Rapporteurs : Joe HEALY

Piroska KÁLLAY

Arnold PUECH d’ALISSAC

Advisors	Amaryllis BLIN (Rapporteur’s Advisor Group I) Atilla KUNSZABO (Rapporteur’s Advisor Group II)
	Kevin KINSELLA (Rapporteur’s Advisor Group III)
Referral	Letter from the Polish Presidency of the Council of the EU 6.9.2024
Legal basis	Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Section responsible	Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment
Adopted in section	29.1.2025
Adopted at plenary session	27.2.2025
Plenary session No	594
Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)	186/0/1

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

The EESC makes the following recommendations:

1.1.

Develop and implement short-term and long-term tools to support farmers’ incomes, to insure against volatility, within the framework of the CAP and beyond;

1.2.

At EU level, work on the public-private partnership assurances model, complementing CAP tools and meeting the needs of all farmers, taking into account the size and specialisation of farms;

1.3.

Examine the possibility and benefits of, and barriers to, developing innovative levers such as a parametric insurance and income stabilisation instrument and review the regulations defining the calculation of the Olympic average in order to eliminate the two worst years of the last five;

1.4.

Include counter-cyclical elements in the CAP instruments after 2027 to react to the significant pressure that the agricultural sector is experiencing from the markets, often through low or strongly fluctuating prices;

1.5.

Improve and promote at Member State level the utilisation of the 3 % from direct payments which can be used as contributions for farmers to the risk management instrument. It should improve agricultural mutual funds for health and environmental risks initiatives;

1.6.

At EU level, recast and increase significatively the agricultural crisis reserve, as a coherent European crisis management tool;

1.7.

Support farmers’ investment capacity with simple, adapted and non-bureaucratic financial instruments, in connection with financial products offered by banks but also others (grants, investment funds, call of expression of interest, call for projects, etc.);

1.8.

Consider extending the Directive on Unfair Trade Practices (UTP) to ban below-cost selling by prohibiting purchasers from buying at below costs, in line with the food chain laws in Spain, after carefully studying the effects of this prohibition on all food chain operators;

1.9.

Introduce an EU digital centre to report market prices, costs and margins across the entire food chain;

1.10.

Provide a new EU policy to enable farmers to collectively negotiate prices;

1.11.

Increase the support for cooperatives as well as establishment and operational costs for producer organisations;

1.12.

Protect, enhance and better target direct payments at active farmers in the next CAP;

1.13.

Recalls that primary producers need additional help in the transition to climate-neutral production either through the CAP or other budgets, for example, from a sustainability contribution for the transition;

1.14.

Restore the CAP budget to a level of 0,5 % of EU GDP in the next multiannual financial framework (MFF) to meet the requirements of EU society and maintain key ambitions such as EU food security and sovereignty, reasonable and viable farm incomes, climate change targets, biodiversity and other public services not paid for by the market;

1.15.

Ensure that carbon-efficient food production systems and countries are encouraged and supported to continue producing food in order to minimise emissions and to avoid carbon leakage;

1.16.

Ensure equivalence of standards in food production in all trade deals;

1.17.

Simplify CAP subsidy rules and reduce administrative burden on farmers, in particular as regards applications for various permits;

1.18.

Promote sector-specific participatory governance, including through the establishment of a European Food Policy Council and strengthened social dialogue in the agri-food sector;

1.19.

Enable a green and fair transition of European farming by incentivising more sustainable production practices, including access to seasonal labour (1) and affordable green energy, without causing competitive disadvantage;

1.20.

Protect farmers from exposure to competitive disadvantages caused by international trade deals with third countries that create unbalanced conditions.

1.21.

High-quality agricultural research and investments in education can help to address the challenges facing the agricultural sector and enhance its competitiveness. Therefore, it is essential to significantly increase funding for agricultural research in the EU’s research policy budget.

1.22.

It is important to maintain vibrant agricultural production across Europe, including in its less favourable areas. This is a vital part of European security of supply and must remain one of the fundamental principles of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy.

1.23.

Vibrant, prosperous, accessible, and resilient rural areas in the EU are essential from the perspective of successful agriculture. Therefore, it is important that rural development remains a strong objective in the Common Agricultural Policy and that sufficient funding is allocated to rural development.

2.   Introduction

2.1.

This exploratory opinion, requested by the Polish presidency, complements previous opinions, in particular the opinion on Fostering sustainable and resilient food systems at times of growing crises drawn up at the request of the Hungarian presidency.

