizer sector for the short, medium and long term, allowing farmers to, in the short term, have access to financial support to help fertilize their crops for the next season. And despite recent signs of stabilization and even a slight decline in May and June, nitrogen fertilizer prices remain at very high levels for many farmers. In addition, also the prices of phosphorus keep increasing sharply. So firstly, the Commission is proposing a targeted amendment in the caplet in the CAP legislation. It enables member states to make maximum use of strategic plans to help farmers face rising fertilizer costs. The European Commission presented this package on the June 12. This is the legislative package that you have before you and for which the Commission counts on your support. There are 3 elements that are modified. 1st, a new tool is created for Member States to be able to create specific liquidity intervention. 2nd, advanced payments for direct payments may be provided earlier in the higher rate. Of course, for the rural development, advanced payments can anyway be provided. And 3rd, Member States will have flexibility to adjust their direct payment ceilings related to the calendar year 2027. All these 3 measures allow to make the most of the existing CAP strategic plans and to provide fast aid. Now on the exceptional support package. This is the 2nd element of the Commission's proposal, providing financial relief to help farmers buy fertilizers to guarantee their next crops. In the coming weeks, the Commission aims to mobilize $540,000,000 of EU funding in total for this purpose. To do so, on the June 9, the commission proposed an amendment within the EU budget 2026 to boost the allocated funds for the agricultural reserve to allow this total amount of $540,000,000. This support is immediate and focused on the current year. But we should not lose sight of the longer term challenges, and we need to also create longer term solutions. On the 1 hand side, for a fertilizer transition and on the other hand, to have more flexibility and resilience within legislation for the next programming period. On fertilization, this means reducing dependency on imports, less reliance on inorganic fertilizer, thanks to the further development and uptake of organic and bio based fertilizers, including also digested to recycling nutrients from urban waste to the upscaling of plant proteins and to reducing the losses on farm and ensuring precision agriculture can be used much more. This will help farm resilience. And the key tool that we have to address similar challenges will remain the common agricultural policy, and our debate for the rules for the future will intensify in the next months. It is of key importance that we ensure all support to farmers in the future too. We need to have income support that goes to the real active farmers. We need to ensure targeting of the resources within the common rules because citizens increasingly ask whether CAP support is reaching those who actively farm and contribute to Europe's food security. The proposed mandatory capping for certain payments is only 1 of the tools for better targeting, but an important 1. And we also need to ensure generational succession remains at the centre of the reform. Flexibility to tailor rules at the level of the member states must not create fragmentation or unequal treatment of farmers or operators or distortions in the internal market. It should provide the predictability for farmers while keeping the CAP practical and effective. The commission is fully committed to a strong but modernized support guided by the principles of simplification, fairness, incentives for quality and sustainability. Thank you.”
Use of fertilisers
- 2026-06-23 “Very briefly. Maria, I would just like to thank you for the very good debate. And I have noted as well the support that the the support for keeping a strong and common agricultural policy, even that we know that sometimes flexibility and commonness are quite opposites. So I think we need, as Martin said, to get the balance right, to have a common agricultural policy that is as well fit for purpose and tailor made as well for the specificities of the Member States, and in certain as well for the regions. So I, I think we need as well to have common rules. I think we not everything should be voluntary. So I think we have as well to maintain a certain kind of mandatory provisions, even though I heard a lot of calls for voluntary but voluntary means, again, not commonalities. So I think there again, we need we need to find the right balance. We should aim at a policy that delivers in the targeting of our support and as well. That delivers for our young farmers, while also keeping the level playing field and guaranteeing and bringing the food security to the next generations as well. So that would be my call. And I'm and me and my team, we are very open to discuss the ways forward together with you and Martin. Good luck for your presidency and the deliverables. And thank you very much, Maria. What you could achieve already during the separate presidency. Thank you very much.”
Agriculture (green)
- 2026-06-23 “Thank you very much, Maria. Dear ministers, in the last two weeks the negotiations accelerated on the MFF proposals. European leaders held a political discussion last week and last week the General Affairs Council also adopted a partial general approach for all three pillars, including the regulation for the National and Regional partnership plans, what we call the NLP piece. So the Cypriot presidency deserves, in my opinion, full credit for steering member states to this point. And I must say that certain elements of the NLP need closer examination in the next stages. As stated by a number of member States in the General Affairs Council. We need to align with the Cap proposal that we are still discussing, and you have also made significant progress on the Cap and CMO legislative texts. After unlocking successfully the discussion with the transfer of certain articles from the NLP on the numbers on the negotiation box. The Council has sent a powerful signal. We will not waver in our ambition to support Europe's farmers, safeguarding the budget for the ring fence support for their income. The discussion on figures will, of course, continue and are closely linked to the discussions on own resources. The central question on the policy remains, though ahead how to balance common rules with flexibility for the member states. And I think this flexibility has as well been asked for by many of the member states. I believe that the current discussions on the Cab, on the Cap go for too much flexibility at the expense of the commonality, and you have proposed, for example, nearly all mandatory interventions, such as the environmental transition actions, digressive smaller small farmer payments and the setting up for rural businesses to become optional.”
Agriculture (green)
- 2026-06-23 “(16:32:44 – 16:34:27): Yes. If you allow, I would also say a word, on the voluntary, aspects, and, I believe, there is a certain need to balance what is voluntary, what is mandatory in order to maintain as well the big c and the communality of the common agriculture policy. And this was the message that I gave very clearly to the ministers as well.
If we claim that it should be a level playing field that we have a really common common agriculture policy, not everything can, of course, be voluntary. On the food processors, as you know, there were as well, voices that asked to include food processing in the ring fenced amount of money.
I believe that the ring fenced amount of money is the direct income support for our farmers in the broader income support for our farmers direct payments, but as well other parts like investment support. So for me, it is very important that the processing is not inside of this ring fenced amount.
But, of course, we, have in the NLPP sufficient non allocated budget that we can use for the processing. And as well, there are possibilities in the future, in the competitiveness fund where as well, means are available.
So now it is about that. But I don't want now, that we reshift because funds are, of course, limited as well for the income support for the farmers. They have to pay back loans. They have made investments, long term investments, and we cannot risk they to put them really out there.
So I think we have to be very prudent of what is covered in the ring fence and what is not. Thank you. We have another question. Arthur? Please.”
Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
- 2026-06-23 “(16:26:46 – 16:30:49): Yes. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and, thank you as well, for the congratulations for our Luxembourg National Day. Unfortunately, I didn't get much of it because we had, of course, still our important meeting here going on, but I hope that you will enjoy or enjoy yesterday evening some of the festivities going on.
And let me also start by thanking the Cypriot presidency and especially you, Maria, for the tremendous and excellent work that you have, achieved during your your presidency. During your presidency, we have also concluded the agreement on the common market organization to strengthen the position of the farmers in the, food supply chain, and you have as well worked full steam to endorse our CAP proposals to deliver support to farmers, promised in our fertilizer action plan.
And we have also had several discussions on our c a CAP proposals, and the work is progressing. And, with your NEGO box, you sent a very powerful signal as well. We will not waver our ambition to support Europe's farmers. And the discussion on figures will, of course, continue, and they are very closely linked to the discussions on the own resources.
And what is most important to me now in the current CAP discussions is to ensure a common level playing field and adequate targeting of the support. And the work on the next CAP will continue with the Irish presidency.
And today, we also had deputy, prime, minister of Ukraine, Taras Kashka, who joined the discussion on the market situation. And I think it was very telling that we have a very close partnership between the EU and Ukraine. And the implementation of the modernized EU Ukraine DCFTA provides a solid basis for continued cooperation and mutual confidence while also aligning production standards.
And we have many joint interests, and we need to work together on those. In the upcoming, commission's protein plan, we will highlight the role of Ukraine, and the role that UK Ukraine can play in reducing the use of strategic dependencies in, for example, the protein crops.
And, today, we also took stock of the market situation. Minister Panayotto has mentioned it. Fertilizer con fertilizers continue to be sold at a very high price and uncertainty there remains even if some signals are getting more positive now.
We will soon, present, also to the member states, the details of our exceptional support package of 540,000,000 to help affected farmers who need to buy fertilizers. Otherwise, our food security would be endangered. And we will also monitor closely the upcoming harvest and the sowing season.
So agriculture markets remain broadly stable. Farmers are continuing to adapt to climate pressures to, for example, with lower mace plantings and reduced sugar beet area. Dairy and beef markets remain relatively resilient supported by strong demand and constrained supply.
By contrast, the wine sector continues to face structural challenges with falling consumption and weaker exports. And overall, agriculture remains highly exposed to climate risks, geopolitical uncertainty, and input cost pressures requiring continued vigilance, and readiness to act.
And, as, you saw with our decisive action on on the fertilizers action plan, the commission always stands ready to act to support, the EU farmers. Thank you.”
Use of fertilisers
- 2026-06-23 “And I think this is not helping to maintain a big C in the Common Agricultural Policy. On targeting, I have indicated my openness to rediscuss the aggressivity and capping. But we need to show that we deliver some reforms as well. The partial general approach for the NLP regulation opens the income support to benefit processing companies and public or private entities in both cases for activities that go beyond farming. And this is also another reason more to ensure targeting via common EU rules. And this remains a first priority. Without common rules and better targeted policy, we undermine the justification for a strong budget dedicated to this policy, especially in times of such a strong competition for funds, we must demonstrate that we are a policy of the future and not just a traditional policy. And in line with the vision for agriculture and food, we want income support to go to real farmers, not entities where agriculture is a side activity. And the definition of the active farmer is not just a technical detail that we are proposing. It's the cornerstone of the CIP proposal.”
Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
- 2026-06-23 “Citizens increasingly ask ask whether Cap support is reaching those who actively farm and contribute to Europe's food security, and I am glad that with your latest compromise text, you show that generational renewal also needs a strong support and thank you for that presidency for proposing the mandatory farm succession proposal. And there are other elements we need to continue discussing our proposal from the outset, delivered on what we promised, streamlined policy and better tailored to your needs. But we cannot backtrack on some key aspects. Let me now continue with the CMO. The core principle here flexibility must not create fragmentation. Unequal treatment of farmers or operators or distortions in the internal market. And it should provide predictability for farmers while also keeping the cap practical and effective. For example, keeping the school scheme and sectorial interventions mandatory, as suggested by the presidency. The presidency text advances work on specific sectors. A stronger framework for protein crops should help reduce import dependencies and develop union value chains. And thanks, Maria, for the work done on the future Common Market Organisation, but also on the targeted amendment to the CMO earlier this year. And together we achieved a balanced outcome to the benefit of farmers and consumers. The position of farmers will be stronger through more agile rules for producer organisations and more predictable contractual framework and more transparency will also benefit our consumers. To conclude on this, I very much acknowledge the hard work on the future Cap and the future CMO.”
EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
- 2026-06-23 “(16:35:47 – 16:37:03): To be very clear on that, this 56,000,000, they have already been deduced from the agricultural reserve before. So this will not affect the 540 that are now on the table.
Of course, the 540, as you know, there are 300,000,000 that, are, that the commission proposed, but the co legislators still need to agree on them. So that is, of course, the danger, but I'm quite confident, especially what I heard from the ministers that we will, remain with that amount.
On the, eventual the on the more, on the on the Spanish question that that you have mentioned, of course, you know that I would be very keen of helping our farmers more, but the money, of course, is limited.
We have as well, on the the CAP proposal that we have made, it is, of course, as well there will be differences in member states that have some of them have used, for example, up all their, rural development money or have, well planned them. Others don't.
But I also have to say, it is agriculture money. Either it has already been spent for agriculture or it will now be spent. We just give new opportunities there. So I don't see their contradiction.”
