Lobbying by European agri-cooperatives

European agri-cooperatives

COGECA

European agri-cooperatives represent the interests of European agricultural, forestry, fishing, and agri-food cooperatives.

Focus Areas

2025-2026

2023-2024

2014-2022

Links

Website Transparency Register Profile

ID: 09586631237-74

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Brigitte Misonne (Acting Director Agriculture and Rural Development) and European farmers

12 Jan 2026 · Pigmeat market situation

Meeting with Ursula von der Leyen (President) and European farmers

18 Dec 2025 · Discussion of issues concerning the European agricultural sector

Meeting with Maxi Espeter (Cabinet of Commissioner Christophe Hansen) and European farmers

2 Dec 2025 · Upcoming proposal on organic basic regulation

Meeting with Olivér Várhelyi (Commissioner) and

21 Nov 2025 · Plant protection products; simplification package; NGTs; EC initiatives and timeline in the area of animal welfare; Commission’s work in the area of animal health

Meeting with Gabriela Tschirkova (Cabinet of Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis) and European farmers

20 Nov 2025 · CBAM

Meeting with Brigitte Misonne (Acting Director Agriculture and Rural Development) and European farmers

20 Nov 2025 · Stocktaking of the October Livestock Workstream meeting and preparation of the December one

Meeting with Andrea Vettori (Head of Unit Environment) and European farmers and

19 Nov 2025 · Guidance document on the species protection requirements of the Birds Directive

Meeting with Almut Bitterhof (Head of Unit Health and Food Safety) and European farmers

12 Nov 2025 · COPA COGECA asked E4 for a meeting to express views on the ongoing Commission work on the SANTE Simplification Omnibus

European farmers urge practical rules for emergency slaughter on farms

31 Oct 2025

Topic — EU regulation on emergency slaughter of animals outside slaughterhouses for meat production.

Message — The organization requests clear guidance, harmonized procedures across Member States, and species-specific implementation rules. They emphasize that emergency slaughter must remain economically viable for farmers, particularly for smaller animals where costs often exceed benefits.1 2 3

Why — This would improve farm profitability by reducing losses from animals unfit for transport.4 5

Read full response

Meeting with Jan Ceyssens (Cabinet of Commissioner Jessika Roswall) and European farmers

31 Oct 2025 · EUDR & Bioeconomy Strategy

Meeting with Johannes Van Den Bossche (Cabinet of Commissioner Christophe Hansen) and European farmers

29 Oct 2025 · Exchange of views on files concerning international trade in agrifood

Meeting with Dorota Denning (Cabinet of Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis) and European farmers and

28 Oct 2025 · Roundtable on Simplification for Agricultural Innovation

Meeting with Jan Ceyssens (Cabinet of Commissioner Jessika Roswall) and European farmers

23 Oct 2025 · EUDR

European agri-cooperatives urge caution on bluetongue virus reclassification

21 Oct 2025

Topic — EU Commission proposal to reclassify bluetongue virus from category C to category D+E disease.

Message — The organization requests maintaining the current category C classification to allow continued eradication efforts. They urge a thorough evaluation before any reclassification and recommend reviewing the situation in one year. They advocate for strengthened EU-level monitoring, harmonized trade frameworks, and facilitated vaccine development.1 2 3 4

Why — This would maintain coordinated EU-level disease control and prevent inconsistent management between regions.5 6

Read full response

Meeting with Jan Ceyssens (Cabinet of Commissioner Jessika Roswall) and European farmers

15 Oct 2025 · Nitrite directive; Industrial Emissions

Meeting with Maria Gafo Gomez-Zamalloa (Head of Unit Agriculture and Rural Development) and European farmers

13 Oct 2025 · Plant protection products / omnibus simplification

Meeting with Sandra Gallina (Director-General Health and Food Safety) and

8 Oct 2025 · Plant protection products - maintaining a competitive and resilient agricultural toolbox in the EU.

Meeting with Valdis Dombrovskis (Commissioner) and

3 Oct 2025 · Simplification of non-CAP legislation that affects agriculture and the food chain

Meeting with Claire Bury (Deputy Director-General Health and Food Safety) and European farmers