2.2.

The Polish presidency plans to provide a number of tools and keys to support farmers in times of crisis, to secure their income and improve their bargaining power and the implementation of the EU’s legislative framework. The Presidency emphasises the need to strengthen the existing crisis management measures for tackling the effects of increasing crisis situations such as extreme weather conditions, geopolitical instability and international market tensions. Focus is also needed on the common agricultural policy, assessing how effective it is in terms of budget, income support tools and Green Deal requirements, in the light of new challenges and crises.

2.3.

Practical examples from different countries have been cited and examined to highlight how the EU could adopt and implement existing and new policy initiatives across a range of areas which would help to support farm incomes and improve farmers’ bargaining power in the food chain. The EESC is proposing that the European Commission examine how these proposals could be adopted and implemented across the single market.

3.   Tools to support farmers in times of crisis

3.1.

Everyone agrees on the need to maintain and secure the income of European producers, in a context where agricultural production is intrinsically uncertain. Yield, product quality and prices can be affected by several factors: climate change, which is reflected in an increase in extreme events, making agricultural yields more volatile; environmental and health considerations; agricultural market trends; trade tensions and geopolitical events.

3.2.

In this context, the EESC recommends developing and implementing tools to support farmers’ incomes and to insure them against volatility, in the face of growing, more frequent and more serious risks. While most tools are intended to cover climate risks, the EESC considers it important to highlight and create instruments covering market risks, whose impact can be just as great. While certain models are designed to meet short-term challenges by providing a rapid response to shocks, others are designed to meet long-term challenges and aim to reinforce farmers’ resilience capacity. For the EESC it is crucial to ensure consistency between these two complementary dimensions at European level.

3.3.

The EESC points out that these income support schemes also have a role to play in supporting European producers to develop their farming practices in line with new market, social environmental and climate challenges, and recall the importance of combining economic and environmental performance. The EESC considers it vital for the risks not to be borne solely by the producer but to be spread throughout the food chain.

Insurance schemes designed for coverage against climatic and environmental disaster

3.4.

Worldwide, the use of the agriculture private insurance system is unevenly spread across countries. Of the $ 30 billion global market, North America accounts for $ 10 billion, China for $ 10 billion and India for $ 5 billion. In Europe, the insurance market is smaller, with $ 0,7 billion for Spain and $ 0,6 billion for France and Italy. In most of these countries, premiums are heavily subsidised by governments, in line with the sharp rise in risks over the past 15 years (2).

3.5.

At European level, in terms of agricultural risk management, each model is unique and adapted to specific national situations. The EESC underlines the effectiveness of the Spanish system, created in the late 1970s, which to this day constitutes their main agricultural public policy tool and which, moreover, strongly inspired the reform of crop insurance in France in 2022.

3.6.

The Spanish system is transversal and adapts to a wide variety of areas and climates, making it competitive and efficient. It is based on a public-private partnership, in the form of a hybrid arrangement: risks are transferred to private insurance companies, farmers pay part of the premiums, and the state covers the rest of the costs (3).

3.7.

There is, however, one obstacle to the successful adoption of insurance systems: the need to change the method used to determine historical yield references. The accumulation of climatic hazards drags average yields down and thus establishes low reference values. The regulation defining the Olympic and triennial average (4) is supranational and depends on the EU but also on the WTO (5). Consequently, the EESC recommends that a WTO consultation on the subject be launched as soon as possible, with a view to proposing a new calculation of the three-year average yield, eliminating the two worst years and keeping the other three based on the last five years.

Insurance schemes designed for coverage against market tensions

3.8.

To overcome the limitations of conventional insurance and protect farmers against market volatility in the short-term, the EESC highlights the advantages of parametric insurance. Based on an index (rainfall, protein rate, etc.), when a threshold is exceeded on the index scale, compensation is triggered automatically. It offers speed, transparency and fairer prices due to more refined risk modelling, but it remains complex, requires ten years of data history and is often costly. The EESC calls for it to be developed for farmers and adapted to them.

3.9.

In 2014, the US Farm Bill put an end to decoupled aid, turning instead towards counter-cyclical aid (6). This system combines crop insurance aid by the federal government (85 % of main crop areas are insured), and counter-cyclical aid based on an Olympic average. If the projected market price at the time of sowing is low, insurance will not effectively protect farm income at harvest time, whereas counter-cyclical aid can guarantee a price, sales and even a margin over the long term. Between 2019 and 2023 in the US, crisis aid has mobilised a budget of EUR 77 billion (7).