Agricultural funding
- 2026-06-23 “We remain ready to work constructively with the presidency and member states, and I firmly believe the question of targeting and common level playing field are crucial for the next cap, for its reputation and delivery in the long term across the EU, and we are keen to pursue discussions under the Irish presidency, and we remain constructive as a partner. And now, may I also refer shortly to the state of play on the organic proposal. Let me congratulate the Cypriot presidency for the work done to do so quickly to obtain a mandate for negotiations, and it is very important that we close this file by the end of 2026. This will provide legal certainty and ensure that equivalent schemes with third countries can continue to apply. In particular, I am pleased that the Council changes are very limited, recognising that it is a very targeted proposal. As regards to the substance, the Commission generally looks favourably to the amendments inserted by the Council. Concerns in relation to proposed changes to the production rules for organic production still need some reflection, and I'm pleased to note that the European Parliament is also making good progress on this file, and I look forward to working with the Irish Presidency and the Parliament representatives to bring this file to a swift conclusion. Thank you.”
Agriculture (green)
- 2026-06-22 “Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission 22.6.2026 Written question The Commission is closely monitoring the impact of escalation in the Middle East and the situation in the Strait of Hormuz on energy and fertiliser markets. In the short term, while no physical shortages of fertilisers are expected in the EU, increased price volatility will affect input costs for farmers. No immediate risks to food availability have been identified, although cost increases for energy and inputs may exert upward pressure on food prices over time. On 19 May 2026, the Commission adopted the Fertiliser Action Plan [1] , setting out short and long term measures to improve fertiliser availability, affordability and resilience. Short term actions include the mobilisation and possible top-up of the agricultural reserve, liquidity support under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and greater flexibility for advance payments. Longer term measures focus on strengthening EU production capacity, supporting the uptake of recycled nutrients and low carbon alternatives and reducing strategic dependencies on imports . Several measures have already been taken to alleviate pressure on fertiliser prices in the EU. These include adopting a Temporary state aid framework [2] on 29 April 2026, applying a reduced flat mark up of 1% to Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) default values for fertilisers, as well as the temporary duty suspension for imports of ammonia, urea and other nitrogen fertilisers from countries other than Russia and Belarus, withing given quotas [3] . [1] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_1099. [2] http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/2593/oj. [3] http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1181/oj.”
Use of fertilisers · Agricultural funding
- 2026-06-18 “Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission 18.6.2026 Written question On 7 January 2026 the Commission renewed until 10 January 2031 anti-dumping duties on imports of mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate (UAN) originating in Russia, Trinidad and Tobago, and the US [1] . A suspension under Article 14(4) of the basic Regulation [2] for an initial period of nine months, extendable for a further period not exceeding one year, would be possible upon demonstration that it is in the overall Union interest, that market conditions have temporarily changed so that injury to UAN Union producers would be unlikely to resume, and that the Union industry has been given an opportunity to comment, with those comments taken into account. Several other fertilisers imported from the US will benefit from a 0% duty when the 2025 EU-US Framework Agreement (‘Turnberry deal’) will enter into force. Moreover, imports of ammonia, urea and certain other nitrogen-based and mixed fertilisers from countries other than Russia and Belarus, now benefit from a tariff suspension [3] , within given quotas, for a period of one year, until 31 May 2027. The Commission does not consider that suspending the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) at this stage would be beneficial for EU strategic autonomy in fertilisers. However, recognising specific challenges for the fertiliser sector posed by elevated prices and import dependency, the Commission took action and a 1% mark-up is applied to default values for embedded emissions for fertilisers under CBAM [4] . This is notably lower than the mark-up applied to other CBAM sectors. Additionally, the Commission adopted a temporary state aid framework to enable Member States to support farmers in the current volatile market situation [5] . Following its November 2022 Communication [6] , the Commission is also monitoring the availability and affordability of fertilisers in the EU through the Fertiliser Market Observatory. On 19 May 2026, the Commission adopted the Fertiliser Action Plan [7] , setting out short- and long-term measures to improve fertiliser availability, affordability and resilience. Short term actions include the mobilisation and possible top-up of the agricultural reserve, liquidity support under the Common Agricultural Policy and greater flexibility for advance payments. Longer term measures focus on strengthening EU production capacity, supporting low carbon and renewable fertilisers, promoting circular nutrient sources, and reducing strategic dependencies on imports. All Member States, including Spain, used a possibility to express their positions on the availability and affordability of fertilisers during the discussion in the Agriculture and Fisheries Council. [1] Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/65 of 6 January 2026 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Russia, Trinidad and Tobago and the United States of America following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council. [2] Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union. [3] http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1181/oj. [4] Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2621 of 16 December 2025 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) 2023/956 of the European Parliament and the Council as regards the establishment of default values. [5] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/ip_26_894/IP_26_894_EN.pdf. [6] Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Ensuring availability and affordability of fertilisers, COM/2022/590 final/2. [7] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_1099.”
Use of fertilisers · Climate efforts
- 2026-06-18 “Minister Krajewski,
Vice-President Vigliotti,
Representatives of the European Investment Bank,
Dear young farmers, bankers, policymakers and all those helping shape Europe's future,
It is a pleasure to be with you today.
After welcoming many of you in Brussels in March, I am delighted to join you here in Warsaw.
And it is no coincidence that we are meeting in Poland.
More than 21% of Polish farmers are under the age of 40, nearly double of the EU average.
And 25% young farmers in Europe is Polish.
This is a success from which we can all learn.
These dialogues are indeed crucial to device new pathways - ensure that every young farmer across Europe has the means to invest, innovate and build viable businesses.
And guarantee that the needs of young farmers will be sufficiently backed up, in the coming National and Regional Partnership Plans and National Strategies for generation renewal in agriculture.
European agriculture operates in an increasingly complex environment, from market volatility to climate change and rising production costs.
In spite of these vulnerabilities, young farmers remain risk-takers in our farming community.
But when they invest, it is not for three or five but for ten, twenty or even thirty years.
And they need us to match this reality so to invest with confidence and receive the support to turn their ambition into reality.
This is why access to finance is at the heart of our agricultural agenda and a key pillar of the Generational Renewal Strategy adopted in October 2025.
The figures speak for themselves.
More than 4 out of 5 farms report significant increases in production costs.
The financing gap affecting young farmers is now estimated at €14.2 billion.
At the same time, the sector is evolving.
The share of farms using bank financing has increased from 1 in 6 to nearly 1 in 4.
The willingness to invest exists. The business spirit exists.
But access to finance has not kept pace.
More than 1 loan application out of 2 submitted by young farmers is refused.
This is not only a challenge for young farmers. It is a missed opportunity for Europe.
The good news is that we know solutions exist.
At European level, significant resources are already available to support investment in agriculture and rural areas.
Under the current CAP Strategic Plans, financial instruments amount to around €1 billion.
Under the last Rural Development Programmes), loans and guarantees - with EUR 447 million EAFRD contribution, - generated more than €2.1 billion in investments by the end of 2024.
This demonstrates the strong leverage effect that financial instruments can create.
And this is exactly the kind of leverage we need.
Financial instruments can successfully mobilise additional investment for farmers and rural businesses while easing pressure on both European and national budgets.
As Member States prepare their future National and Regional Partnership Plans, the challenge is not simply to make finance available.
It is to ensure that it is accessible, well targeted and adapted to the realities of farming.
This means reaching those who face the greatest barriers to investment, particularly young farmers.
It also means broadening the range of products available to support priorities such as sustainable agriculture, digitalisation, energy efficiency and innovation.
Ultimately, financial instruments only deliver results when they are used strategically, structured effectively and reflecting in their implementation, the realities of the agricultural business cycle.
This is why dialogue between farmers, bankers and managing authorities is so important.
In Brussels in March, we came together to diagnose the challenges.
Today, we are moving from dialogue to delivery.
Together with the EIB, the EIF and fi-compass, we are launching a package of practical tools, including a catalogue of lending schemes and financial products across Europe, as well as a practical toolkit on business planning and loan applications.
In the coming months, we will also launch an EU-wide survey on access to finance, helping Member States prepare future National and Regional Partnership Plans.
And under the future CAP, we are proposing a dedicated Starter Pack for young farmers, complemented by opportunities under InvestEU and the future European Competitiveness Fund.
Ultimately, what matters is impact on the ground.
Whether a young farmer secures a loan.
Whether a farm invests, modernises and grows.
Whether a new generation sees a future in European agriculture.
Together, we are turning good ideas into real opportunities.
And together, we can build a stronger future for European agriculture.
Thank you very much.”
Agricultural funding
- 2026-06-10 “Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission 10.6.2026 Written question In the short term, tensions in the Strait of Hormuz are unlikely to lead to shortages of fertilisers in the EU, notably due to limited direct import exposure and the existence of sufficient levels of commercial stocks. However, they have contributed to increased global price volatility for fertilisers and other inputs that will affect prices in the EU. The Commission is closely monitoring the fertiliser markets through the Fertiliser Market Observatory [1] , which met on 21 May 2026 to discuss recent developments. During the meeting, participants confirmed that fertiliser availability is currently not affected. To relieve pressure, the Commission adopted the Middle East temporary state aid Framework to support farmers and energy intensive industries [2] . In addition, imports of ammonia, urea and other nitrogen fertilisers will benefit from tariff suspension, within given quotas, for a period of one year. On 19 May 2026, the Commission adopted the Fertiliser Action Plan [3] to diversify import sources, reinforce EU production capacity and reduce dependencies on imported energy and feedstocks. Short term actions include the mobilisation and possible top up of the agricultural reserve, reinforced liquidity support under the CAP and flexibility for advance payments. Longer term measures focus on supporting low carbon and bio-based fertilisers, promoting circular and recycled nutrients, and supporting nutrient use efficiency, precision farming to reduce farmers’ exposure to fertiliser price volatility and production costs over time. [1] https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/data-and-analysis/markets/overviews/market-observatories/fertilisers_en. [2] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/ip_26_894/IP_26_894_EN.pdf [3] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_1099.”
Use of fertilisers
- 2026-06-10 “Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission 10.6.2026 Written question The Commission is closely monitoring developments in the Strait of Hormuz and their implications for fertiliser markets. In the short term, no immediate physical shortages of nitrogen fertilisers are expected in the EU, notably due to limited direct import exposure to this region of the world and recent increased imports in the EU. However, the events have contributed to increased global fertiliser price volatility, which is also reflected in EU markets. At this stage, no immediate risks to food availability in the EU are identified. In the medium term, sustained disruptions could further tighten global fertiliser supply, putting upward pressure on prices, including through higher energy costs affecting domestic production. Higher fertiliser prices also increase production costs for farmers and could, over time, contribute to increased food prices, depending on the duration of the disruption. The Commission is taking action through the Fertiliser Action Plan adopted on 19 May 2026 [1] , which includes measures to strengthen EU domestic fertiliser production capacity and reduce strategic dependencies on imported energy and fertiliser feedstocks. The Plan supports investment in low carbon, and bio-based fertilisers, promotes circular and recycled nutrients, and aims to diversify supply chains and improve resilience across the fertiliser value chain. The Commission is also supporting nutrient use efficiency to reduce dependency on imported mineral fertilisers over the longer term. [1] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_1099.”
Use of fertilisers
- 2026-06-10 “Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission 10.6.2026 Written question The Commission is closely monitoring developments in the Strait of Hormuz and their impact on fertiliser markets through the EU Fertiliser Market Observatory [1] . While no immediate physical shortages of nitrogen fertilisers are expected in the EU, notably due to limited direct import exposure to the Gulf region and sufficient stock levels, recent geopolitical developments have increased global price volatility, which is already affecting EU fertiliser prices. To mitigate these pressures, the Commission has already taken targeted measures, including a reduced 1% Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) default value mark up for fertilisers and proposed the suspension of customs tariffs within quotas for ammonia, urea and other nitrogen fertilisers to support both farmers and the EU fertiliser industry. The Commission has also recently adopted a state aid Framework on the Middle East [2] to support both farmers and energy intensive industries affected by the current situation. On 19 May 2026, the Commission adopted the Fertiliser Action Plan [3] , setting out short- and long-term measures to improve fertiliser availability, affordability and resilience. Short term actions include mobilisation and possible reinforcement of the agricultural reserve, liquidity support under the Common Agricultural Policy, and flexibility for advance payments. Longer term measures focus on strengthening EU production capacity, supporting low carbon and circular fertilisers, promoting alternative nutrient sources, and reducing dependencies on imported energy and feedstocks. [1] https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/data-and-analysis/markets/overviews/market-observatories/fertilisers_en. [2] https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/state-aid/legislation/metsaf_en. [3] Commission presents plan to secure Europe's fertiliser supply and food security: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_1099.”
