Confédération Européenne de la Production de Maïs
C.E.P.M
La C.E.P.M réunit les organisations professionnelles et interprofessionnelles dont la mission est, dans leurs pays respectifs, de représenter et défendre les intérêts de tout ou partie des filières maïsicoles: maïs grain, maïs fourrage, maïs semence, maïs doux.
ID: 583664013504-15
Lobbying Activity
Response to Food and Feed Safety Simplification Omnibus
14 Oct 2025
CEPM contribution to the Food & Feed Omnibus Strengthening harmonisation and fair competition in European agriculture The European Confederation of Maize Producers (CEPM), representing 90% of EU maize production, welcomes the Commissions Food & Feed Omnibus as a timely initiative to simplify the EU regulatory framework, reduce administrative burdens, and improve harmonisation across Member States. The Omnibus offers a unique opportunity to address long-standing inconsistencies in EU agricultural implementation and ensure fair competition both within the Union and with external partners. 1. Addressing internal market distortions in PPP authorisation Despite the harmonisation goals of the Plant Protection Products Regulation (PPPR), national divergences persist, creating major competitive distortions. Some active substances approved at EU level are effectively banned in certain Member States, reducing farmers pest-control options. For instance, triallate is authorised in Belgium, Italy, and Spain, but not in France. Moreover, national use conditions, such as Frances mandatory deep burial of insecticidal microgranules, limit product efficacy. Additional national rulesrestrictions on tank mixtures, 20 m buffer zones, or pollinator protection measures even for non-attractive cropsadd complexity without proven benefit. To restore a level playing field, CEPM calls for the Omnibus to: Strengthen harmonisation of authorisations and use conditions across the EU; Ensure additional restrictions are science-based and consistent with EFSA guidance; Promote greater transparency and consistency in zonal assessment and risk management, including EU-level zonal assessments of plant protection products. 2. Ensuring fair competition with external partners In an increasingly unstable global context, bilateral agreements are multiplying, placing EU agriculture under cumulative competitive pressure. This is particularly visible in the Mercosur and Ukraine cases. The EU-Mercosur agreement illustrates severe competitive imbalances. While the EU imports one in four tonnes of maize, this could rise to one in three under current terms, with a projected loss of 600 000 ha of EU maize land by 2032, while Brazil gains 3.8 million. Brazilian maize is produced on vast farmssometimes 500 000 haoften on deforested land, using practices banned in Europe. Over 52% of active substances used in Brazil are banned in the EU, and 95% of maize grown there is genetically modified. A similar situation arises in Ukraine, where 54 active substances prohibited in the EU, including atrazine, remain authorised. While CEPM supports EUUkraine cooperation, trade relations must not undermine fair competition or EU production standards. CEPM therefore considers that the EU-Mercosur agreement can only be supported under strict conditions: - Binding mirror clauses linking trade preferences to non-use of banned substances; - Mirror measures under EU law banning imports treated with highly toxic substances; - Export-dedicated channels ensuring compliance with EU standards, verified as for hormone-free beef; - Inclusion of the Cerrado savannah in the EU Deforestation Regulation; - Revision of maize tariff mechanisms to protect EU production and support green transition efforts. The Food & Feed Omnibus can be a turning point toward a fairer, more consistent and workable regulatory framework. Simplification and harmonisation must go hand in hand with reciprocity in trade, ensuring that European maize producers can compete on equal terms while supporting the EUs sustainability and food-security objectives.
Read full responseMeeting with Pawel Wisniewski (Cabinet of Commissioner Christophe Hansen), Taru Haapaniemi (Cabinet of Commissioner Christophe Hansen)
15 May 2025 · Les priorités clés pour la filière maïs européenne, notamment: (1) Commerce international: Mercosur, Ukraine, politique tarifaire (2) PAC: simplification et future architecture (3) Production et innovation
Meeting with Maroš Šefčovič (Commissioner) and
13 Mar 2025 · Negotiations with Ukraine under Article 29 of the Association Agreement (tariff liberalisation) – Position of European agricultural stakeholders (sugar, poultry, eggs, ethanol, maize, wheat and honey)
Meeting with Christophe Hansen (Commissioner) and
13 Feb 2025 · Review of the EU-Ukraine Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA)
Meeting with Eric Sargiacomo (Member of the European Parliament)
16 Sept 2024 · Agriculture
Meeting with Janusz Wojciechowski (Commissioner) and European farmers and
10 Jan 2024 · Meeting with EU associations representing different sectors and actors presenting a proposal for a mechanism to protect sugar, cereals/oilseeds, poultry meat and eggs farmers/producers from severe market disturbance linked to imports from Ukraine.