3.10.

The EESC reiterates the importance of strong, resilient and sustainable food production in Europe, able to face future crises, which would be impossible to achieve by outsourcing its production. The EESC considers that this preparation for the future cannot be achieved with a market-based approach alone. The EESC believe the move towards a counter-cyclical approach can support Europe’s strategic autonomy. It goes hand in hand with building up strategic reserves, which are essential (1) to cover the basic food needs of the European population, (2) to secure industrial supplies through a high level of production, and (3) to support neighbouring countries in the event of an economic/geopolitical crisis (e.g. Ukraine). For these reasons, the EESC suggests that the Commission consider including counter-cyclical elements in the CAP instruments after 2027 to react to the significant pressure that the agricultural sector is experiencing from the markets, often through low or strongly fluctuating prices.

3.11.

Finally, the EESC supports the establishment of a prevention fund as the ‘income stabilisation instrument’ (8), which has been tried out in Italy and France. This mutual fund can compensate for severe income losses due to market hazards (exchange rates, input prices). It complements other schemes and can be funded collectively by farmers, downstream operators, Member State regions and Europe. In Italy (9), it can be financed up to 70 % by public funds (CAP/EAFRD, and/or national funds).

CAP: the need to strengthen risk and crisis management tools

3.12.

The EESC reiterates the importance of ensuring that insurance schemes complement CAP tools and strengthen its crisis management tools. While direct payments provide a first layer of income stabilisation, they are not designed to respond to sudden climate or market crises. The CAP offers some support for climate insurance and income stabilisation instruments, but their implementation has been too modest and uneven across the EU. Between 2014 and 2017, only EUR 380 million was disbursed by the CAP to support risk management tools, i.e. less than 1 % of the CAP budget (10).

3.13.

Article 19 of the CAP stipulates that ‘a Member State may decide that up to 3 % of the direct payments to be made to a farmer shall be devoted to that farmer’s contribution to a risk management tool’, but this possibility is rarely used by Member States. The EESC considers it important to improve and promote the use of this lever by Member States, in order to reinforce the implementation of certain tools, in particular the setting up of mutual funds.

3.14.

On the other hand, the Strategic Dialogue on the Future of EU Agriculture (11) launched in January 2024 recommends reforming the current agricultural reserve to better target exceptional and catastrophic risks. According to Farm Europe, this fund, with an estimated capital of EUR 2 billion, is consistent with the need to develop new, practical ways of managing risk, while maintaining a sufficient level of direct financing. To date, the reformed CAP includes a new financial reserve of at least EUR 450 million per year. For the EESC, the agricultural reserve should be significantly increased, in order to ensure effective price support and crisis management instruments (12).

Mutual funds

3.15.

The EESC reiterates the importance of considering the health hazards that impact agricultural production as a genuine collective risk, rather than an individual risk, with the potential to impact society and the economy. The EESC also stresses the importance of prevention measures, essential to prevent spread and loss of control of an outbreak, which are also much more costly than prevention. The EESC proposes that the EU consider and design the development at Member State level of national agricultural mutual funds for health and environmental risks, along the lines of the Fonds national Agricole de mutualisation du risque sanitaire et environnemental (FMSE) in France. A unique risk management model in Europe, the FMSE has become an essential tool in France for supporting animal and plant health policies. It targets both health and environmental issues, and is financed by farmers, the State and the EU.

3.16.

The FMSE can also intervene within the framework of health programmes of collective interest. Supported and driven by professionals, these programmes can be set up to promote prevention, surveys and pest/disease control. They include a diagnosis of the health context, details of the action envisaged and cost and financing mechanisms. Action can be financed by a contribution from members, with the possibility of funding from the state and/or local authorities.

Financial tools provided by CAP and banks

3.17.

Access to finance is an essential condition for ensuring the agricultural sector’s adaptation to climate change and its resilience, while meeting the challenge of generational renewal on a European scale. The EESC recommends supporting farmers’ investment capacity with simple, non-bureaucratic financial instruments. Firstly, the EESC points out that the shared management Financial Instruments under CAP’s voluntary and flexible tools (EAFRD, ERDF, ESF+) can improve farmers’ access to finance though loans, guarantees and capital, which can offer better conditions than the market (lower interest rate, better collateral, etc.).