Agricultural funding · Use of fertilisers
- 2026-06-10 “Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission 10.6.2026 Written question The Commission is closely monitoring the impact of the current geopolitical situation on fertiliser markets, including through the EU Fertiliser Market Observatory [1] . The impact on the EU remains limited due to low direct reliance on Middle East imports, sufficient stocks and unaffected production in key supplier countries such as Egypt and Algeria. While no immediate shortages are expected for the 2026 harvest, increased global volatility is affecting fertiliser prices for farmers. To mitigate pressure, the Commission has already taken targeted measures, including a reduced 1% CBAM default value mark up for fertilisers. In addition, to support both farmers and the EU fertiliser industry, imports of ammonia, urea and other nitrogen fertilisers will benefit from duty suspension, within given quotas, for a period of one year. The Commission has also recently adopted a state aid Framework on the Middle East [2] , to support both farmers and energy intensive industries. On 19 May 2026, the Commission adopted the Fertiliser Action Plan [3] , setting out short- and long-term measures to improve fertiliser availability, affordability and resilience. Short term actions include the mobilisation and possible top-up of the agricultural reserve, liquidity support under the CAP and greater flexibility for advance payments. The Plan also supports biogas and biomethane projects to reduce energy and nutrient dependencies and foresees the possible activation of emergency tools under the internal market Emergency and Resilience Act [4] , if necessary. [1] https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/data-and-analysis/markets/overviews/market-observatories/fertilisers_en. [2] https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/state-aid/legislation/metsaf_en. [3] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_1099. [4] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202402747.”
Use of fertilisers
- 2026-05-28 “Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission 28.5.2026 Written question The Commission’s proposals for the 2028-2034 multiannual financial framework (MFF) [1] reaffirm the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) as a cornerstone of EU policy, providing a cohesive and robust framework to support farmers, consumers, and the environment. Flexibility rules are designed to complement — not compromise — the Policy’s common principles. Stringent EU-wide safeguards, including common definitions and common EU rules, including farm stewardship obligations and performance monitoring continue to apply. The Commission will also issue CAP national recommendations, steering Member States’ CAP interventions to support common EU priorities while being tailored to Member States’ specific needs and challenges. These measures ensure that Member States’ tailored solutions remain aligned with common EU economic, social and environmental objectives and support a level-playing field in the EU. The Commission also advocates a collaborative approach to developing the National and Regional Partnership (NRP) Plans, incorporating early dialogues with Member State to ensure that national and local needs align with overarching EU priorities. The Commission will rigorously assess Member States’ draft NRP Plans before submitting a proposal for approval by the Council to see if the common policy objectives are met. Crucially, the budget for farmers’ income support remains secure guaranteeing predictability. The new MFF [2] introduces a new method (‘deflator’) to handle inflation challenges. It keeps the annual price adjustment at 2% if EU inflation is between 1% and 3%. If inflation falls below 1% or rises above 3%, the adjustment matches the actual forecast rate. [1] https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/long-term-eu-budget/eu-budget-2028-2034_en. [2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52025PC0571&qid=1753801194712.”
Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1) · Agricultural funding
- 2026-05-26 “Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission 26.5.2026 Written question With the new Single Market Strategy, the Commission intends to strengthen the integration and efficiency of the internal market. This initiative primarily aims to dismantle unjustified barriers, reduce the administrative burden, stimulate investment, and ensure a level playing field within the Union. With the Wine Package [1] , the Commission is empowered to lay down rules for providing consumers with the list of ingredients and the nutrition declaration via electronic means on the label of wine bottles, with the aim to minimise costs and facilitate trade across the internal market. The Commission started discussing possible elements of a regulation in this regard within the Group of Experts on Wine and Spirits under the common organisation of the markets. In the context of the FISCALIS programme, and with the support of the Commission, experts from Member States have investigated potential solutions, based in part on a one-stop-shop for the payment of excise duty in the Member State of establishment of the seller. The Commission is currently examining these findings with a view to removing obstacles while considering risks of tax evasion. An ongoing study on excise simplification that will be completed by October 2026 will, among others, contain a detailed cost-benefit analysis of the proposed solution that will serve as a basis for potential further action in this field. [1] Regulation (EU) 2026/471 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 February 2026 amending Regulations (EU) No 1308/2013, (EU) No 251/2014 and (EU) 2021/2115 as regards certain market rules and sectoral support measures in the wine sector and for aromatised wine products and Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 as regards certain labelling rules for spirit drinks, OJ L, 2026/471, 26.2.2026, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/471/oj.”
EU Single Market harmonisation · Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
- 2026-05-20 “Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission 20.5.2026 Written question 1. A simpler and more flexible Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) will be delivered through national and regional partnership (NRP) plans [1] . In the context of multiple pressing EU priorities to address, the proposal guarantees a minimum ring-fenced amount of EUR 293.7 billion for farmers income support. This shows a recognition of the crucial role of farmers and the CAP to build an attractive, competitive and sustainable agri-food sector. 2. The guaranteed amount in the legislation ensures stability and predictability for the farming community. The amount can and will need to be complemented by Member States in accordance with their needs, by accessing the unallocated part of the NRP fund. The Commission suggested a rural target of 10% [2] to strengthen support for rural areas. In addition, to ensure further resources are accessible for Member States as of 2028 for addressing the needs of farmers and rural communities, the Commission has proposed that Member States will be able to access to up to two-thirds of the flexibility amount [3] in the plans, normally available for the stage of the midterm review. 3. The advantage of a simpler, more flexible CAP, delivered through NRP plans, is that it offers Member States increased flexibility, bringing policies together to deliver better results. The NRP plans are tailored to Member States’ needs, while ensuring predictability for long-term investment and support for farmers and regions, and increased flexibility in a fast-changing world . The NRP plans provide a harmonised planning and reporting framework that foster synergies and a leverage effect across different funding elements, while supporting EU common objectives and priorities. [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52025PC0565&qid=1753801752960. [2] This translates into EUR 48.7 billion, or over EUR 63 billion if the Catalyst Europe loans are also included. Only the amounts dedicated by Member States towards rural areas beyond the ring-fenced amounts would count towards reaching this target (Proposal in the letter of the Commission President, November 2025) . [3] Amounting to around EUR 45 billion (Proposal in the letter of the Commission President, January 2026).”
Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1) · Agricultural funding
- 2026-05-19 “Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission 19.5.2026 Written question Promotion funding is intrinsically linked to the promotion of EU-origin. The general objective of the information provision and promotion measures under the EU promotion policy for agricultural products is to enhance the competitiveness of the EU agricultural sector (Article 2 Regulation (EU) 1144/2014 [1] ). Only EU-produced products are eligible for this funding. Products that are produced outside of the EU are not eligible. The information provision and promotion measures aim to increase consumers’ awareness of the merits of the EU agricultural products and production methods, and of its quality schemes; increase the competitiveness and consumption of EU agricultural products, raise their profile both inside and outside the EU and increase their market share. Furthermore, implementing Regulation [2] (EU) 2015/1831 establishes strict requirements for the mention of European origin in all information and promotional materials (Article 2). As in other sectors, origin is determined in accordance with the established non-preferential rules of origin. The indication of the country of origin of agricultural and food products is laid down in EU law, as reflected in Regulation (EU) 1308/2013, and further specified in relevant secondary legislation. As stipulated in Article 14 of Regulation (EU) 1144/2014, Member State authorities are responsible for the proper implementation of so called simple programmes (submitted by one or more organisations in a single Member State), including their monitoring and control. [1] Regulation (EU) No 1144/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on information provision and promotion measures concerning agricultural products implemented in the internal market and in third countries and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 3/2008. [2] Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1831 of 7 October 2015 laying down rules for application of Regulation (EU) No 1144/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on information provision and promotion measures concerning agricultural products implemented in the internal market and in the third countries.”
Export of EU agri-food products · EU framework for voluntary quality and sustainability terms in food marketing
- 2026-05-13 “Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission 13.5.2026 Written question The Commission acknowledges the significant pressure that EU farmers face due to increased energy and fertiliser prices, exacerbated by the ongoing geopolitical tensions in the Middle East which have constrained global supply chains, underscoring the critical need to bolster the EU’s strategic autonomy. The Commission is closely monitoring developments. Regarding fertilisers, work is accelerated on an Action Plan, to be presented in the coming weeks. This plan will elaborate short- and medium-term measures to strengthen the EU production capacity and reduce high-risk strategic dependencies, to ensure the availability, affordability and stability in the supply of fertilisers to EU farmers. Recent measures have already been implemented such as the adjustment of default Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism values applicable to fertilisers, applying a flat 1% mark-up, and the proposal to temporarily suspend most favoured nations (MFN) duties on imports of other than Russian and Belarussian origin of several key nitrogen fertilisers and inputs for their production (ammonia, urea) up to a certain volume of imports into the EU. The Commission remains committed to continuously assessing the situation and is ready to take action, including through the application of competition law instruments, where appropriate . The Commission is exploring whether additional support mechanisms are needed for farmers in the short term, drawing upon available instruments under the Common Agricultural Policy. Concerning state aid, the Commission adopted on 29 April 2026 a state aid framework [1] to enable Member States to support the sectors most affected by the Middle East crisis including agriculture. [1] https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/state-aid/legislation/metsaf_en.”
Use of fertilisers · Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
- 2026-05-11 “Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission 11.5.2026 Written question The Commission welcomes the opinion of the Court of Auditors and appreciated the opportunity of discussing it with the EP Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. The proposed structure of the future Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) builds on several pieces of legislation in force today and governing the current CAP [1] . It aims at fostering synergies across policies for the benefit of rural areas, investment in farming and bringing simplifications for farmers (such as an increased use of lump sums and incentives) while providing robust safeguards to guarantee that the EU taxpayer’s money is spent in an efficient, regular and transparent manner Discussions with co-legislators are ongoing concerning a transfer of certain Articles to the CAP and common market organisation regulation proposals pursuant to a letter of the President of the Commission of November 2025. The minimum ring-fenced budget for income support ensures fairness and continuity for the financing of the agricultural sector. The new degressivity mechanism should also improve the targeting. Regarding the balance between commonality and flexibility, the proposals [2] contain several guarantees. Commonality is safeguarded by common objectives, a stable toolbox, common protective practices, steering by the Commission via recommendations and a common assessment procedure. The approval process for the plans is framed by deadlines. The Council decision (to be adopted within 4 weeks of the Commission proposal) should not make the process disproportionately long since Member States are also very much interested in a swift approval and implementation of plans. Specificities of CAP payments regarding monitoring of expenditure have been mostly kept, while ensuring accountability. [1] These include beyond the Strategic Plan Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 2021/2115), the Horizontal Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 2021/2116, and the regulation on the Common organisation of the markets (Regulation (EU) 1308/2013). [2] See https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/long-term-eu-budget/eu-budget-2028-2034_en.”
Agricultural funding · Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
- 2026-05-08 “Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission 8.5.2026 Written question Simplification of the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) was delivered by the Commission in 2024 [1] and 2025 [2] . The Commission’s proposal for the National and Regional Partnership (NRP) Plans [3] for 2028-2034, and the CAP proposal [4] reflect and build on that simplification. The proposals offer Member States flexibility to implement a tailored approach to address the needs of EU farming and rural communities, while also maximising complementarities across various funding instruments. The single rule book would reduce the need to navigate across different rules for similar types of support measures. Regarding the CAP, the proposed rules would translate into less burden for both farmers and Member States for example thanks to the abolishment of the entitlements’ system, a wider use of simplified form of payments for smaller farmers and of lump-sum payments, and an alignment of mandatory rules under the ‘Farm Stewardship’ system. The system of Good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAECs) has been removed. On the other hand, the proposal builds on what works well, for example the basic elements of the current administration and control system would be kept but simplified and streamlined, easing also reporting. Access to information and calls for proposals would be made easier through a single, user-friendly access portal (‘Single Gateway’), which would centralise funding information and data on recipients and supported operations. The Commission will closely work with Member States in the process of preparation and implementation of their national plans with the aim to maintain coherence of definitions and concepts and to minimise the administrative burden for farmers. [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32024R1468&qid=1739377050554. [2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32025R2649. [3] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52025PC0565&qid=1753801752960. [4] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52025PC0560&qid=1753798247771.”
Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1) · Agricultural funding
- 2026-05-08 “Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission 8.5.2026 Written question 1. The suspension of inward processing would address a short-term market disturbance. The Commission is assessing whether further action may be warranted to address potential structural challenges in the sugar sector. The Commission is conducting a ‘health check’ of the key markets, including sugar, which will inform these reflections. 2. Since the end of the quota regime in 2017, the sector has adjusted to a more market-oriented organisation by improving competitiveness and better aligning supply to demand. Without jeopardising the market-oriented nature of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), where necessary to respond to market disturbances or imbalances, the Commission may adopt appropriate measures within the framework of the common market Organisation. To address other challenges, such as high production costs, the EU offers investment and coupled income support, which may be included in Member States’ CAP Strategic Plans to support sugar and sugar beet producers. 3. Under the future Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2027-2034, the proposed national and regional partnership (NRP) plans will continue to offer Member States the opportunity to support farmers depending on regional and national needs. Existing CAP policy instruments, such as income support, are maintained in the Commission proposal. In addition, the CAP and NRP Regulation proposals provide a complementary set of tools to alleviate pressure and reducing risk in farm operations. The EU facility under the NRP fund also provides a Unity Safety Net intended to help farmers cope with the impact of market disturbances.”
Agricultural funding
- 2026-04-30 “E-000760/2026 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission 1. The Commission is actively advancing measures to harmonize honey authentication across the single market. The Honey Platform is explicitly tasked with gathering data to improve authenticity controls and providing formal recommendations on the creation of an EU reference laboratory for honey. First discussions highlighted the importance of avoiding overlaps with existing laboratories, ensuring financial viability, and maintaining coherence with the broader EU authenticity and integrity. The topic will be further discussed before any decision can be taken. 2. The system of sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) import controls is robust and capable of ensuring that only goods complying with EU requirements enter the Union. On 9 December 2025, the Commission announced a series of measures 1 aimed at further strengthening import controls through an increased number of audits and closer monitoring of non-compliant commodities and countries (with increased frequency of checks), support and additional training to Member States, and the establishment of a Task Force on Import Controls. 3. The Commission thoroughly evaluates the potential effects of trade agreements on EU agriculture through cumulative economic impact studies 2 . The specific vulnerabilities of the honey market were factored into the Mercosur negotiations leading to not granting unlimited access for honey but establishing a calibrated Tariff Rate Quota accompanied by a legally binding safeguard mechanism. 1 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_2979. 2 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/7c386feb-bbfc-11ee-b164-01aa75ed71a1/language-en.”
Trade relations with Mercosur · Import of agri-food products in the EU
- 2026-04-29 “E-000658/2026 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission The proposed new common agricultural policy (CAP) ensures predictability for European farmers by proposing a minimum ring-fenced amount within the future national and regional partnership (NRP) plans for the period 2028-2034 as well as improving the current CAP toolbox. Fair distribution of support is central to the proposal, by proposing degressivity and capping of the future income support, with a focus towards those farmers most in need. In addition, the Commission would issue CAP national recommendations on all policy objectives with a view to guaranteeing a level-playing field. As regards the environmental ambition, the Commission proposes a minimum spending target of at least 43% at the level of the overall NRP Plans, including the CAP. Furthermore, Member States would be obliged to address soil and water quality via a set of protective practices as basic requirements for farmers to receive income support. Also in this case, the recommendations would guide Member States in the implementation of these basic requirements as well as additional measures like agri-environment climate actions tailored to local circumstances to reach EU objectives. The European Parliament, as co-legislator, will play a fundamental role in shaping the future NRP and CAP regulations. In November 2025, the President of the Commission suggested to the co-legislators to add a new annex on a new budgetary steering mechanism to the future interinstitutional agreement to specify the modalities of this mechanism, including in relation to the Parliament’s role. Transparency in monitoring the implementation of the CAP is strengthened via the proposed performance regulation 1 , including through a publicly accessible centralised website referred to as ‘Single Gateway’. 1 https://commission.europa.eu/publications/budget-expenditure-tracking-and-performance-framework_en.”
Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1) · Agricultural funding
- 2026-04-29 “Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission 29.4.2026 Written question EU trade policy towards Israel and Palestine [1] may help address some of the issues raised in the Honourable Member’s question as far as goods exported to the EU are concerned. Trade preferences granted to Israel under the EU-Israel Association Agreement [2] do not apply to goods originating in Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) or the Golan Heights. Conversely, the EU grants trade preferences to goods which are originating in Palestine in accordance with the EU-Palestine Interim Association Agreement [3] . The case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union has confirmed that goods originating in Israeli settlements in the OPT do not qualify for preferential treatment under the EU-Palestine Interim Association Agreement. As regards a temporary suspension of imports, Article 23 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement allows either party to adopt safeguard measures if a product is imported in such increased quantities and under such conditions as to cause serious disturbance to a sector of the economy, or serious difficulties in a region or market of the importing side. From the information provided it is however not possible to ascertain whether imports from Israel are causing such serious sectoral disturbances or regional difficulties. On 17 September 2025, following the military intervention of Israel in the Gaza Strip, the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council Decision regarding the suspension of certain trade-related provisions of the Association Agreement [4] . [1] This designation shall not be construed as recognition of a State of Palestine and is without prejudice to the individual positions of the Member States on this issue. [2] https://eeas.europa.eu/archives/delegations/israel/documents/eu_israel/asso_agree_en.pdf. [3] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/documents/treaties-agreements/agreement/?id=1997014. [4] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52025PC0890.”
Relations with Israel - Palestine · Due diligence in supply chains (environmental and human rights)
- 2026-04-21 “P-000963/2026 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission Given the current situation on the milk market as described in reply to written question E000668/2026 1 , the Commission does not envisage at this stage mobilising market instruments financed by the agricultural reserve. The milk market situation in 2025 and at the beginning of 2026 is fundamentally different from that in 2016. The Commission will continue its close monitoring of developments in the milk market and stands ready to act in a responsible and proportionate manner, should circumstances so require. Milk producers will benefit from a recently agreed strengthening of the position of farmers in the food supply chain whereby contracts between dairy farmers and their buyers will need to be in written form (political agreement reached between the European Parliament and the Council on 5 March 2026 on a Commission proposal amending Regulations (EU) No 1308/2013 2 , (EU) 2021/2115 3 and (EU) 2021/2116 4 as regards the strengthening of the position of farmers in the food supply chain). In line with the amendment proposed by the European Parliament, such measures will also expand the scope of collective negotiations in the dairy sector and provide for stricter conditions on the statutes of producer organisations in the dairy sector, ensuring their democratic control. 1 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/-ASW_EN.html. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/1308/oj/eng. 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/2115/2024-05-25/eng. 4 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/2116/oj/eng?uri=CELEX:32021R2116.”
Agricultural funding · Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1) · EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
- 2026-04-15 “E-000668/2026 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission The year 2025 was marked by historically high raw milk prices which, together with increased output, resulted in the highest value of milk production ever recorded. This occurred against a backdrop of declining feed costs leading to the highest gross margin indexes on record. From August onwards, milk deliveries expanded rapidly in several major producing Member States. In parallel, prices for dairy commodities - which had remained at historically high levels during the first half of 2025 - started a downward correction from September 2025 onwards. This decline in commodity prices was transmitted to raw milk prices with a certain time lag and at a smaller magnitude. Domestic and global demand for dairy products has remained robust. The most recent data from dairy commodity markets point towards a stabilisation and gradual improvement in market prices. Against this backdrop, at present the Commission is not considering the introduction of a voluntary milk production reduction scheme. There are no specific indicators to trigger the introduction of exceptional market measures. The Commission acts on the basis of its ongoing monitoring of market developments, including milk and dairy prices, production trends, and trade flows. It also takes into account the views of experts, Member States, and stakeholders in the relevant fora.”
Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
- 2026-04-14 “Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission 14.4.2026 Written question The Commission attaches great importance to support competitiveness of farmers. It closely monitors the market and income developments in the EU agricultural sector. Besides, the Commission set up the Agri-Food Chain Observatory to improve the transparency in price formation and margins along the value chain. On 7 January 2026, together with the Cypriot Presidency, the Commission convened an extraordinary meeting of EU ministers of agriculture to discuss the situation following the farmers protest [1] . The outcome document lays out several concrete actions. The Commission recognises the strategic importance of agriculture by ensuring its continued support from the EU budget, with a budget of EUR 300 billion dedicated exclusively to farming, while providing Member States with the possibility to use additional resources to top up this secured allocation from non-ringfenced National and Regional Partnership funds [2] . To ensure affordability and availability of fertilisers, the Commission has adopted the temporary suspension of Most Favoured Nation tariffs, lowering of the mark-up for Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism from 30% to 1% and announced an Action Plan on Fertilisers for more medium-term solutions. The Commission also announced a ‘health check’ of the agricultural markets to identify their key challenges as well as opportunities for their further development. Simplification is a key objective of this Commission mandate. The Commission presented the Omnibus III proposal on the common agricultural policy with potential cost savings of up to EUR 1.6 billion annually for farmers [3] , which is in force since December 2025. Further measures have been proposed for the organic legislation [4] and in the Food and Feed Omnibus [5] . An implementation dialogue on the challenges of implementing environmental legislation was held on 18 February 2026 and feed reflections on possible solutions to the challenges identified. The Commission is pursuing a stronger alignment of standards for products imported into the EU. It has established the principle that the most hazardous pesticides are not allowed back to the EU, which has been already deployed in the case of three active substances, carbendazim, benomyl and thiophanate-methyl, and analysis is under way to inform future cases. The Commission has also announced reinforced import controls. The number of audits carried out on non-EU countries are increased by 50%, and those carried out on EU Border Control Posts are increased by 33% in 2026-27. [1] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/read_26_50. [2] This includes the ringfenced allocation of EUR 293.7 billion and the Unity Safety Net of EUR 6.3 billion (both in the NRPP proposal). Additionally, the President of the Commission proposed in letters to the co-legislators sent on 09.11.2025 and 06.01.2026 a rural target introduced on the non-ringfenced budget equivalent to EUR 48,7 billion and the use of a frontloading amount of EUR 45 billion that can be immediately mobilised to support farmers from the amount that would normally be available for the midterm review. [3] Regulation (EU) 2025/2649 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2025 amending Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 as regards the conditionality system, types of intervention in the form of direct payment, types of intervention in certain sectors and rural development and annual performance reports and Regulation (EU) 2021/2116 as regards suspensions of payments, annual performance clearance and controls and penalties — https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202502649&qid=1767605831627. [4] https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/media/news/organic-rulebook-fit-future-2025-12-17_en. [5] https://food.ec.europa.eu/horizontal-topics/simplification-legislation_en.”
Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1) · EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
- 2026-04-14 “E-000736/2026 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission 1. As announced in the Agriculture and Fisheries Council meeting on 26 January 2026, the Commission is considering suspending the use of inward processing in the sugar sector. The internal preparatory work is under way. The Commission’s decision will be based on the assessment of the impact of sugar imports under the inward processing procedure on the sugar market. 2. In line with Article 195 of Regulation 1308/2013 1 , such suspension must be aimed at addressing a market disturbance stemming from imports under these arrangements. In parallel, the Commission is discussing an update to the guidance for custom authorities on the use of inward processing for sugar with the aim to provide accurate recommendations on the implementation of the procedure. 1 Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p 671 ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/1308/oj).”