25 Sept 2025 · EFSA’s performance evaluation and SANTE simplification package

Meeting with Pierre Bascou (Deputy Director-General Agriculture and Rural Development) and European farmers and AGPB

25 Sept 2025 · 1. Revision of Regulation 1107/2009 on plant protection products 2. Difficult economic situation of specialist cereals farmers

Meeting with Fabien Santini (Head of Unit Agriculture and Rural Development) and European farmers

24 Sept 2025 · Meeting requested by the COPA-COGECA Secretariat on the Commission’s proposals to amend the Common Market Organisation (CMO) Regulation (MFF post-2027).

Meeting with Brigitte Misonne (Acting Director Agriculture and Rural Development) and

22 Sept 2025 · Livestock workstream. & impact of developments in plant protection products (PPPs) on arable crops

Meeting with Olivér Várhelyi (Commissioner) and

22 Sept 2025 · Plant protection products, animal welfare, NGTs

Meeting with Eric Mamer (Director-General Environment) and

19 Sept 2025 · Exchange of views on policy issues relevant to the agriculture and forestry sector

Meeting with Stefan Leiner (Head of Unit Environment) and European farmers

19 Sept 2025 · Exchange of views on simplification initiatives for the Industrial Emissions Directive

Meeting with Eric Mamer (Director-General Environment) and

19 Sept 2025 · Exchange of views on policy issues relevant to the agriculture and forestry sector

Meeting with Brigitte Misonne (Acting Director Agriculture and Rural Development) and European farmers

12 Sept 2025 · Pigmeat market situation, trade irritants, livestock workstream

Meeting with Catherine Geslain-Laneelle (Director Agriculture and Rural Development) and European farmers

11 Sept 2025 · Exchange on view on the Vision on Agriculture and Food

Meeting with Gijs Schilthuis (Director Agriculture and Rural Development) and European farmers

4 Sept 2025 · Plant protection

Meeting with Ion Codescu (Head of Unit Environment) and European farmers and

3 Sept 2025 · Exchange of views on the Commission’s draft amendment of the Nitrates Directive on RENURE

European agri-cooperatives urge long transition periods and financial support for animal welfare reforms

16 Jul 2025

Topic — EU proposal to modernise on-farm animal welfare legislation including phasing out cages for certain animals.

Message — The organisation requests at least 15-year transition periods for welfare changes, substantial EU financial support for farm investments, and clear definitions that allow necessary temporary confinement. They emphasise need for science-based rules with flexibility for species-specific needs and exceptions for biosecurity and health reasons.1 2 3

Why — This would reduce their compliance costs and protect recent investments in facilities.4 5 6

Impact — Animals lose stronger protections if exceptions allow continued confinement in cages and crates.7 8

Read full response

Meeting with Catherine Combette (Head of Unit Agriculture and Rural Development) and European farmers

15 Jul 2025 · Exchange of views on on-going FTA negotiations with the Philippines, Australia, India, Indonesia and Thailand.

Meeting with Klaus Berend (Director Health and Food Safety) and

10 Jul 2025 · Exchange of views on the state of play of the interinstitutional negotiations on the Commission proposal for a Regulation on plants obtained by certain new genomic techniques (NGT proposal) - Patent-related aspects.

Meeting with Elisabeth Werner (Director-General Agriculture and Rural Development) and European farmers

17 Jun 2025 · Introductory meeting and general exchange of views on the future common agricultural policy

Response to Fruit and vegetables – review of sectorial rules and modernising certain market monitoring provisions and mechanisms

11 Jun 2025

Copa and Cogeca would like to make a comment on Article 38 R-892. Regarding proposal amending article 38 of Regulation 2017/892 and consistently with our opinion on the change proposed by Commission for article 74.1 in its amendment of Regulation 2017/891: we are in favor of maintaining the article 38 according to which SIV shall be fixed daily taking into account the actual value of the products and NOT in a weekly basis.