3.18.

Regarding financial tools provided by banks, in France, some of them are creating innovative tools to support farmers’ investment capacity, such as the ‘pilot loans’ and ‘zero-interest loans’ offered by Crédit Agricole.

3.19.

Pilot loans provide greater flexibility in terms of financing, as they enable a farmer in difficulty to contractually modulate the amount of his or her bank instalments by up to a maximum of 30 %. Another modality allows loan repayments to be suspended for a maximum of 12 months, via two banking techniques: a deferral of payment after the first year has elapsed, or an increase in the monthly payment with no change to the loan term. On the other hand, zero-interest loans (PTZ) are designed to relieve cash flow problems and facilitate financing, particularly with a view to setting up. For loans of EUR 150 000 or more, EUR 50 000 can be covered by a PTZ.

3.20.

Young farmers still face significant obstacles to obtaining the amount of funding needed to start and sustain an agricultural business. In general, banks are hesitant to loan money to young people entering the field, mostly because there are a lot of risks associated with this type of investment and the returns are often far in the future and not substantial enough to be very attractive.

3.21.

For its part, Crédit Mutuel Alliance Fédérale, has set up an agricultural installation loan, with a subsidised rate of 2 %, reserved for project leaders who are committed to agriculture whose practices, within the framework of the CAP 2023-2027, are recognised as contributing to the agro-environmental transition. It also offers specific subsidies for environmental diagnostics and certifications.

3.22.

The EESC further highlights and shares several recommendations from the Strategic Dialogue on the Future of EU Agriculture (13), which point to the importance of: 1) establishing clear transition indicators and reference criteria, within a coherent and simplified regulatory framework (a banking activity has to take into account the long-term dimension of agriculture and its investments, and this requires the definition of clear, achievable transition trajectories supported by reliable data); 2) strengthening cooperation between public (EIB, EIF, BPI) and private financing players in the EU Member States, 3) considering a new framework that takes better account of the risks associated with transitions; and 4) promoting access to agricultural insurance. To this end, dialogue between the Commission and insurance companies needs to be launched.

4.   Tools for securing farmers’ income and improving their bargaining power

4.1.

New food chain laws in Spain, which extend beyond EU unfair trading practices (UTPs), are a significant improvement in the operation of the food chain. The Spanish law bans below cost selling and requires each link in the food chain to cover production costs. In addition, all transactions over EUR 1 000 must have a written contract and all contracts must be recorded on a digital register. The Food Information and Control Agency (AICA) collects complaints, monitors compliance, and publishes sanctions for infringements. In addition, there is a Chain Observatory, which is responsible for costs and price analysis. Fines for breaches of the legislation are published when all possible legal remedies have been exhausted to avoid reputational damage for alleged unfair practices that are ultimately proven not to have been committed.

4.2.

A key element of Spanish food chain law is the ban on below cost selling. This is achieved by prohibiting the buyer from buying at a loss or below the previous operator’s costs. Establishing the cost of production for different products, varieties, calibres, animal breeds and sectors is challenging and it has not yet been developed by the Spanish regulation.

4.3.

The EESC considers that the Spanish and French models must be deeply analysed to study whether they effectively address the major problems in the food chain and in particular whether they strengthen the farmers’ position and ensure fair prices along the food chain. On the basis of the suggestions of the Strategic Dialogue for the future of EU Agriculture, the EESC invites the Commission to assess the impact of those national regulations of agriculture prices on the position of farmers and other actors in the chain, their competitiveness, as well as on competition along the supply chain and consumers.

4.4.

The EESC is proposing that the Commission study the possible impacts on food chain operators’ competitiveness and legal certainty of extending the UTP Directive to provide for an EU-wide ban on below cost selling (14). This would provide for fairer and viable prices and enable primary producers to recover a reasonable income from the market and cover the additional costs of regulation and higher standards required by the EU, but effects on the entire food supply chain, including consumers, should be deeply assessed. It would be in line with the objective set out in the EU Strategic Dialogue on the Future of EU Agriculture for agriculture to derive its main income from the market and to support sustainable production methods (15).

4.5.

A more holistic approach to sustainable supply chain contracts is the voluntary-based example promoted by Coldiretti in Italy, which adopts a broader intergraded whole systems approach to the value chain from the producer to the consumer. This model promotes transparency and good commercial relationships throughout the chain, which in turn strengthens profitability and guarantees a minimum price for the farmer.

