On 4 September 2024, the chairman of the panel, Peter Strohschneider, presented the final report of the Strategic Dialogue on the Future of EU Agriculture to the President of the European Commission. On just over 100 pages, it addresses the current problems facing farmers and food producers, defines ten guiding political principles and develops a comprehensive set of recommendations. A consensus was reached on a joint and systematic approach to tackling the growing challenges. What was the report about and how was it received? What was unusual about this process?

Old and new challenges, but broad participation in the dialogue
The massive farmers' protests in many EU Member States during the winter of 2023/24 were an expression of the widespread dissatisfaction with national and EU-wide regulations. This was in part about very specific concerns such as the continuation of existing benefits and the removal of eco-regulations and bureaucracy, but also in respect of fears about the future and economic problems. In addition, climate change and the other crises of our time are also putting pressure on the agricultural sector. The Green Deal already stated that the future of agriculture must be more resilient, fairer and more sustainable, but also more competitive. However, in the last legislative period there was only limited success in agreeing on concrete agricultural policy measures.

One criticism levelled during the farmers' protests was that during the course of shaping the agricultural policy, the issue was not being discussed with those affected - the farmers. Hence, it was therefore all the more important that agriculture was represented in this strategy process by its interest organisations Copa, Cogeca, the European Council of Young Farmers and European Coordination Via Campesina, which in turn are in intensive dialogue with their members (including the Austrian Chamber of Agriculture). However, it should be noted that all EU agricultural policy decisions to date have been taken by the EU Council of Agriculture Ministers and that important agricultural issues are always discussed in the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) by the agricultural representatives of the Member States. What was unusual about producing the report, however, was the fact that the 29 invited organisations represent a wide spectrum of society. This also reflects that agricultural policy is to a large extent social policy.

Targeted use of resources, focus on sustainability and competitiveness?
A number of key issues, such as competitiveness, sustainability, innovation, resilience and coverage of the entire value chain, have emerged from the report. Last but not least, instead of area-based support, targeted support for those farmers who need it most is recommended. Direct payments should focus on small and medium-sized farms with comparatively low incomes. The relevant criteria for the needs of farms should be determined by an expert task force. In addition , direct payments are no longer to be linked to environmental standards, as was only recently reinforced by the EU Commission in the last CAP period for better justification.

In contrast, increased promotion of sustainability, risk management and emission reduction is recommended. In this regard it has been specified that agriculture needs customised targets for climate and environmental protection, whereby the achievement of concrete results should be financially rewarded, not the measures themselves. A new fund for the further development of the agricultural and food system (Agrifood Just Transition Fund - AJTF) is to be set up. To support implementation, it was proposed that the dialogue is to be continued in an advisory capacity as the European Board of Agri-Food (EBAF), which was positively received by the President of the EU Commission.

Mixed reactions with a positive mood
MEPs Cristina Guarda (Greens) and Dario Nardella (S&D), members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI), welcome the report. Voices from the consumer protection sector also regard the results of the dialogue overall as positive: Agustín Reyna, Director General of the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC), stressed that ’all views could be freely expressed at the negotiation table, yet in a frank and good faith spirit’. The support for a shift towards a more plant-rich diet and the focus on healthy and sustainable options being the best and easiest purchasing decision, is appreciated.

However, some EU agriculture ministers, including Norbert Totschnig (Austria) and Luis Planas (Spain), were critical right at the start of the talks, arguing that the challenges should have been addressed earlier. Joachim Rukwied, President of the German Farmers' Association, regards the report as a ’confirmation of the Commission's course without a critical review of past mandates.’ Olga Kikou, Director of Advocacy of the European Institute for Animal Law & Policy fears political delaying tactics and warns that animal welfare should not be neglected in the debate. Harald Grethe, Co-Director of Agora Agrar, criticises the proposed CAP direct payments to farms in need of support; instead, subsidies should be linked to general interest services and farms should be included in European emissions trading.

What happens now with the final report?
The report is supposed to support the next EU Commission in the development of future guidelines and inspire the vision for agriculture and food in the first 100 days, also as a contribution to a roadmap for strengthening the market power of farmers. Von der Leyen regards the final report as a success; however, in part she prioritises other issues. Supply chains, reducing bureaucracy and the problem of systematic selling below cost were also addressed at the press conference for example; however, the report does not envisage any further tightening of the existing regulations on unfair purchasing practices.

On 13 September 2024, the EU Commission already increased among other the share of CAP direct payments made in advance from 50% to 70%. Whether the final report can achieve its full intended effect remains to be seen. Experience with the Green Deal and the Farm to Fork strategy shows that there is often agreement on important objectives. However, when it comes to concrete action, consensus is often difficult to achieve, especially when it comes to effective measures to tackle the climate and biodiversity crises. At any rate: without the majority of farmers being convinced that the necessary measures to overcome the crises are in their own interest, it will not be possible to implement sufficient reforms.

Further information
EU Commission: Strategic Dialogue on the Future of EU Agriculture
EU Commission: Statement by the President: Future of EU Agriculture
EU Commission: Mission letter to Christoph Hansen, Commissioner-designate for Agriculture and Food
A&W-Blog: Einkommensunterschiede in der Landwirtschaft (German only)
A&W-Blog: EU-Agrarpolitik - Ausbeutung in der Landwirtschaft (German only)
A&W-Blog: Abbau klimaschädlicher Subventionen: Ein Schlüssel zur Budget-Verbesserung? (German only)
EU-Kommission: The Food for Europe podcast
GLOBAL 2000, AK Wien et al.: 10 Schritte für eine Landwirtschaft der Zukunft (German only)
POLITICO: The plan to save European farming
Agora Agrar: Nachhaltig und produktiv - Die Zukunft der Landnutzung in einer klimaneutralen EU (German only)