Response to Carbon Removal Certification
23 Mar 2023
Veuillez trouver ci-joint la contribution de la Confédération Européenne de la Production de Maïs (CEPM)
Read full responseResponse to Sustainable use of pesticides – revision of the EU rules
16 Sept 2022
Dans le contexte actuel, soumis aux conséquences liées à la pandémie COVID-19 et aux répercussions de la guerre en Ukraine, la CEPM souhaite tout d’abord souligner que le principe de sécurités alimentaire et énergétique est crucial tant pour l’Union Européenne, que pour toutes les autres régions du monde. A ce titre, la CEPM rappelle que l’Union Européenne est fortement importatrice de maïs, avec en moyenne 22% de la consommation européenne de maïs entre 2016 et 2022 contre 6% en moyenne entre 2000 et 2005, ses importations provenant en majorité d’Ukraine (55%) avant le début du conflit avec la Russie. Encore plus que par le passé, il est nécessaire de produire en quantité et en qualité tout assurant la compétitivité des exploitations et des filières agricoles. Il est donc fondamental que les producteurs puissent s’appuyer sur différents leviers dont l’innovation, la sélection variétale mais aussi les produits phytosanitaires.Dans ce contexte, et alors que plusieurs études montrent que la mise en application de Farm to Fork aura des conséquences négatives sur la production agricole européenne, et notamment en maïs, la CEPM demande à ce que les propositions de règlement concernant une utilisation des produits phytopharmaceutiques reposent sur des études et analyses scientifiques étayées, et qu’une étude d’impact complète soit réalisée. La CEPM souhaite rappeler que depuis de nombreuses années, les producteurs se sont engagés dans des démarches visant à limiter les impacts liés à l’utilisation de ces produits grâce à l’amélioration du matériel, la formation des producteurs, l’utilisation d’outils d’aide à la décision… Il est donc primordial que la révision des textes relatifs à la DUD prenne en compte les efforts déjà accomplis par les producteurs dans les futures orientations et trajectoires définies. La disponibilité des substances actives et des produits phytosanitaires a aussi largement évolué retirant du marché les molécules les plus dangereuses, et en les remplaçant par des substances avec un profil plus favorable. Si la CEPM ne remet pas en cause le retrait des molécules ayant un profil toxicologique ou écotoxicologue défavorable, elle reste vigilante à ne pas laisser les producteurs de maïs en impasse technique. Force est de constater que la production de maïs se retrouve actuellement extrêmement démunie dans certains états sans aucun moyen de lutte contre certains ravageurs qui peuvent être à l’origine de dégâts majeurs sur la culture. Il est donc primordial que l’accès aux innovations soit facilité, en particulier sur le levier variétal via les nouvelles techniques de sélection (NBT). La Commission doit donc avancer de manière concrète et au plus vite sur ce dossier afin de faire évoluer la réglementation actuelle vers une législation plus adaptée et cohérente entre la volonté de réduire l’utilisation et l’impact des produits phytosanitaire et la capacité à disposer de solutions alternatives. La CEPM reste opposée à la fixation d’un objectif chiffré de réduction de l’utilisation des produits phytosanitaires, préférant la définition d’une trajectoire de réduction des impacts définis sur une base technique et scientifique partagée. Il est primordial qu’une véritable étude d’impacts soit réalisée, avant toute adoption de cette réglementation, prenant en compte ses bénéfices, coûts et conséquences. Elle devrait d’ailleurs aussi intégrer les impacts des interdictions dans les zones sensibles, qui, en cumulé, peuvent représenter des zones de tailles importantes dans les Etats Membres. Enfin, la CEPM souhaite aussi dénoncer les règles définies pour l’IPM qu’elle juge beaucoup trop stricte et déconnectée des réalités de terrain. L’IPM doit être reconnue comme un outil de gestion des problématiques de protection des cultures, adaptée en fonction de celles-ci et intégrant les disparités à travers l’Union Européenne.Cela ne peut reposer sur des règles strictement édictées qui s’appliquent uniformément dans les Etats Membres.