4.6.

Knowing the true costs of production, prices and margins across all elements of the food chain is essential for transparency, the implementation of the UTP and market crisis instruments. The EESC welcomes the Commission’s proposal to set up an observatory on production costs, margins and trading practices in the food chain (16).

4.7.

The EESC proposes that the Commission improve its already existing digital centre for collecting market prices and margins across the entire food chain, in respect of confidentiality and EU competition rules and considering other international examples such as the US Agricultural Marketing Service (17).

4.8.

Strengthening the position of farmers in structures such as producer organisations, cooperatives and interbranches to increase their bargaining power in the food chain is essential to delivering fairer prices and viable incomes for primary producers. Individual farmers are price takers, with limited bargaining power when selling their products to much larger processors or retailers, except for those farmers working through cooperatives or producer organisations.

4.9.

The Egalim law (18) in France is an example which aims to ensure more balanced commercial relations in the agricultural food chain through fairer prices to farmers. It also aims to enhance high-quality, sustainable food. The law also aims to strengthen the position of farmers in trade negotiations by reversing the price construction process, enabling primary producers through their representative bodies to negotiate contracts with buyers based on production costs.

4.10.

The EESC is proposing that the Commission provide for a new policy model which will formally acknowledge and strengthen the farming sector’s bargaining position in the food chain by joining cooperatives, interbranches and producers’ organisations. In addition, the EESC proposes establishing a dispute resolution process (19). The EESC welcomes the Commission proposal to amend the CMO regulation requiring Member States to provide a mediation mechanism for parties to resolve disputes over the conclusion of written contracts but believes a decision-making mechanism is essential. Through price negotiation by cooperatives and producer organisations, the additional costs of high EU environmental, labour and animal welfare standards can be included in price contracts (20).

4.11.

There are 22 000 Agri cooperatives owned by 7 million farmers across the EU (21). Strengthening the position of cooperatives and increasing support for the establishment and operation of producer organisations will also help to improve farmers’ bargaining power in the food chain.

4.12.

The further development of mechanisms around contract pricing, future pricing and hedging can play a positive role in reducing risks and increasing certainty around fair prices and viable incomes for farmers.

4.13.

Other tools that can help increase bargaining power and improve farm incomes include: — incentivised shelf space for local products in supermarkets in order to support short supply chain and local products; — it is proposed that the EU investigate the impact of commercial brands on lowering prices and transferring higher costs on to primary suppliers; — vending machines on farms enabling direct sales; — reduced VAT to favour small-scale and sustainable agri-food products; — public support for healthy and sustainable producer-consumer schemes.

4.14.

Partnerships between cities and rural areas on food sustainability can help increase farmers’ income, such as the initiatives of the local government ICLEI programmes (22). Access, participation and opportunity are the key dimensions. Models based on short food supply chains and bio-districts as well as Community Supported Agriculture should be encouraged and promoted. Strong examples of progress in this area include mandatory sustainable public procurement legislation for food and catering products in Italy and the fair trade approach applied in the City of Ghent.

4.15.

The EESC recalls that primary producers need additional help in the transition to climate-neutral production (23). There are different possibilities for this, for example by asking EU taxpayers to make a fair additional contribution for a valuable environmental service that otherwise would not be delivered, or by introducing a sustainability contribution for the transition which will obviously not be totally financed by the next CAP. In addition, the EESC considers markets should also drive and finance sustainability so that the additional costs are not forced back onto the primary producer as the weakest link in the chain.

4.16.

Food education is essential to enable consumers make healthy and sustainable food consumption choices. Food education programmes should be prioritised in schools, focused on ensuring science based nutrition and food safety education and literacy, as well as shedding light on what is meant by local and seasonal products and how to make responsible purchase decisions. EU- wide trustworthy, comprehensive, science-based comparable and transparent food labelling is also necessary. To emphasise the role of consumers and market needs in supporting European farmers’ products, it is essential to examine consumer preferences, particularly their expectations and requirements for labelling these foodstuffs. This includes identifying the qualities that should be highlighted, effective marketing strategies for such products, and appropriate labelling practices. Identifying consumer segments and country-specific characteristics would also be necessary. This could involve conducting an EU-wide exploratory survey based on a qualitative approach and a consumer questionnaire to identify country-specific needs and consumer segments. Existing best practices for business models based on short food supply chains in the EU should be mapped, along with identifying consumer segments that could potentially be involved in such initiatives (e.g. bio-districts (24), Community Supported Agriculture, and Short Supply Chain Contracts (25)).