Read full response

Response to Fruit and vegetables – review of sectorial rules and modernising certain market monitoring provisions and mechanisms

11 Jun 2025

Copa and Cogeca, representing European farmers and their agro food cooperatives, would like to propose the following amendments: in article 8.1, for the purposes of the recognition of a PO-to calculate the value of marketable production, the same basis of the definition of the VPC must be taken, this article should refer not only to articles 30, 31 but also to 32 of R-126. It is important to mention art. 32 (at least art.32.3) because it is there where it is stated that in the event that the "VPC falls below 35%" the anomalous value can be replaced by 85%/65% of the average value: if this exception is not applied, in a year with a climatic accident it could be the case that a PO fails to comply with the minimum recognition requirements in a timely manner. Moreover: if in article 8 R-891 currently in force it is mentioned article 23 of R-891, analogously, in the amended article, the equivalent of R-126 should be cited: which is article 32. This is all the more necessary because the phrase contained in art. 23.4. paragraph 3 of R-891 was not transferred at the time to art. 32.3 of R-126. In ARTICLE. 11.2, it seems to us very appropriate to reflect in this article that -for the purposes of complying with the condition of "third-party sales below the VPC"- the case of reduction of the VPC below 35% must be taken into account. However, just as the reference has been introduced to the case "reduction due to natural disasters 85%" (referred to in letter b) of Art. 32.3 R-126), reference should also be made to the case "reduction for reasons beyond the responsibility of the PO 65%" (letter a) of Art. 32.3 R-126. We consider that instead of including a new second paragraph in this art. 11.2. it would be simpler for the wording of this article to make direct reference to Art. 32 (or at least to Art. 32.3) of R-126. In ARTICLE. 14.1, we propose to add a reference to article 30. In ARTICLE. 7, the effectiveness of notifications by Member States of prices and quantities imported from third countries is proportional to the detail punctuality with which the information is given; therefore we do not agree that the daily notification system should be changed to a weekly notification. If there are member states that are failing to comply with their notification obligation, we must work to ensure that they comply. A weekly notification is sure to create less bureaucratic burden for Member States but will be much less appropriate for the safety of producers and internal market: the daily notification is the one that best reflects the reality of products value in every given moment and its volatility. We also reject that the flat-rate import value would be fixed by the Commission on a weekly basis instead of every day, as it is proposed by the Commission by amending article 38 of R-892.

Read full response

Meeting with Johannes Van Den Bossche (Cabinet of Commissioner Christophe Hansen) and European farmers

11 Jun 2025 · International trade developments

Meeting with Bjoern Juretzki (Head of Unit Communications Networks, Content and Technology) and European farmers

11 Jun 2025 · Discussion about the state of play of the Data Act implementation in the agricultural sector.

Meeting with Patricia Reilly (Cabinet of President Ursula von der Leyen) and European farmers

5 Jun 2025 · to follow

Meeting with Patricia Reilly (Cabinet of President Ursula von der Leyen) and European farmers

5 Jun 2025 · Exchange of views on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) in relation to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the agri-food trade situation with Ukraine.

Meeting with Brigitte Misonne (Acting Director Agriculture and Rural Development) and European farmers

28 May 2025 · Exchange of views on the EU Vision for Agriculture and Food, in particular the livestock workstream

Meeting with Jessika Roswall (Commissioner) and

26 May 2025 · Discussions on Water Resilience Strategy and Nature Credits

Meeting with Jan Ceyssens (Cabinet of Commissioner Jessika Roswall) and European farmers

22 May 2025 · Discussions on Water Resilience Strategy and Nature Credits

Meeting with Piotr Serafin (Commissioner) and

20 May 2025 · Exchange of views on the future Multiannual Financial Framework and Common Agricultural Policy

Meeting with Flavio Facioni (Cabinet of Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi) and European farmers