Read full responseResponse to Protecting biodiversity: nature restoration targets
19 Aug 2022
CEPM wants to thank the European Commission to have the opportunity to express its position on the adopted act on EU Nature Restoration. The following months are going to be very important on this dossier in a context of the Ukrainian crisis and its impacts. The maintain of a threshold of production in Europe sufficient for taking on the challenge of food security and energy production is going more and more pregnant.
European Maize farmers are fully conscious of the necessity to protect nature as it is a precious tool for them to go on production. Since a couple of years, they have been involved in approaches to improving practices aimed at protecting ecosystems, pollinisators or water management. As a C4 crop, maize is a real “carbon pump” which contribute to decrease greenhouse gases.
European Commission proposes a new regulation as a reglement, applied in the same way all over EU. CEPM regrets that new regulation in the field of nature restoration, as the regulatory tools currently applicable in the European Union for farmers are already very substantial. This new regulation must be articulated with all the other regulations impacting farmers.
A flexible framework could let Member States adapt the regulation to each of their concerns would have been much preferable. If results objectives would be discussed, as provided in the draft regulation, they must be set in a realistic and pragmatic way, compatible with farming production, in line with the reality of the Member States and the general objectives of food and feed security.
Concerning the financial support for this regulation, CEPM wants to alert on the fact that CAP should not be considered as the only tool. Indeed, if some measures in the CAP can contribute to restoring nature, other financial tools must also be mobilized in addition to accompany this future regulation that will not concern only agricultural contexts.
Read full responseResponse to Revision of Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Directive
18 Nov 2021
CEPM wishes to transmit its comments on various texts proposed in the “fit for 55” package. In general, CEPM regrets that the contribution of crop based biofuels, including corn bioethanol, is not better supported. CEPM requests that the role of these biofuels be improved, and that it is reflected systematically in the various texts.
Please find attached our comments.
Read full responseResponse to Revision of the Energy Tax Directive
18 Nov 2021
CEPM wishes to transmit its comments on various texts proposed in the “fit for 55” package. In general, CEPM regrets that the contribution of crop based biofuels, including corn bioethanol, is not better supported. CEPM requests that the role of these biofuels be improved, and that it is reflected systematically in the various texts.
Please find attached our comments.
Read full responseResponse to ReFuelEU Aviation - Sustainable Aviation Fuels
18 Nov 2021
CEPM wishes to transmit its comments on various texts proposed in the “fit for 55” package. In general, CEPM regrets that the contribution of crop based biofuels, including corn bioethanol, is not better supported. CEPM requests that the role of these biofuels be improved, and that it is reflected systematically in the various texts.
Please find attached our comments.
Read full responseResponse to Revision of the Renewable Energy Directive (EU) 2018/2001
18 Nov 2021
CEPM wishes to transmit its comments on various texts proposed in the “fit for 55” package. In general, CEPM regrets that the contribution of crop based biofuels, including corn bioethanol, is not better supported. CEPM requests that the role of these biofuels be improved, and that it is reflected systematically in the various texts.
Please find attached our comments.
Read full responseResponse to Detailed implementing rules for the voluntary schemes recognised by the European Commission
27 Jul 2021
Confédération Européenne de la Production de Maïs (C.E.P.M.) contribution :
Article 2(20) : the definition of « fuels » seems that it applies only for transport usage. This definition may be confusing with other definition of « xxx fuels ». We suggest to use « transport fuels » or « fuels for transports ».
Article 19(2)(d)&(g) : the Commission should elaborate a definition of « interconnected grid » which is something relevant for gas transportation and distribution. Biomethane and natural gas grid are different the electricty grid. If electron can be considered and is considered in the RED as part of a global EU physical grid, it’s cannot be the same with biomethane which shall be physically transported from one point to another with physical actions. Biomethane fed in a local low pressure distribution gas grid cannot go to another local grid without a physical interconnection nor in a high pressure transport grid without being compressed at the right pressure. Biomethane should be physically traced through the gas grid.