Import of agri-food products in the EU · EU policy on custom fee on non-EU imports
- 2026-04-14 “E-000360/2026 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission The Honourable Member refers to the judgment in case T-399/23 ClientEarth et Collectif Nourrir v. European Commission (29 October 2025). The position summarised by the General Court in point 109 of the judgment concerns Article 118 of Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 1 which does not empower the Commission to prescribe to Member States how to design or implement certain interventions or elements of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Strategic Plans (SPs). The Commission’s role is to assess SPs designed by Member States, and if those SPs are compatible with that Regulation, approve them. The judgment does not provide any indication that the Commission would be ‘powerless’ as regards approval of the SPs. It states that the control by the Commission covers some specific requirements (point 112) and explains the basis for and the scope of the Commission approval of SPs. While the proposed delivery model for the next Multiannual Financial Framework grants flexibility to Member States to design their National Regional Partnership Plans, similar to the current CAP SPs, it is exercised within safeguards. The proposal lays down common EU objectives that cover food security, fair standard of living for farmers, and vibrant rural areas. Furthermore, through CAP national recommendations the Commission will steer Member States’ ambition to ensure attainment of common EU objectives. Rules related to certain ringfenced interventions that are fully financed by the EU will ensure, among others, a level playing field among Member States. This aims at ensuring stability, predictability and commonality when it comes to the income support, while allowing for tailored approaches to meet national and regional challenges and opportunities. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/2115/oj/eng.”
Agricultural funding
- 2026-04-14 “E-000504/2026 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission Within the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) framework, all Member States, are obliged to ensure the effective protection of the financial interests of the Union, including, through the Area Monitoring System, required to be fully operational in all Member States since 2024 1 . IT tools available to Member States to this end, such as Arachne to score risks of irregularities, are used by the national authorities to prevent and report irregularities, including suspected or established fraud affecting CAP funds. Arachne will progressively be modernised and combine data from several databases. Member States must also perform systematic checks that target, inter alia, areas where the risk of errors is the highest 2 . Further investigations and additional checks should be conducted when warning signals or indicators pointing to possible irregularities, fraud or corruption are spotted. When the Commission becomes aware of any suspected case of fraud, corruption or any illegal activity affecting the EU budget, it informs the European Anti-Fraud Office and, if applicable, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office promptly. In recent years, the Commission has conducted numerous audits of the management and control system of the CAP expenditure in Greece, identifying several recurrent issues. Thus, the Commission requested the Greek authorities to put in place an action plan for the expenditure under the integrated administration and control system, which is currently being implemented. A second action plan addresses persistent non-compliances with the accreditation criteria 3 by the Greek Paying Agency, which was placed under probation in September 2024. One of the actions of that plan is the implementation of an effective antifraud strategy. 1 Art. 70 of Regulation (EU) 2021/2116. 2 Art. 60.1 of Regulation (EU) 2021/2116. 3 Annex 1 Point 1 (C) of Regulation (EU) 2022/127.”
Agricultural funding
- 2026-04-14 “E-000558/2026 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission This measure was proposed in order to stimulate generational renewal in agriculture which is central to the future of farming and Europe’s long term food security. Agriculture has one of the oldest workforces in Europe, with more farmers over 65 than under 40 years 1 , creating the need for urgent action. The European Parliament 2 also identified this as a priority issue to be addressed. Delayed retirement of farm managers has an impact on succession planning and modernisation of the sector. The Commission proposed to encourage a transition for older farmers, by requiring Member States to gradually exclude from Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) degressive area-based income support (DABIS) by 2032 farmers who have reached a pension age under national legislation and who receive a retirement pension 3 . But this applies only to DABIS and not to other forms of support under the new CAP. These requirements would apply equally in all Member States. The Commission encourages Member States to ensure proper, fair and reliable pension schemes within their social protection systems. Beneficiaries of the simplified payment for small farmers would not be affected by the proposed provision. The Commission has no data on the number of farmers that receive a retirement pension. Given the strong demand for land and the support for a new generation of farmers through the CAP, it is the Commission view that would create opportunities for new and young farmers introducing a new dynamism in the sector. 1 Analytical Brief N°10: Young farmers in EU agriculture : https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/document/download/2789cbe3-01dd-41ca-bacdf96fc3a014ce_en?filename=analytical-brief-10-youngfarmers_en.pdf?pk_source=newsletter&pk_medium=link&pk_campaign=analytical%20brief%2010. 2 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2023-0376_EN.html - Generational renewal in the EU farms of the future - 19 October 2023. 3 CAP Proposal (COM(2025) 560 final), Art. 6(6).”
Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1) · Agricultural funding
- 2026-04-13 “P-001116/2026 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission The Commission has been working on marketing standards for cider for many years. In 2023, a Report 1 presented a situation in which all kinds of products identified as ciders co-exist on the EU market leading to confusion for consumers and unfair competition among producers, and an impact assessment 2 proposed options. Since 2024, the Commission has had several exchanges both in expert groups and on a bilateral basis on different proposals. From those exchanges emerged a clear will from the majority of Member States and of representatives of the sector to lay down a marketing standard for cider. On 5 February 2026, the Commission presented to the expert group a non-paper outlining an approach consisting in the definition of three categories (high, medium and low juice content) covering all ciders on the market in respect of the EU diversity, along with a few optional reserved terms aimed to valorise the high quality ciders. A large majority of Member States and representatives of the sector supported that approach. On that basis, the Commission will pursue discussions with all Member States to further explore options that can benefit the EU cider sector as a whole. While the proposal in the non-paper is not yet final and remains open to further discussion, the proposed standard would not apply to EU exports and would not require any reformulation of products, although some of them will have to be labelled in such a way as to inform consumers more accurately about the type of product they purchase. 1 https://eurlex.europa.eu/search.html?scope=EURLEX&text=COM%282023%29200&lang=en&type=quick&qid=1774271 284377. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/NL/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52023SC0097.”
EU framework for voluntary quality and sustainability terms in food marketing
- 2026-04-10 “E-000569/2026 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission Grapevine Flavescence dorée phytoplasma (FD) is a Union quarantine pest 1 . Its main vector, Scaphoideus titanus, while not listed as such, is recognised as the main driver of FD spread in vineyards. Research and Innovation on FD and its vector can be supported under Horizon Europe, in particular Cluster 6 ‘Food, Bioeconomy, Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environment’, with dedicated opportunities in the Work Programme 2026-2027 2 . Under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) 3 , Member States may support EIP-AGRI Operational Group (European Innovation Partnership for Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability) projects, financed through CAP Strategic Plans (2023-2027), to develop practice-oriented innovative solutions across a wide range of agricultural challenges. The Commissions has allocated around EUR 200 million in recent years for plant-healthrelated research and innovation under Horizon Europe. While no ongoing project focuses on FD and its vector, projects funded under the previous Framework programme for Research & Innovation – Horizon 2020 4 have addressed FD specifically, including VITISENS 5 (rapid in-field FD detection), TROPICSAFE 6 (diagnostic tools and resistance-related knowledge for grapevine yellows, including FD), and WINETWORK 7 (collection and sharing of scientific and practical knowledge). Several EIP-AGRI Operational Groups have directly targeted FD and S. titanus, such as RESISTO.FD 8 , FLAV.I.A 9 , MIDIFENDO 10 , Vacuum Bug 11 , FD.STOP 12 , GO Vite 13 , delivering improved detection and monitoring methods, decision‑support tools and integrated management strategies for vineyards. 1 Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2019/2072/oj. 2 European Commission Decision C(2025) 8493 of 11 December 2025: https://research-andinnovation.ec.europa.eu/document/download/44106caa-ed7a-42bf-ae57-aaab91778602_en. 3 Article 77, Regulation (EU) 2021/2115. 4 https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-opencalls/horizon-2020_en. 5 https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/262032. 6 https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/727459. 7 https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/652601. 8 https://eu-cap-network.ec.europa.eu/projects/resistofd-control-and-management-flavescence-doree-traditionalstrategies-resistant_en. 9 https://eu-cap-network.ec.europa.eu/projects/flavia-control-flavescence-doree-means-artificial-intelligence_en. 10 https://eu-cap-network.ec.europa.eu/projects/midifendouse-microorganisms-activating-grapevine-defensestowards-flavescence-doree-attack_en. 11 https://eu-cap-network.ec.europa.eu/projects/vacuum-bug-development-mechanical-process-adapted-vinescontributes-decrease-number-leaf_en. 12 https://eu-cap-network.ec.europa.eu/projects/fdstop-creation-networks-virtuous-and-economically-sustainablemanagement-flavescence_en. 13 https://eu-cap-network.ec.europa.eu/projects/innovative-strategies-sustainable-management-grapeviveyellows-govite_en.”
Agricultural funding
- 2026-04-10 “P-000639/2026 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission 1. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) control framework under Regulation (EU) 2021/2116 1 ensures proper financial management and compliance with EU rules and relies on strong governance. The Commission acknowledges the complex issues faced by farms in cross-border or enclave areas. Under shared management, EU countries play a key role in implementing measures for territorial challenges, including the needs of cross-border or enclave areas when designing or amending their CAP Strategic Plans The Commission works closely with EU countries to address weaknesses in the governance systems. Under the Cohesion Policy, Interreg programmes support improved governance in cross-border areas. In particular, the Spain–France–Andorra programme (POCTEFA) finances the development of integrated territorial strategies in the area of Llivia and Cerdanya, which reinforce local institutional capacity to address cross-border administrative and legal obstacles. With the Commission proposal for the next financial framework, Member States will work on the basis of joint programming across policy areas falling under National and Regional Partnership Plans which will allow for greater synergies. 2. Under shared management, the implementation of the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) is the responsibility of the Member States. Therefore, based on Regulation (EU) No 2021/2116, Member States have the flexibility to implement the different elements of IACS to best fit their needs. In line with the principle of sincere cooperation 2 , Member States shall take the measures required for the proper establishment and operation of IACS, and, when requested by another Member State, shall give the mutual assistance needed. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/2116/oj/eng. 2 Art. 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union.”
Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
- 2026-03-24 “P-000443/2026 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission 1. Under the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP), through the 2023-2027 CAP Strategic Plan (CSP), Portugal has programmed support for the restoration of agricultural and forestry potential following natural disasters, adverse climatic events or catastrophic events amounting to EUR 23.6 million of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) available for farmers and forest owners. In addition, following the recent Omnibus simplification, Member States can mobilise CSP funding for crisis payments that compensate for production losses due to such events. Furthermore, following a request from the Portuguese authorities to mobilise the agricultural reserve to support the agricultural sector affected by the storm, the Commission will examine the possibility to adopt exceptional measures under Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 1 . 2. Restoration support provided for in the Portuguese CSP can already be implemented by national authorities. In order to make use of the possibility to provide crisis payments to farmers, Portugal would need to submit a CSP amendment request to the Commission. However, expenditure would be eligible as from the occurrence of the catastrophic event. National authorities may also grant, under certain conditions, support to farmers in line with EU State aid rules 2 . 3. Under the CSP, Member States already may combine support for risk management tools with crisis and restoration measures, ensuring complementarity between ex ante and ex post support. Increasing the uptake of risk management tools is essential to strengthen resilience at the farm level, and ex post support should be limited to crisis situations. The Commission remains ready to work closely with Portugal to make full use of the existing framework. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/1308/oj/eng. 2 Without prior notification to the Commission under the Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/2472 of 14 December 2022 declaring certain categories of aid in the agricultural and forestry sectors and in rural areas compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ L 327, 21.12.2022, p. 1), or following a notification to the Commission under the Guidelines for State aid in the agricultural and forestry sectors and in rural areas (OJ C 485, 21.12.2022, p. 1).”
Agricultural funding · Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
- 2026-03-23 “E-000270/2026 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission On 29 January 2026 the Commission received an official communication from the Tunisian authorities requesting a revision of the Protocol on agriculture of the Association Agreement with Tunisia. However, the Commission does not envisage additional trade concessions for agricultural products originating in Tunisia including olive oil. A recent special report of the European Court of Auditors 1 concludes that the EU framework system for olive oil controls is comprehensive but can be further improved. Following its recommendation, the Commission is engaging experts and national administrations to clarify certain rules and provide guidance on traceability checks of olive oil. The origin of extra virgin and virgin olive oils must be labelled pursuant to Article 8 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/2104 2 . In particular, for such oils it is mandatory to inform consumers if the product comes from one of the Member States or from a third country, or if it is a mix of EU and non-EU oils. The inward processing regime does not affect this mandatory labelling. 1 https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/publications/SR-2026-01. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32022R2104&qid=1769620624009.”
