During the discussions, several ministers emphasized that agriculture is essential for food security and rural development. According to them, it would be wrong if finance ministers or heads of government decided on the redistribution or cuts to the agricultural budget. However, in practice, Budget Commissioner Piotr Serafin and Commission President Ursula von der Leyen are the ones primarily handling this.
Agriculture Commissioner Christoph Hansen did not go into details of the deliberations afterwards but pointed out that the new European agricultural policy (from 2027) must take into account a possible new trade agreement or EU membership of Ukraine.
The discussion is taking place ahead of the proposal the European Commission will present on July 16 for the new multiannual financial framework. There is unrest because rumors are circulating that money from the agricultural fund might be shifted to other priorities, such as Defense or digitalization. Various current funds and budgets would be merged, and each country would receive a single money stream over which it could decide itself.
In that case, the second pillar of the European common agricultural policy (for rural development) risks being included in that single subsidy stream per country. That represents about a quarter of the current funding flow for EU agriculture.
Recently, former Commissioner Draghi advocated in a report on the European economy for more support for businesses, and President Ursula von der Leyen has called for much greater European Defense cooperation.
Against that background, the farmers’ lobby Copa-Cogeca has started a large-scale petition. The organization warns of ‘dangerous’ Commission proposals that would affect the structure and amount of agri-subsidies.
In Luxembourg, the ministers also reached an agreement on new rules for forest management. That proposal was originally meant to strengthen sustainable forest use and nature conservation but was significantly watered down at the request of multiple countries.
According to the European Commission, the end result is now so diluted that it is considering scrapping the entire regulation. The original environmental objectives and control mechanisms have largely been removed, which could lead to serious ecological damage.
The agriculture ministers defended their amendments as ‘necessary simplifications.’ They believe forestry practices must remain manageable and affordable for landowners. Administrative burdens, in particular, were experienced as troublesome.