Article 19(2) (m): the mass balance system must apply at the first collector and not at individual farm level. The start and end dates of the mass balance should be determined by the economic operators in coordination with the voluntary system and allow to begin at least on january, april, july or october, depending on the crops. For example, grain maize is usually cropped between october and november in Europe.
Article 20(2) (a)&(b): The RED should let duly justified alternative emission factors to be used and especially EU member state electricity mix emission factor.
Article20(2) (c): the draft IA refers to the use of the Annex V determining the emission savings from soil carbon accumulation via improved agricultural management (esca) . This proposal makes the soil analysis the only tool to provide solid evidence that the soil carbon has increased. This approach is countrary to the RED2 and even the RED3 proposal tha both allow a modelized esca claim when « it is reasonable to expect that the soil carbon increased over the period in which the raw materials concerned were cultivated ». The RED2 and the RED3 proposal state that the soil analysis can constitute such evidence but is definitely not the only one. The RED2 and the RED3 must keep the possibility to use models such as the GIEC one, as no agricultural emissions data, even the EU GHG actual values or N20 emissions values have big uncertainties. Then, unless soil models can be use on their own, we ask withdrawing this annex from the current draft IA as the Commission should have more time to update the Decision 2010/335/UE.
Article 21(6)(7) & annex VI : there is no need for additional agricultural biomass production criteria beyond the Common Agricultural Policy within the EU. Verification should be made at national or regional or at economic operator level. A level playing field must be guaranteed with third countries operators. We ask withdrawing this annex from the current draft IA.
Article 28: the Commission should establish a transitional period to accommodate the delays in the adoption of the implementing regulation. Retroactive application is not possible and is strictly rejected.
Annex IV: We ask to include annex IX Part A and Part B of the directive (EU) 2018/2001 in the Annex IV.
Annex VIII: the methodology is designed for food/feed crops cultivated as prinicpal crops and is not adapted to measure additional biomass from secondary crops because sequential cropping systems brings much more benefits than just biomass production. The sequential cropping system cannot be compared to the previous one as its goals are not to combine food and other sustainable goals within the bioeconomy sustainable approach. Then, even the consequence of a possible indirect increased land demand should not be taken into account in this case. We ask the deletion of this part of annex VIII.
Read full responseResponse to Revision of the plant and forest reproductive material legislation
9 Jul 2021
The CEPM -European Confederation of Maize Production- unites professional and interprofessional organisations of 9 EU-countries, with the aim to represent and defend the interests of all or part of maize chains in the European Union.
Seeds are a key asset for European maize growers, determining the level and quality of production, and providing solutions for producing more and producing better.
The CEPM agrees with the general objectives of the Commission of facilitating access to innovative and top-quality seeds for European growers. High quality seeds depend on demanding control and certification processes, and the new PRM regulatory framework should be careful not to weaken the existing systems that proved beneficial to every stakeholder.
We have also taken note of the aims of the Commission’s Road Map to enhance the seed supply of organic farming. However, it is to underline that the seed supply for organic corn cultivation is already well structured with a wide and sufficient offer, and no derogation for using untreated conventionnal seeds. Moreover, conventionnal and organic farmers must benefit from the same level of seed quality and innovation and we therefore do not see the point of considering specific approaches for organic farming in the VCU and DUS tests.
Finally, we positively welcome the objective of lifting constraints on the development of certain biomolecular techniques. CEPM fully trusts research and science to address the various challenges that agriculture is facing. However, a regulatory framework specifically dedicated to the New Genomic Techniques seems more relevant in order to address all the potential fields of application.
Read full responseResponse to Revision of the Renewable Energy Directive (EU) 2018/2001
21 Sept 2020
CEPM, Confédération Européenne de la Production de Maïs, supports the contribution of agriculture and corn to the decarbonisation of energy, in particular in fuels for transport and for natural gas. European maize makes it possible to produce sustainable bioethanol and biomethane which help to reduce EU energy dependence, and concomitantly, with the protein-rich DDGS from the production of bioethanol, to reduce the import of protein meal at high risk of deforestation, and to develop the bioeconomy and the rural activity.
In this context, CEPM believes that the European review policy on renewable energy should:
• Ensure regulatory stability while RED2 has not even been truly transposed yet, without moving back on the targets and sub-targets set in RED2, and by maintaining public support for sustainable renewable fuels from food plants.