4.17.

As per Article 39 of the Treaty of Rome, a key objective of the CAP is to ensure a fair standard of living for farmers. EU farm income is around 40 % lower compared to non-agricultural income (26). Direct payments are the most important instrument in the CAP supporting farm incomes. The EU average share of direct payments in agricultural factor income in 2017-21 was 23 %.

4.18.

The EESC consider CAP direct payments are indispensable in supporting EU farm incomes and must be protected and enhanced in the next CAP reform (27). The EESC consider direct payment should be better targeted at active farmers. The EESC also considers that substantial direct payments are critical to preserving the EU family farm model and the multi-functional role of agriculture in the EU.

4.19.

CAP spending as a percentage of EU expenditure has fallen dramatically from 73 % in 1980 to only 23,6 % in 2022 (28). Between 1990 and 2021-2027 the budgetary cost of the CAP, when set against EU gross national income has decreased from 0,54 % to 0,32 % (29). For the CAP’s current 2021-2027 budget to have the same value as it did when it was set in 2020, it would need to increase to EUR 481bn. By 2034, the end of the next MFF, to maintain its 2020 value it is estimated that it would need to increase by EUR 166bn over the 2021-2027 budget (30).

4.20.

To fulfil its ambitions, and meet its existing and new additional objectives as required by EU society, the EESC is proposing that the CAP budget be reinstated to a level of 0,5 % of EU GDP. A resilient and sustainable EU food system supported by a strong CAP budget is fully justified and delivers major benefits for EU society including; — Protecting EU food security and food sovereignty; — Providing a stable supply of high quality and affordable food; — Maintaining rural areas and rural economies through farming, agri-food jobs and associated sectors like tourism; — Safeguarding family farms to make a reasonable and viable income; — Achieving climate change targets; — Safeguarding bio-diversity; — Restoring nature; — Maintaining landscapes; — Carrying out carbon sequestration; — Ensuring high standards of animal welfare; — Reducing pesticide and fertiliser use; — Maintaining soil health and biodiversity; — Encouraging young people to go into farming and maintaining farmer numbers; — Delivering public services not paid for by the market.

4.21.

The EESC believes that reciprocity on the equivalence of standards and a level playing field in farm production and sustainability standards must be enshrined in all EU trade policy discussions and agreements (31). Trade deals which are unbalanced and fail to meet EU production and sustainability standards such as the Mercosur deal undermine credibility and create carbon leakage and should not be supported.

4.22.

The EESC believes accession of the different countries is only possible if the CAP budget is increased and the challenges facing the agri-food sector, including the lower production costs of some of the newcomers, are addressed (32).

4.23.

The EESC supports the establishment of an Agri Food Just Transition Fund (33), outside of CAP, to provide investment support in the form of loans and grants to farmers and the agri-food sector during the transition. Young farmers can least afford to implement sustainable agriculture and should therefore be the most supported.

5.   Tools to improve the implementation of the EU’s legislative framework (governance, communication and financing)

5.1.

European farmers provide basic public goods for all European citizens by guaranteeing food security: guaranteed long-term food sovereignty and food security should therefore certainly be part of the strategic autonomy of the European Union. Farmers’ interests need to be put back at the centre of policymaking.

5.2.

Particular attention should be paid to further simplifying the rules of the new delivery model for CAP subsidies and to making them more farmer friendly. Different policy debates on different agricultural sectors focusing on their specific needs are essential in this respect: the green transition will not work without farmers and without their buy-in.

5.3.

Farmers need incentives to participate in the green transition and to adopt and adapt to more sustainable production practices. Taking up sustainability standards should enhance European farmers’ competitiveness in the market. A balance needs to be struck between farmers’ income stability, climate mitigation and competitiveness to make implementation smoother for all stakeholders. This approach should be promoted throughout the whole food chain, as the Green Deal was only implemented on the production side. The Green Deal needs to be implemented more evenly within the food chain and the balance that seems to have been upset between competitiveness and sustainability needs to be restored. A clear and transparent legislative framework for sustainable food systems is still needed to address the challenges.

5.4.

