(CSV/EPP) has inherited a key and coveted portfolio in the European executive: agriculture and food. It is a portfolio that traditionally cannot be held by a major agricultural country. The centre-right EPP made it very clear at the end of the last European elections that there was no question of the post of agriculture commissioner going to another party. Last winter's agricultural crisis had put agriculture, food and food sovereignty back at the top of the political agenda.

So there was no question of the EPP leaving this portfolio to other parties, and specifically to the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), as was the case from 2019 to 2024 when the portfolio was entrusted to Janusz Wojciechowski from Poland. In exchange, the ECR group won the chairmanship of the European Parliament's agriculture committee. With the political support of the EPP, the agriculture commissioner should carry more weight within the European Commission. But not to the extent of an executive vice presidency.

This was one of the requests made by the main farmers' unions, which emerged stronger from last winter's crisis. The unions were invited in January by European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen to contribute to a "strategic dialogue on the future of agriculture in the European Union". Some thirty organisations were chosen by the commission to represent all the players in the agri-food value chain, from farming organisations to environmental associations, distributors and producers of plant protection products. This strategic dialogue marked the disappearance from the commission's agenda of the framework law for sustainable food systems, in other words the "farm to table" strategy, the agricultural version of the EU's Green Deal.

After seven months of work, the participants agreed on the development of the Common Agricultural Policy, which they would like to see implemented in the next two versions of the policy, due to come into force in 2028 and 2036.

End of direct payments and cross-compliance

What are their proposals? A plea for an in-depth reform of the CAP, with two key recommendations.

First recommendation: better targeting of basic income support for farmers. This aid is the most costly CAP measure and is criticised for not being linked to farmers' socio-economic needs. How can this be done? By moving away from the current model of non-degressive area payments, also known as the "current system of direct payments", to favour small farms, mixed farms and young farmers.

The second proposal is to review the architecture of the CAP's environmental component, abandoning the current system based on compliance with "good agricultural and environmental conditions" (GAEC) - examples include set-aside and a ban on ploughing in certain areas - in favour of a system of targeted, results-based environmental payments that would encourage the development of environmentally-friendly farming practices by offering farmers a stable and predictable additional income. At the same time, the report calls for a substantial increase in the budget allocated to the environmental strand of the CAP.

Putting farmers back at the centre of the value chain

Alongside these two central recommendations, namely the end of "direct payments" and "cross-compliance" as they are known in EU jargon, the report makes numerous proposals aimed at boosting farmers' incomes and their place in the value chain. These include, for example, ensuring that farmers receive a decent income from the market and are not forced to sell their produce below production costs, or encouraging farmers to join cooperatives or producer associations in order to cut costs, increase efficiency, strengthen their bargaining power and improve market prices.

The report's signatories are calling for farmers to have "a clear overview of all legislation applicable to their farms on the environment, animal welfare and employment", and for them to be provided with advice and training services. They also want an improved system for assessing the sustainability of agricultural sectors and farms, which would encourage the adoption of "appropriate" legislative measures and avoid a proliferation of standards that would complicate the transition to sustainable agriculture on the ground.

To finance environmental measures, the signatories propose creating two new funds, separate from the CAP: a nature restoration fund and a fund for a fair agri-food transition that would help players with limited financial resources to finance transition investments.

Politically exposed position

The participants in the discussion also asked the commission to propose a revision of the animal welfare package by 2026. This is a subject that does not fall within Hansen’s remit, but rather that of Olivér Várhelyi, commissioner for animal health and welfare.

The final recommendation is to pursue and institutionalise dialogue between EU institutions, players in the agri-food value chain, civil society organisations and scientists via a "European Agri-Food Council".

Hansen will have to take these proposals on board, as well as the "conclusions on the future of agriculture" adopted by the member states' agriculture ministers on 24 June, in order to define the EU's new agricultural strategy. He will also have to take account of potentially explosive issues such as the future of pesticides and the integration of Ukrainian agriculture--or how to help Kyiv while protecting European farmers from unprecedented competition?

To do this, Hansen will have to deal with the various European commissioners whose remits have an impact on the CAP. He will therefore need good negotiating skills to be able to engage in dialogue with all the commission directorates-general involved, with the member states and with all the stakeholders in the sector.

Read the original French-language version of this report