• Significantly boost the 2030 target for renewable energy in transport beyond 14% level
• Add up the contributions of each renewable energy, including by increasing the use of sustainable energies and biofuels from sustainable maize and European crops, located in Article 26 of RED2..
• Strengthen European industry of bioethanol, particularly that of corn, which today combine food production with non-food uses, the circular loops of carbon and inputs, and carbon sequestration in soils.
• Ensure a real credible energy transition in transport, without artifices that deceive the European citizen, therefore without multiple energy counting for biofuels and electricity in transport, and with a credible energy rate by reporting the consumption of renewable energies of all transport at the numerator to the TOTAL consumption of transport at the denominator and not only to that of road and rail transport.
• There is no need to add new sustainability criteria beyond those already included in Articles 29 to 31 of RED2.
Read full responseMeeting with Catherine Geslain-Laneelle (Cabinet of Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski)
1 Jul 2020 · Equivalence of the inspection and certification system for cereal seeds produced in Ukraine
Response to Recognition of equivalence of Ukrainian provisions on certification of cereal seed
19 May 2020
CEPM (European Confederation of Maize Producers) represents the interests of European maize producers and gathers 8 national associations. It represents all the farmers producing maize on their farm, whether it is grain maize, silage maize, sweet maize or maize seeds. CEPM is accredited to the European Union and participates in 5 Civil Dialogue Committees.
Maize seeds is supplied by internal production in the European Union. Leading countries are France (46%), Hungary (17%) and Romania (17%), but also other countries in the EU provide production (Austria, Italy, Germany, Slovakia, Poland).
The maize seed production activity involves 6,000 specialized farmers and numerous processing plants (70 plants in total for the European Union including 34 in France, 15 in Hungary, 8 in Romania). European production makes it possible to meet most needs of the European market, and to partially supply third countries. At present, Russia and Ukraine are the main export outlets of the EU, as these two countries are not self-sufficient in maize seeds. With 17 factories, Ukraine has significant industrial capacity which will become formidable for the EU.
Maize seed is an exceptional crop of very high quality. The average price of a tonne of seed maize leaving the farm is much higher than the price of a tonne of grain maize. Taking into account the yield gap, the turnover per hectare for maize seed is on average double the turnover of grain maize. For a maize farm, seed production is generally the key economic pillar of the farm.
If the principle of equivalence is not adequately framed, it automatically leads to free international trade, without borders, nor customs duties and therefore to social dumping of which the Union producers will be victims without any real gain for the Ukrainian producers. International breeding firms benefit most as they recover the margin due to the fact that the import of maize seeds from Ukraine by the European Union would not give rise to any customs duty or border protection duty.
Benefiting from significant operating structures, extremely low labor costs, but also technical solutions prohibited in the EU, seeds produced in Ukraine present, according to a study by the FNPSMS (National Federation of Seed Production) of Maize and Sorghum), a production cost 26% lower than that of France or 15% lower than that of Hungary when leaving the factory (2019 data).
European maize has already suffered over the past 10 years from a massive influx of Ukrainian grain maize into the European Union at the expense of EU production, with acreage shrinking in several major EU countries. It would be wise in our view for the EU Commission not to follow the same path for the production of maize seeds!
For the development of its proposal, the European Commission did not see the need for an impact assessment. Following a simple audit of the field inspections and the seed certification system in place in Ukraine, the Commission concluded that the requirements and the system in force offer the same guarantees as the EU system and are therefore equivalent.
In doing so, the Commission has taken normative action, without paying due attention to its economic, commercial and social consequences.
The fact that legislators considered the attribution of equivalence to be essential and therefore subject to a legislative process testifies to a political dimension in decision-making which goes beyond the mere technicality claimed by the European Commission and therefore requires an impact study especially since the farms and businesses concerned are very small businesses.
For all these reasons, CEPM strongly opposes the adoption of this decision and considers that the policy of the European Union consisting in supporting Ukraine cannot be criticized, but that there are other budgetary or financial instruments that allow for achieving this goal without putting a strategically important economic sector in danger.