Cooperation, professional dialogue and better communication across food systems are essential. Given the urgent need for changes in governance, the EESC has called for the creation of a European Food Policy Council (34) in order to achieve a more integrated and participatory approach to food policymaking. The EESC welcomes the announcement of the Strategic Dialogue of the European Board on Agri-food (EBAF), which is very similar to the EESC’s proposed council. The Commission should note that the EESC, as the house of organised civil society, is prepared to provide a convening space for the EBAF.

Enhancing open social dialogue in the agri-food sector

5.5.

With regard to social conditionality (35) and the ILO policy guidelines (36) on promoting decent work in the agri-food sector, the promotion of a transparent tripartite dialogue involving workers, employers and government representatives is a key starting point.

5.6.

Removing legislative or administrative barriers that may prevent agri-food workers and employers from forming or joining organisations of their choice, and addressing challenges that hinder their participation in social dialogue processes at all levels, are essential to ensure that their collective voice is heard in these processes as no decision can be made about farmers without involving them.

5.7.

The role of the social partners through social dialogue should be more effectively integrated into the CAP, possibly by allocating funds to support their work on these issues. It is also important to ensure that workers are properly informed about their rights. The successful implementation of social conditionality requires the full alignment and commitment of both EU and national social partners to the stated objectives.

---

(1)  Collecting data on the situation of social protection of seasonal workers in the agriculture and food sectors in EU Member States after COVID-19, EESC.

(2)   Ailleurs dans le monde, ça se passe comment? (What is the situation elsewhere in the world?) – Pleinchamp.

(3)   La couverture des risques en agriculture et les assurances agricoles.

(4)  To date, the three-year average is based on the previous five years, excluding the highest and lowest values.

(5)  1994 Marrakesh agreement, second Annex, paragraph 7.a, WTO.

(6)   Les aides contracycliques américaines, plus efficaces que les prix planchers? / Agriculture Stratégies.

(7)   1-Explosion-du-budget-du-farm-bill.pdf.

(8)   ISR.

(9)   L’Italie a mis en place un ISR pour sécuriser le revenu des betteraviers.

(10)   New European agriculture crisis fund.

(11)   Strategic Dialogue on the Future of EU Agriculture.

(12)   OJ C, C/2025/117, 10.1.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/117/oj.

(13)   Strategic Dialogue on the future of EU agriculture – European Commission.

(14)   OJ C 440, 6.12.2018, p. 165 and OJ C 517, 22.12.2021, p. 38.

(15)   Strategic Dialogue on the Future of EU Agriculture.

(16)   OJ C, C/2025/117, 10.1.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/117/oj.

(17)   OJ C, C/2025/117, 10.1.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/117/oj.

(18)  Egalim 3: Balancing the trade relationship between agri-food and large retailers.

(19)   OJ C, C/2025/117, 10.1.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/117/oj.

(20)   Strategic Dialogue on the Future of EU Agriculture.

(21)   Policy Areas Copa Cogeca.

(22)   Equity served: How local governments can ensure a just transition for sustainable food systems.

(23)   OJ C, C/2024/2099, 26.3.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2099/oj.

(24)   Bio-districts or eco-regions, which include the whole organic ecosystem with all stakeholders, have the potential to create more social and economic return in investment for the community and farmers in particular. Good examples for such initiatives include the Cilento and ICLEI case studies in Bergamo (bio-districts supplying schools).

(25)  Numerous initiatives have been launched in Italy. For example an alternative wheat purchasing model: ‘Grani Antichi di Montespertoli’ (Toscana); Calzolari Bakery (Emilia-Romagna) – both are part of Slow Food community and lead to a fair remuneration for farmers.

(26)   CAP at a glance.

(27)   OJ C, C/2024/2099, 26.3.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2099/oj.

(28)   OJ C, C/2024/2099, 26.3.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2099/oj.

(29)   Financing of the CAP: facts and figures.

(30)  Data from FarmEurope.

(31)   OJ C 517, 22.12.2021, p. 38.

(32)   OJ C, C/2024/6021, 23.10.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6021/oj.

(33)   OJ C, C/2024/6878, 28.11.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6878/oj.

(34)   OJ C 293, 18.8.2023, p. 1.

(35)  The core concept of social conditionality is that farmers who do not comply with basic labour standards risk a reduction in their CAP subsidies. Member States have until 1 January 2025 to implement the new conditionality rules.

(36)   Draft policy guidelines for the promotion of decent work direin the agri-food sector (ilo.org).