16 May 2025 · Animal Welfare, Animal Health, Plant Health

Meeting with Patricia Reilly (Cabinet of President Ursula von der Leyen)

15 May 2025 · Exchange of views on simplification of the CAP and farmers’ priorities for the new CAP

Meeting with Themis Christophidou (Director-General Regional and Urban Policy) and

6 May 2025 · Future of EU budget; MFF

Meeting with Alisa Tiganj (Cabinet of Commissioner Christophe Hansen) and European farmers and

30 Apr 2025 · • ELV five recommendations for the Vision for the Future of EU Agriculture and for the mandate • Presentation of ELV (European Livestock Voice) • Exchange of views: Vision for the future of Livestock • EU Trade policy review: State of play

Meeting with Piotr Serafin (Commissioner) and

24 Apr 2025 · Exchange of views on access to EU Funding

Meeting with Pierre Bascou (Deputy Director-General Agriculture and Rural Development) and European farmers

23 Apr 2025 · Vision for Agriculture and Food and in particular, livestock workstream Future MFF/CAP

Meeting with Ion Codescu (Head of Unit Environment) and European farmers

14 Apr 2025 · The meeting was organised at the request of the Copa-Cogeca about the Nitrates Directive

Meeting with Arash Saeidi (Member of the European Parliament) and European farmers

9 Apr 2025 · Echange de point de vue

Meeting with Catherine Combette (Head of Unit Agriculture and Rural Development) and European farmers

7 Apr 2025 · Exchange of views on on-going FTA negotiations with The Philippines, India and Thailand

Meeting with Ana Carrero (Cabinet of Commissioner Piotr Serafin) and European farmers

3 Apr 2025 · Exchange of views on the future Multiannual Financial Framework and other EU priorities.

Response to Measures related to specific plant pests

2 Apr 2025

The Commission has proposed extending measures on citrus fruits from Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, Uruguay, and Zimbabwe to prevent the spread of Phyllosticta citricarpa, the pathogen causing Black Spot disease, which poses a serious threat to EU citrus production. Copa and Cogeca have long been vigilant about this issue and have urged the Commission to strengthen border protections. While we welcomed the Regulation (EU) 2022/632, we believe further improvements are needed. We support the Commission's proposal to extend the regulation beyond its 31/03/2025 expiry date, as the risk remains high. The number of contaminated shipments continues to be alarmingly high, and the risk of introducing Phyllosticta citricarpa into EU agriculture persists. In addition to expressing our support, we would like to reiterate three proposals to further enhance the measures preventing the entry of this disease: Harmonisation and strengthening of import controls: There should be an alignment and enhancement of import controls across all Member States to ensure equal effectiveness in preventing the disease. The European Commission should assist Member States in detecting non-compliance with EU pest control measures. Reports on interceptions of quarantine pests and priority organisms: EFSA must provide reports on the number of interceptions of quarantine pests and priority organisms that trigger a halt to citrus imports in the EU. Consistency of controls for citrus fruits intended for processing: The same conditions and controls applied to citrus fruits imported for sale as fresh produce should also apply to those imported for processing. This will ensure uniformity in pest control measures for all citrus imports, regardless of their intended end-use. Copa and Cogeca would like to reiterate that we are not advocating for trade barriers, but rather for the protection of our crops in order to safeguard European citrus orchards and keep them free from quarantine pests. We are calling for coherence and proportionality in the measures taken. At a time when the European fruit sector is already grappling with significant challenges, including the reduction of authorisation of plant protection products and the increasing resistance of pests, it is crucial that Community measures be as effective as possible in preventing the entry of new pests. This approach is in line with what other countries are implementing when confronted with the same risks.