Read full responseResponse to Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism
31 Mar 2020
The Commission proposes to assess the establishment of a carbon border adjustment mechanism in forms and for sectors still to be defined.
For CEPM corn producers, carbon is an important issue. It appears as an opportunity thanks to the formidable corn's carbon pump to produce food & feed, store carbon and replace fossil carbon. It appears to be a threat if the EU does not take into account the economic and sectoral effects of its carbon policy compared to those carried out by its international competitors. It is therefore necessary to study the carbon impact of raising the EU’s climate ambitions on the maize sector, of which the EU is the world's largest importer. The EU’s low carbon approach will indeed create differences between European and third country production systems if the latter countries do not make the same efforts. These distortions will have to be adjusted, notably by relying on an objective measurement of the carbon footprint but not only.
The CEPM considers that a possible carbon border adjustment mechanism should take into account the constraints on the conditions of production in the EU, in order to refuse the importation of agricultural productions or products from agriculture that do not respect European agricultural production standards.
Within the framework, any mechanism should contribute to improving the internal and external competitiveness of European agriculture, maize and agricultural products. It is an issue of sovereignty, food security and necessary for a dynamic rural and agricultural sector
Read full responseResponse to High and low Indirect Land-Use Change (ILUC) - risks biofuels, bioliquids and biomass fuels
1 Mar 2019
La CEPM, Confédération Européenne de la Production de Maïs, répond à la consultation relative aux biocarburants présentant un risque élevé d'induire des changements indirects dans l'affectation des sols et sur la certification de ceux présentant un faible risque d'induire des changements indirects dans l'affectation des sols.
La CEPM souhaite que la Commission européenne propose une méthodologie d’identification des matières premières concernées, mettant en avant le risque élevé associé à l’utilisation de l’huile de palme, loin devant les autres. C’est cohérent avec l’esprit du compromis de la directive RED2.
La CEPM constate néanmoins que les conditions proposées pour maintenir l’utilisation de ces biocarburants identifiés à très forts risques ILUC et en expansion significative sur des terres riches en carbone sont insuffisantes. Les critères doivent être renforcés afin de véritablement distingué les biocarburants certifiés à bas effet ILUC et de pas laisser un risque majeur de contournement en exemptant certaine catégories de producteurs. Vous trouverez dans la note jointe nos commentaires détaillés.
Read full responseMeeting with Jerzy Bogdan Plewa (Director-General Agriculture and Rural Development) and ARVALIS
22 Mar 2018 · Exchange of view greening aspects of the CAP reform
Response to Changes to greening rules and clarifications of certain other direct payments' rules
10 Jan 2017
La CEPM, à l’image des agriculteurs européens, a souligné la complexité de la PAC 2014-2020 et de sa mise en œuvre dans les Etats membres. Le processus de simplification lancé sous l’impulsion du Commissaire répondait par conséquent à une attente forte des producteurs de maïs européens.
Toutefois, le projet d’acte délégué amendé mis à consultation est loin de répondre aux attentes suscitées par la démarche de simplification. Certes, certains amendements vont dans le bon sens et permettent de clarifier le contenu de la version initiale.
Mais la CEPM s’interroge sur les objectifs réels du processus de simplification appliqué à l’acte délégué 639/2014. Les avancées concrètes en matière de simplification restent minimes. Les amendements intègrent surtout un renforcement de certaines règles du verdissement. Il s’agit notamment de l’introduction de l’interdiction d’utiliser des produits de protection des plantes sur les couverts végétaux et les plantes fixatrices d’azote retenus comme surface d’intérêt écologique. L’introduction de cet amendement ne semble pas s’inscrire dans les objectifs initiaux affichés par la Commission. Cet amendement est de nature à modifier l’orientation de l’acte délégué de base. C’est pourquoi la CEPM en demande le retrait.
Read full responseMeeting with Jerzy Bogdan Plewa (Director-General Agriculture and Rural Development)
1 Jul 2016 · Présenter Mme Duroc - CEPM; négociations internationales, la PAC post-2020 (verdissement), ainsi que les questions relatives aux intrants agricoles/produits phytosanitaires.
Meeting with Elisabetta Siracusa (Cabinet of Commissioner Phil Hogan)
4 Feb 2015 · Meeting with the "Association Générale des Producteurs de Maïs"