Import of agri-food products in the EU
- 2026-03-23 “Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission 23.3.2026 Written question On 29 January 2026 the Commission received an official communication from the Tunisian authorities requesting a revision of the Protocol on agriculture of the Association Agreement with Tunisia . However, the Commission does not envisage additional trade concessions for agricultural products originating in Tunisia including olive oil . The Commission recognises the importance of a high level of protection of human health and the environment in the Vision for Agriculture and Food [1] . Food imported from third countries and food produced in the EU must comply with very strict sanitary requirements. The Commission committed to a stronger alignment of production standards applied to imported products and a strengthening of import controls [2] . The Commission launched an impact assessment with a view to strengthening alignment of the EU’s production standards on most hazardous pesticides with requirements applicable to imported products [3] . Finally, a task force [4] has recently been created to ensure imports meet EU standards, in particular on food and feed safety, pesticide residues and to coordinate monitoring of specific imported products. [1] https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/overview-vision-agriculture-food/vision-agriculture-and-food_en. [2] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_2979. [3] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/mex_25_2809. [4] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_207.”
Import of agri-food products in the EU
- 2026-03-23 “E-000329/2026 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission The provisions of the EU-Mercosur Partnership Agreement (EMPA) will not modify the current situation with regard to the use of the term ‘Feta’ within the territory of the European Union but will only regulate the use of the term ‘Feta’ within the Mercosur countries. There is then no ‘exemption regime’ with regard to the ‘Feta’ within the EU but only a phasing out period of 7 years for the use of the term ‘Feta’ in the territory of Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay (under specific conditions also to avoid any misleading of consumers) after which the term ‘Feta’ will be fully protected.”
Import of agri-food products in the EU · Trade relations with Mercosur
- 2026-03-23 “Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission 23.3.2026 Written question On 29 January 2026 the Commission received an official communication from the Tunisian authorities requesting a revision of the Protocol on agriculture of the Association Agreement with Tunisia. However, the Commission does not envisage additional trade concessions for agricultural products originating in Tunisia including olive oil. The Commission recognises the importance of a high level of protection of human health and the environment in the Vision for Agriculture and Food [1] . Food imported from third countries and food produced in the EU must comply with very strict sanitary requirements. The Commission committed to a stronger alignment of production standards applied to imported products and a strengthening of import controls [2] . The Commission launched an impact assessment [3] with a view to strengthening alignment of the EU's production standards on most hazardous pesticides with requirements applicable to imported products. The origin of extra virgin and virgin olive oils must be labelled pursuant to Article 8 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/2104 [4] . In particular, for such oils it is mandatory to inform consumers if the product comes from one of the Member States or from a third country, or if it is a mix of EU and non-EU oils. The inward processing regime does not affect this mandatory labelling. [1] https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/overview-vision-agriculture-food/vision-agriculture-and-food_en. [2] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_2979. [3] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/mex_25_2809. [4] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32022R2104&qid=1769620624009.”
Import of agri-food products in the EU · EU policy on custom fee on non-EU imports
- 2026-03-19 “E-000436/2026 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission 1. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) investigation referred to by the Honourable Member is still on-going and the EPPO has not taken yet a decision about bringing the case before a competent national criminal court. As mentioned by the EPPO in its press release of 20 May 2025 related to this investigation: ‘All persons concerned are presumed innocent until proven guilty in the competent Greek courts of law’ 1 . 2. EU law requires paying agencies to respect specific accreditation criteria 2 in order to implement the Common Agricultural Policy. Among these criteria, the paying agency needs to respect specific human-resource standards and risk assessment standards, including measures to identify and manage fraud and any other illegal activity affecting the financial interests of the EU. The accreditation of the Greek paying agency is currently under probation and the Commission is specifically addressing the issues related to the compliance with the accreditation criteria under the on-going action plan presented by the Greek authorities. 1 https://www.eppo.europa.eu/en/media/news/greece-eppo-probes-opekepe-officials-over-alleged-organisedagricultural-subsidy-fraud. 2 Annex I of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/127: https://eurlex.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2022/127/oj/eng.”
Accounting and auditing of EU budget · Rule of law and democracy in the EU (political compass)
- 2026-03-19 “E-000440/2026 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission 1. The EU-India Free Trade Agreement (FTA) represents an excellent achievement for the EU agri-food sector. It will remove or reduce often prohibitive tariffs on EU exports of agri-food products, creating huge new market opportunities for the EU, notably as regards table olives and olive oils. India will fully remove duties on table olives either at entry into force or after a transition period of seven years depending on the specific tariff line. Conversely, the EU will eliminate tariffs either at entry into force or over a period of up to five years depending on the specific tariff line. Olives are not a native crop in India and India’s production of olives is very limited. 2. The Commission is not aware of the actions taken by the Greek Government and invites the Honourable Member of Parliament to contact the relevant national authorities.”
Free trade agreements (FTAs) · Export of EU agri-food products
- 2026-03-19 “P-000663/2026 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission The EU-Mercosur Partnership Agreement 1 and the Interim Trade Agreement 2 will provide comprehensive protection of 344 EU geographical indications and will thus significantly improve the position for EU producers. The timely application of the agreements is the best and only insurance policy against abuse of EU geographical indications in Argentina and Mercosur in general. If the EU considers that Argentina failed to comply with obligations under the EU-Mercosur Partnership Agreement and the Interim Trade Agreement regarding protection of EU geographical indications, it will be able to resort to the dispute settlement mechanism established by the Dispute Settlement Chapter of these agreements. The Commission will ensure that the relevant provisions on geographical indications are effectively applied and respected and will not hesitate to take legal action. The Commission is further assessing all the implications of the recently announced US– Argentina agreement for EU trade interests, in constructive cooperation with the Argentinian authorities. 1 https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-12450-2025-INIT/en/pdf. 2 https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-12419-2025-INIT/en/pdf.”
Export of EU agri-food products · Trade relations with Mercosur
- 2026-03-13 “E-000159/2026 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission 1. The Commission’s legislative proposals for a Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2028-2034 promote an integrated approach to the development of rural areas. Moreover, the Commission suggested setting a ‘rural target’ of at least 10% of the resources of each National and Regional Partnership (NRP) Plan on top of amounts earmarked for the Common Agricultural Policy to support rural development, including the provision of social services which benefit women. As announced in the Vision for Agriculture and Food, the Commission will soon launch a platform for Women in Farming to attract more women to the sector. 2. Article 7 of the NRP 1 Plan proposal defines the applicable horizontal principles, such as the principle of non-discrimination and gender equality. Article 56 of the proposal requires the monitoring committee, inter alia, to ensure the application of the principle of gender equality. The proposal for a Budget tracking and Performance Regulation 2 introduces the single expenditure tracking and performance framework to measure the budget’s contribution to gender equality more accurately. This is expected to contribute to fostering gender equality including in farming and in rural areas. 3. The obligation for more targeted support for women under the proposal establishing the conditions for the implementation of the Union support to the Common Agriculture Policy for the period from 2028 to 2034 3 , set out in Article 6, together with the provisions on farm relief services in Article 17, and complemented by the NRP Plan proposal, provide a strong framework for advancing gender equality including in farming and rural areas and steering Member States in taking tailored actions. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52025PC0565&qid=1770404542141. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:bb24b1ec-62fc-11f0-bf4e01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_4&format=PDF. 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52025PC0560.”
Gender roles, equality and inclusion · Agricultural funding
- 2026-03-12 “E-000306/2026 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission 1. One of the key principles of LEADER 1 approach is the local partnerships where the local action groups design the strategies and implement the operations. The responsibility for project selection and its assessment lies with the Member State and in particular with the LEADER local action group in the area, in line with their local development strategy, and the priorities defined by the local communities therein. The project selection criteria are defined in the strategy and contain not only economic but also social and environmental criteria. The Managing Authority (regional or national) may also set the eligibility conditions. The bottomup approach and local decision-making are a defining characteristic of LEADER and contributes to its success. The Commission is not involved in the project selection. 2. LEADER is implemented under shared management. The Commission does not evaluate each individual project before selection or assess its impact after the completion and does not collect such information on individual projects. Evaluations are done at the level of local development strategies and programmes. The Commission evaluates the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) instruments including LEADER, at the EU level. 3. LEADER can finance a broad range of actions for local development in line with the strategies developed by local communities in a participative manner. Projects of local recreational value are not excluded from eligibility at the EU level. Typically, LEADER provides a grant for investment but does not continue subsiding the operations, not least due to its limited budgets. 1 https://eu-cap-network.ec.europa.eu/networking/leader_en.”
Cohesion and rural funding
- 2026-03-12 “E-000286/2026 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission The Commission notes that the EU beef market has experienced changes in production and trade dynamics in recent years. The latest data available 1 show that cattle numbers and beef production have declined compared to previous years, while exports decreased and imports increased. The self-sufficiency rate remains strong, and the trade balance positive both in volume and value. Firm internal demand has resulted in favourable conditions for producers, with prices reaching historically high levels and margins improving. In its Vision for Agriculture and Food 2 , the Commission recognises the vital role of livestock in EU agriculture, competitiveness and cohesion. To address identified challenges, the Commission will adopt a Livestock Strategy by June 2026 to guide and establish a long-term framework for an EU livestock sector that is resilient to crises, globally competitive, and sustainable across economic, social, and environmental dimensions, in full respect of Europe's territorial diversity. As part of its proposals for the future CAP post-2027, the Commission proposed to significantly increase coupled income support from current 13% + 2% to 20% + 5%, in order to give Member States an opportunity to support sectors such as livestock, depending on their needs. Regarding generational renewal, the Commission notes that Member States are required to allocate at least EUR 1.14 billion to attract and support young farmers in 2026, including young cattle breeders. This will be achieved through various forms of aid, such as area support, investment aid, and support for setting up new operations, helping to ensure the future sustainability of the sector. 1 Agri-food data portal : https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DataPortal/beef.html. 2 COM/2025/75 final.”
Animal diseases prevention and management in the EU · Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
- 2026-03-11 “E-000022/2026 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission Coupled income support addresses structural difficulties that certain targeted sectors face; it does not address income losses due to severe meteorological events. Nevertheless, force majeure events may exempt a producer from certain legal consequences that would otherwise occur in an instance of non-compliance with coupled income support rules. For example, in accordance with Articles 59, 84 and 88 of Regulation (EU) 2021/2116 1 , no penalties are to be imposed and the beneficiary is to retain the right to receive common agricultural policy support where the non-compliance is due to force majeure or exceptional circumstances in accordance with Article 3 of the same Regulation. This is relevant in cases such as a severe natural disaster or severe meteorological event gravely affecting the holding. Whereas the application of force majeure is the responsibility of Member States, Member States should take the decision to apply force majeure based on relevant evidence and in light of Union agricultural law. Force majeure is an exception to the general rule of strict respect of obligations. Normally applied on a case-by-case basis, in cases of severe meteorological events that gravely affect a well-determined area, Member States may consider that a whole area is concerned, where it is clear that the farmers in the area are affected by an abnormal event whose consequences could not be prevented with all due care. Member States need, however, to determine the area at stake and the population affected by the event, in a manner that reasonably allows the presumption that the conditions of force majeure are individually met by the farmers concerned 2 . 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/2116/oj/eng. 2 Communication from the Commission to the Council on force majeure and exceptional circumstances in Regulation (EU) 2021/2116 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy, COM(2024) 225 final - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52024DC0225.”
Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
- 2026-03-11 “E-000233/2026 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission Under the national Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Strategic Plans, beekeepers can benefit from specific apiculture support with an annual EU budget of EUR 60 million, which is at least doubled with national co-financing to support measures aimed at strengthening the sector in response to challenges including climate change. These include training and advisory services to adopt climate resilient practices, investments and actions to prevent damage caused by adverse weather and to adapt to climate change, restocking of beehives and bee breeding as well as cooperation for research. Under the Cypriot CAP Strategic Plan 2023-2027 1 , over EUR 1.69 million (public expenditure) have been earmarked to support beekeepers through targeted interventions for apiculture. In addition, rural development interventions in the plan can also support farmers, including beekeepers, for investments to mitigate the impact of events or restore productive potential from natural disasters. To enhance transparency and address honey adulteration, the Commission has strengthened official controls through coordinated actions, reinforced import requirements (including authenticity attestations 2 and listing of authorised establishments 3 ), and enhanced traceability rules. Following the 2024 revision of the Honey Directive 4 , the Commission will adopt – by 14 June 2028 – implementing acts laying down analytical methods to detect honey adulteration, and – by 14 June 2029 – delegated acts on methods and criteria to determine the place where honey has been harvested and Union-wide traceability requirements. All these measures aim to create fair conditions for EU producers. 1 https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/cap-my-country/cap-strategic-plans/cyprus_en. 2 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/36 of 11 January 2022 amending Annex III to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2235 as regards model certificates for the entry into the Union of consignments of certain live aquatic animals and products of animal origin. C/2022/18 OJ L 8, 13.1.2022, p. 36–91 ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2022/36/oj. 3 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2652 of 15 September 2023 amending and correcting Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/2292. OJ L, 2023/2652, 28.11.2023, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2023/2652/oj. 4 Directive (EU) 2024/1438 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 amending Council Directives 2001/110/EC relating to honey, OJ L, 2024/1438, 24.5.202: https://eurlex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1438/oj/eng.”
Import of agri-food products in the EU · Agricultural funding
- 2026-03-10 “P-000188/2026 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission Under the shared management of the Common Agricultural Policy, it is for each Member State to ensure that support is correctly delivered to eligible beneficiaries and linked to the supported activity – in this specific case an agricultural activity. In that context, the Member States must, in accordance with Article 62 of Regulation (EU) 2021/2116 1 , take effective and proportionate measures in reaction to the circumvention of Union law requirements for payments under the CAP by artificially created conditions. The Commission became aware of the content of the Joint Ministerial Decision on the allocation of eligible pasture areas referred to by the Honourable Member after its publication and will examine its impact as part of its usual work on the functioning of the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS). With reference to the way the above-mentioned Joint Ministerial Decision is going to be implemented by Greece, the Commission obtains assurance on the Member States’ compliance with Union law and on whether the Member States management and control systems effectively protect the Union financial interests through the audit work of the national Certification Bodies and its own risk-based audits. In case of non-compliances, the Commission can open a conformity procedure with the aim of determining a financial risk to the Union budget. The Commission is specifically addressing the issues concerning agricultural activity and artificial conditions under its current audit work and under the ongoing action plan presented by the Greek authorities for the IACS. 1 Regulation (EU) 2021/2116 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/2116/oj.”
Agricultural funding · Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
- 2026-03-02 “E-000272/2026 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission The Commission conducts audits on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) expenditure to gain assurance that the management and control system put in place by the Member State effectively protects the EU financial interests and that the expenditure complies with EU rules. Audits verify if the system put in place by the Member State ensures that CAP support is paid only for eligible animals that fulfil all eligibility conditions, including animal identification and registration, where applicable. The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), in its investigative role, is the EU’s independent body responsible for investigating matters related to fraud, corruption, and other offences affecting the EU’s financial interests. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) is the EU independent body responsible for investigating, prosecuting, and bringing to judgment criminal offences affecting the EU’s financial interests. Neither OLAF nor the EPPO have a supervisory or assistance role. Conversely, where Commission services become aware of issues that may fall within the competence of OLAF or the EPPO, the relevant information is transmitted to them without any delay. While the Commission has mechanisms to address non-compliances with the rules, the management of animal disease outbreaks, under the harmonised legal frameworks provided by the Animal Health Law 1 and the Official Controls Regulation 2 , and implementation of agricultural aid controls, remain primarily the responsibility of Member States. 1 Regulation (EU) 2016/429 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on transmissible animal diseases and amending and repealing certain acts in the area of animal health (‘Animal Health Law’) OJ L 84, 31.3.2016, pp. 1–208. 2 Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017 on official controls and other official activities performed to ensure the application of food and feed law, rules on animal health and welfare, plant health and plant protection products, amending Regulations (EC) No 999/2001, (EC) No 396/2005, (EC) No 1069/2009, (EC) No 1107/2009, (EU) No 1151/2012, (EU) No 652/2014, (EU) 2016/429 and (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Regulations (EC) No 1/2005 and (EC) No 1099/2009 and Council Directives 98/58/EC, 1999/74/EC, 2007/43/EC, 2008/119/EC and 2008/120/EC, and repealing Regulations (EC) No 854/2004 and (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Directives 89/608/EEC, 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC, 91/496/EEC, 96/23/EC, 96/93/EC and 97/78/EC and Council Decision 92/438/EEC (Official Controls Regulation) (Text with EEA relevance) OJ L 95, 7.4.2017, pp. 1–142.”
Agricultural funding
- 2026-02-24 “P-000408/2026 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission The PoliRural was a Horizon 2020 funded project implemented between June 2019 and September 2022. It involved 38 beneficiary participants and aimed to support rural policy development. The Club of Ossiach (CoO) participated as beneficiary in accordance with the Horizon 2020 rules. During the grant preparation process, CoO fulfilled all applicable requirements and was subject to the same checks as other consortium members, including the verification of its legal existence and the submission of statutory documents. CoO contributed to several activities, including actions related to envisioning attractive rural areas, capacity building, communication and dissemination, etc. It participated in meetings and complied with reporting obligations. No performance-related issues were identified during project implementation. CoO received a total EU contribution of EUR 121 329,57. Records confirm that CoO’s activities during the project were related to rural development. Subsequent changes in the use of its internet domain in August 2024 are no relevant for the project. The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) conducts investigations where there are sufficient indications of fraud, corruption or other illegal activities affecting the EU’s financial interests. Decisions on opening investigations and on cooperation with national authorities fall within OLAF’s competence. The project was implemented under a Horizon 2020 grant agreement, which defines the rights and obligations of beneficiaries. At present, the Commission has no evidence that the CoO breached the grant agreement or misused EU funds. Consequently, no recovery procedure has been initiated.”
Accounting and auditing of EU budget · EU research funding
- 2026-02-16 “E-004388/2025 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission The Commission closely monitors ethanol imports into the EU, particularly non-fuel imports from Pakistan, for which preferential treatment was removed on 21 June 2025. Products that were on their way to the EU on that date were still eligible to preferential treatment when entering the EU; this was the case for some imports in July and August 2025. It should be noted that imports of non-fuel ethanol from Pakistan can still occur if the Most Favoured Nation duties are paid, which actually happened these last four months based on the preliminary customs data available 1 . According to this data, between July and October 2025 non-fuel imports from Pakistan decreased by around 37% compared to the same period of 2024. Concerning fuel ethanol imports from Pakistan, which are not subject to safeguard measures, they are also currently lower than average. Customs authorities use risk criteria set at EU and national level to establish risk indicators and create risk profiles used to target their customs controls. Classification and origin of goods are among such risk criteria used by customs authorities to target controls on goods which are prone to customs duties circumvention, especially when goods are subject to a change in the rate of customs duties or to other trade measures. On 1 December 2025 the co-legislators reached a political agreement 2 on the new Generalised Scheme of Preferences rules that will apply from 2027 until 2036. The European Parliament and the Council did not alter the provisions in Article 30 as they considered that this instrument can properly address serious market disturbance in the agricultural sector. 1 Source: DG TAXUD Surveillance. 2 https://gsphub.eu/about-gsp/gsp-review.”
EU policy on custom fee on non-EU imports · Import of agri-food products in the EU
- 2026-02-12 “E-004602/2025 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission 1. The Commission recognises the importance of protecting geographical indications (GI), such as the ‘Piadina Romagnola PGI’, within its policy framework for agriculture and trade. Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 1 provides strengthened protection instruments for GIs within the internal market. The term ‘Piadina’, as a single term, is not protected under this Regulation. The competent authority in the Member State where a potentially infringing product is produced or marketed must take the necessary actions to stop unlawful use. The Commission can assist the Piadina Romagnola Consortium and other consortia by providing guidance on applying EU GI Regulations and facilitating cooperation among stakeholders to resolve disputes effectively. It can also explore ways to help consortia raise awareness about the importance of GIs and their role in preserving cultural heritage and promoting economic development. 2. To address the issue of homonymous trade mark registrations in third countries, the Commission engages with international partners to promote the recognition and protection of EU GIs. This includes the full use of existing bilateral trade agreements and multilateral frameworks, such as the Word Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) 2 . This will involve enhanced monitoring, formal consultations, technical exchanges with trading partners in the framework of trade committees, enforcement actions and dispute settlement provisions. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1143/oj/eng. 2 https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/treaties/details/231.”
EU framework for voluntary quality and sustainability terms in food marketing
- 2026-01-27 “E-004298/2025 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission Member States have the obligation to set up an Integrated Administration and Control system (IACS) as set out in Articles 65 and 66 of Regulation (EU) 2021/2116 1 and further detailed in Regulation (EU) 2022/1172 2 and Regulation (EU) 2022/1173 3 . The procedures on data sharing are established in Regulation (EU) 2022/1475 4 . Upon request of Member States, the Commission may provide technical support concerning digitalisation of control procedures and data sharing. Technical assistance to the Common Agricultural Policy Strategic Plan can be used as provided for in Articles 94 and 125 of Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 5 for that purpose. Greece is implementing an accreditation action plan set to be finalised by 12 March 2026 and an IACS action plan has to be finalised by the end of 2026. The Commission monitors on a regular basis the progress of the implementation of both action plans. In case of failure to comply with the proposed actions, including the quarterly reporting, the Commission may adopt implementing acts suspending the monthly or the interim payments as provided in Article 42(2) of Regulation (EU) 2021/2116. However, this should not have an impact on the payments to farmers. The implementation of the action plans does not exclude the possibility of future audits aimed at ensuring that the control systems are functioning effectively and are aligned with the expected standards. 1 Regulation (EU) 2021/2116 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013, http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/2116/oj. 2 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/1172 of 4 May 2022 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2116 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system in the common agricultural policy and the application and calculation of administrative penalties for conditionality, http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2022/1172/oj. 3 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1173 of 31 May 2022 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) 2021/2116 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system in the common agricultural policy, http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2022/1173/oj. 4 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1475 of 6 September 2022 laying down detailed rules for implementation of Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the evaluation of the CAP Strategic Plans and the provision of information for monitoring and evaluation, http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2022/1475/oj. 5 Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021 establishing rules on support for strategic plans to be drawn up by Member States under the common agricultural policy (CAP Strategic Plans) and financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1305/2013 and (EU) No 1307/2013, http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/2115/oj.”
Agricultural funding · Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
- 2026-01-27 “E-004424/2025 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Strategics Plans (CSPs) 1 provide for interventions to address the specificities of the Member States concerned. The Greek CSP 2 was approved based on the identified needs and responds to the specifics of the Greek farmers. Proposals for the future CAP will allow Greece to design tailored measures to support certain sectors through reinforced instruments of coupled income support and incentives. The Commission has made clear that it is not compromising on its EU health and sanitary standards under trade negotiations. Such standards need to be fulfilled by all imported products, regardless of whether they enter the EU market under World Trade Organization (WTO) terms or under the terms of a bilateral agreement. In some cases, higher sustainability standards in third countries are applicable on imported products either through specific tariff conditionalities stipulated under trade agreements or via ad-hoc autonomous legislation. The Vision for Agriculture and Food makes a clear commitment to promoting fair competition, in line with international rules. The Commission will work towards raising global production standards in international standard-setting bodies in areas such as plant protection products and animal welfare, and it will intensify its economic diplomacy outreach to promote EU products. The Vision also stipulates that the Union will ensure domestically that ambitious EU standards do not lead to economic, environmental and social leakages, and that the European agri-food sector is not put at a competitive disadvantage without corresponding reciprocity. The work has started on delivering greater alignment in terms of production standards and strengthening EU import controls. 1 https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/cap-my-country/cap-strategic-plans_en. 2 https://www.agrotikianaptixi.gr/category/sskap-2023-2027/sskap-egkrisi-tropopoiiseis/.”
Agriculture (green) · Trade relations with Mercosur
- 2026-01-21 “E-004396/2025 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission A free trade agreement with India would be an important element to strengthen the EU's trade relations with a key partner. The sensitivity of the EU sugar sector has long been recognised. In 2019, the High-Level Group (HLG) on Sugar recommended that sugar continue to be treated as a sensitive product in trade negotiations with major sugar-producing countries, in order to safeguard the competitiveness and resilience of the EU sugar sector. In 2023, the Commission conducted a ‘Trade Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA)’, including a dedicated case study to analyse the impact of a future EU-INDIA Free Trade Agreement (FTA) on employment and respect for labour and environmental standards in agriculture, notably in the sugar sector. Moreover, the Commission updated in 2024 its study presenting the cumulative impact on the EU agricultural markets of a series of FTAs concluded or under negotiation between the EU and nine countries, including India 1 . The study emphasises the sensitivity of some products, such as sugar. EU sugar producers also expressed their serious concerns regarding the possible inclusion of sugar in the ongoing EU-India trade negotiations. Based on the conclusions and recommendations of the HLG on Sugar and the SIA, as well as the study on the cumulative impact, and the concerns raised by the sector, the Commission has given due care to the sensitivity of the sugar sector in line with its commitment to address the specific sensitivities of the EU sugar sector in all its FTA negotiations. 1 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_1001.”
Import of agri-food products in the EU · Free trade agreements (FTAs)
- 2026-01-19 “E-004290/2025 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission The Commission has not been made aware of specific issues related to the Evros silkworm farmers. The Commission monitors the payments made under the Common Agricultural Policy Strategic Plan (CSP) 1 . Amongst others, the CSP provides for coupled income support (CIS) for silkworms of EUR 321 195.00 per claim year. For claim years 2023 and 2024, the amounts of EUR 169 367.00 2 and EUR 161 862.50 3 were paid respectively as CIS for silkworm farmers. It is the responsibility of the Member States to ensure that payments are disbursed to the beneficiaries in full and within the payment deadlines as laid down by Union law 4 . Payments outside the deadlines lead to proportionate reductions from EU reimbursement to the Member States of up to 100%. The Commission does not have the competence to activate exceptional support measures or controls in areas affected by mismanagement or delays in payments. 1 https://www.agrotikianaptixi.gr/egkrisi-2is-tropopoiisis-ss-kap/. 2 https://www.agrotikianaptixi.gr/4i-synedriasi-epitropis-parakolouthisis-ss-kap-10-dekemvriou-2024-kavala/. 3 https://www.agrotikianaptixi.gr/6i-synedriasi-epitropis-parakolouthisis-ss-kap-11-noemvriou-2025alexandroupoli/. 4 Article 38, Article 44 and Article 59 of Regulation (EU) 2021/2116 - http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/2116/oj.”
Agricultural funding · Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
- 2026-01-19 “E-004343/2025 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission Exceptional support under Article 219 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 1 may be granted, at the request of the Member State concerned, to address market disturbances. No request to activate such provisions to support olive producers was submitted, to date, by the national authorities. The Commission stands ready to provide technical and administrative support upon request of the Member State. Specific support can be provided under Greece’s Strategic Plan 2023-2027 2 , amongst others for investments in irrigation and investments aiming at the restoration of agricultural potential following catastrophic events. It is up to the Managing Authority to allocate funding to such interventions. 1 Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/1308/2024-11-08). 2 https://www.agrotikianaptixi.gr/category/sskap-2023-2027/sskap-egkrisi-tropopoiiseis/.”
EU policy on water management · Agricultural funding
- 2026-01-19 “E-004262/2025 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission The sales descriptions to be used for drinking milk are set out in Annex VII, Part IV, point III of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 1 . Food business operators can inform consumers on the use of , e.g., a ‘low and slow’ manufacturing process and its impact on the product under the condition that this information is not misleading, ambiguous or confusing for the consumer as to the characteristics of the food – in particular as to its nature, properties, composition or method of manufacture - and, where relevant, based on relevant scientific data (Articles 7 and 36 of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 2 ). In this respect, if milk producers intend to use a ‘low and slow’ milk label, they should specify on the label that ‘low and slow’ refer respectively to the lower pasteurisation temperature and the longer duration of pasteurisation, to avoid that the terms are misunderstood as referring to ‘low fat’ or another nutritional claim or as referring to specific environmental or sustainable characteristics. The EU promotion policy 3 offers possibilities for EU producers to promote their products in the Union and around the world. 1 Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2011/1169/oj/eng. 3 Regulation (EU) No 1144/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on information provision and promotion measures concerning agricultural products implemented in the internal market and in third countries and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 3/2008.”
EU framework for voluntary quality and sustainability terms in food marketing · Food labelling harmonisation at EU level
- 2026-01-19 “E-004724/2025 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission In 2018, the European Parliament and the Council agreed to list ‘Sea salt and other salts for food and feed’ in Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2018/848 1 and accordingly, since 1 January 2022 these products may be produced and labelled as organic under the conditions set out in that Regulation. Certain operators that are certified under Regulation (EU) 2018/848 have made the choice to produce and place on the EU market salts produced in accordance with Article 21(2) of that Regulation. In addition, certain Member States have established detailed national production rules covering the production of organic salts in accordance with the same provision. The Commission has adopted its proposal for a targeted amendment of Regulation (EU) 2018/848 and has not proposed the removal of ‘Sea salt and other salts for food and feed’ from Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2018/848 2 . Point 2.2.2(f)(i) of Part IV of Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2018/848 3 related to the production of organic processed food allows for the use of iodine in organic salts provided that its use in food for normal consumption is ‘directly legally required’, in the meaning of being directly required by provisions of Union law or provisions of national law compatible with Union law, with the consequence that the food cannot be placed at all on the market as food for normal consumption if those minerals, vitamins, amino acids or micronutrients are not added. 1 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/848/oj. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2025%3A780%3AFIN&qid=1765969819531. 3 Point 2.2.2 In the processing of food, the following products and substances may be used:[…] (f) minerals (trace elements included), vitamins, amino acids and micronutrients, provided that: (i) their use in food for normal consumption is ‘directly legally required’, in the meaning of being directly required by provisions of Union law or provisions of national law compatible with Union law, with the consequence that the food cannot be placed at all on the market as food for normal consumption if those minerals, vitamins, amino acids or micronutrients are not added.”
Food labelling harmonisation at EU level · EU policy on novel foods
- 2026-01-19 “E-004422/2025 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), through its CAP Strategic Plans (CSPs) 1 provides for several tools to support farmers. The tools include direct payments to support income. To take preventive action and to build resilience, the Greek CSP 2 supports investments in farm modernisation and in the restoration of production potential, risk management tools, and sectoral interventions. In response to severe weather events, a new measure was introduced in the Rural Development Programmes to help farmers recover from damages. Greece has made use of this possibility (Measure 23) 3 . The Greek CSP allocates EUR 175 million per year to complementary redistributive income support for sustainability targeted at small and medium-sized farmers 4 . To strengthen farmers’ position in the value chain, the Greek CSP supports cooperation, innovation and training. The Greek CSP is based on the identified needs and responds to the specificities of Greek agriculture. At the request of Greece, funds may be reallocated or new interventions may be introduced subject to the Commission’s approval. The CAP allows a high degree of flexibility for use by Member States of different instruments to meet the needs of the diverse agriculture in the EU. Beyond the income support and rural development measures a specific scheme supports the agricultural sector in the Smaller Aegean Islands. 1 https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/cap-my-country/cap-strategic-plans_en. 2 https://www.agrotikianaptixi.gr/category/sskap-2023-2027/sskap-egkrisi-tropopoiiseis/. 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/3242/oj/eng. 4 EUR 181 626 236,70 were paid for claim year 2023, EUR 170 million (provisional amount) were paid for claim year 2024 https://www.agrotikianaptixi.gr/9i-grapti-diadikasia-epitropis-parakolouthisis-ss-kap/.”
Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1) · Agricultural funding
- 2026-01-19 “E-004411/2025 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission As the Commission noted in its reply to written question E-001489/2025 1 , it is the responsibility of the Member States to ensure that payments are disbursed to the beneficiaries in full and within the payment deadlines as laid down by Union law 2 . Member States must ensure that the area and animal-based payments are made between 1 December and 30 June of the calendar year following the applications, after sufficient checks have been carried out by the national authorities. Payments outside the deadlines lead to proportionate reductions from EU contribution to Member States’ outlays of up to 100% 3 . This constitutes an incentive for Member States to pay farmers on time. The Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development is closely monitoring the execution of payments and is in contacts with the Greek authorities on a regular basis including during the monitoring committees 4 . The Commission does not give support, or advance payments to cover delays caused by administrative failures. Greece has benefited in the past from EU funding under the agricultural reserve to cover losses linked to natural disasters. In December 2023, the Commission allocated EUR 43 million emergency financial support for the agricultural sectors most impacted by wildfires and floodings, which affected Greece during August and September 2023 5 . Greece paid this amount to the beneficiaries almost in full by end May 2024. Moreover, under its Rural Development Programme, Greece is currently implementing measure 23 ‘Additional assistance to Member States affected by natural disasters’, for which EUR 142.8 million of Union financing was allocated. 1 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/-ASW_EN.html. 2 Articles 38, 44 and 59 of Regulation (EU) 2021/2116 — http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/2116/oj. 3 Article 5(2) of Regulation (EU) 2022/127 — http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2022/127/oj. 4 https://www.agrotikianaptixi.gr/category/epitropi-parakolouthisis-sskap-2023-2027/synedriaseis-epitropiparakolouthisis-sskap-2023-2027/. 5 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2023/2820/oj.”
Agricultural funding · Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
- 2026-01-15 “P-004414/2025 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission Member States have to develop integrated National and Regional Partnership Plans (NRPP) to address their specific challenges while achieving the Fund’s objectives. This includes fostering the attractiveness of territories to support the right to stay, encompassing supporting strategies for the integrated development of urban and rural areas, generational renewal in farming, territorial services and infrastructure, and the creation of economic activities. The Common Agricultural Policy proposal contains instruments that contribute to maintaining the economic, demographic and territorial cohesion of rural areas. including in less favoured areas. In addition, the Commission President has sent a letter to the Parliament and Presidency of the Council suggesting a 10% rural target, to ensure continuity of investments in rural areas and to keep them viable and attractive. Furthermore, the formula in Annex 1 to the NRPP proposal, used to calculate national envelopes, factors in the ‘population at risk of poverty or social exclusion living in rural areas’, which is an important proxy to the elements referred to in the Honourable Member’s question. The partnership principle is central to the NRPPs. Additionally, the aforementioned letter provides for stronger provisions to ensure the meaningful involvement of regions throughout the design, implementation and evaluation phases, including an explicit right for them to directly exchange with the Commission when managing regional or territorial chapters. A ‘regional check’ would also require Member States to demonstrate how these authorities were involved, how representativeness was ensured, and how their contributions shaped the Plans, in line with the code of conduct on partnership.”
Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1) · Agricultural funding
- 2026-01-14 “E-004387/2025 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission The reviewed EU-Ukraine Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA) is a balanced agreement. It allows the EU to continue supporting Ukraine in terms of trade opportunities while at the same time also addressing the sensitivities of EU farmers and stakeholders. The concessions given to Ukraine in this review are limited and, in many cases, far below the peaks of imports seen during the application of the autonomous trade measures in force between June 2022 and June 2025. Moreover, the Commission obtained further partial or full liberalisation of EU exports to Ukraine in several sectors of interest for European farmers, including products such as dairy or kiełbasas, so crucial for Poland. The reviewed DCFTA introduces a strong safeguard which can be activated in case imports as a result of the additional concessions would cause serious difficulties, either in the EU as a whole or on the market of one or several Member States. In addition, to address the concerns of EU producers and in line with Ukraine's EU accession process, Ukraine’s additional market access is contingent on its gradual alignment by the end of 2028 of its domestic legislation to important EU production standards in areas such as official controls, animal welfare, veterinary medicines, feed additives, and plant protection products.”
Agricultural trade: Ukraine imports · Import of agri-food products in the EU