Read full response

Response to Equivalence of third countries’ requirements concerning pests of plants - Citrus sinensis from Israel

2 Apr 2025

The Commission's proposal to amend the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1659 seeks to indefinitely extend the possibility for citrus imports from Israel to the EU to be made under an alternative system approach, rather than the cold treatment specified in point 62.1(d) of Annex VII of Regulation 2019/2072 establishing uniform conditions for the implementation of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament and the Council, as regards protective measures against pests of plants, and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 690/2008 and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019. In light of the detection of the "false colding moth" pest (Thaumatotibia leucotreta) in Israel, Copa and Cogeca strongly oppose any modification to the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1659. The current equivalence, which expires on 31 May 2025, should not be extended. From that date, Israel should be required to apply cold treatment to all plant products, including citrus, that could potentially carry this pest into the EU. The Commission tells us that the risk of the pest being transferred through fruit destined for juice is low. If we read the EFSA pest risk assessment report on Phyllosticta citicarpa referred to by the Commission, and after several considerations, and to summarise, if we go to the conclusions (pg 234 of the report): The Panel concludes that, without regulation, the number of infected fruit entering citrus growing regions and arriving within the maximum distance for spores to move to citrus trees is high and there is good temporal overlap between the timing of entry and the weather conditions suitable for rain splash and spore dispersal. Of the four main pathways, the levels of exposure resulting from these pathways is considered to be highest for the juice industry, ... "The Panel concludes that, without regulation, the number of infected fruits entering citrus- growing regions and travelling the maximum distance for spores to move to trees is high, and there is a good temporal overlap between the timing of entry and the weather conditions suitable for rain splash and spore dispersal. Of the four main routes, the resulting exposure levels are considered to be the highest in the juice industry.... Copa and Cogeca emphasize the significant risk of pest transmission posed by Israel, given its large citrus production and export volume to the EU. The European citrus sector, unified in its opposition to the Commission's proposal, demands that cold treatment be enforced on all plant products from countries where the pest is present, without exceptions for specific products like mandarins or countries like Israel. Furthermore, it is crucial that such treatments are carried out effectively. This approach aligns with the practices already implemented by other global import regions that require cold treatment for suppliers from contaminated countries. It is vital for the EU to adopt this mechanism to ensure the protection of European citrus orchards from pests that threaten both production and biodiversity. This will also help safeguard the environmental sustainability of the EUs agricultural sector.

Read full response

Meeting with Koen Dillen (Head of Unit Agriculture and Rural Development) and European farmers

2 Apr 2025 · Insects/weeding management, Copa-Cogeca guiding principles on PPPs

Meeting with Elena Panichi (Head of Unit Agriculture and Rural Development) and European farmers

27 Mar 2025 · Exchange of views on the current state of the trade agenda between the US and the EU following the mission of COPA COGECA President to the US

Response to Measures related to specific plant pests - Curtobacterium flaccumfaciens

26 Mar 2025

Copa and Cogeca welcome this proposal, as it reinforces phytosanitary controls and contributes to the improved protection of legume cultivation across the EU. However, we note that the import requirements refer to seeds and plants originating from a pathogen-free country. This definition appears too broad and raises practical concerns. For instance, it remains unclear how these requirements apply to seeds that have been repackaged or treated in a different country. We believe a more precise approach is necessary: Curtobacterium flaccumfaciens should not be present in the country where the seed was multiplied.

Read full response

Meeting with Piotr Rydzkowski (Head of Unit Trade) and BUSINESSEUROPE and

18 Mar 2025 · CSD Contact Group meeting-Overview of Trade priorities and rolling calendar

European agri-cooperatives urge protection of plant variety rights

14 Mar 2025

Topic — The European Commission is evaluating intellectual property rules for the plant breeding sector.

Message — The organization demands the preservation of the current system allowing farmers to reuse seeds from their harvests. They advocate for free access to protected varieties for research while strongly opposing the patenting of plants.1 2 3

Why — This protects farmers from expensive patent costs and ensures access to affordable crop varieties.4 5

Impact — Large seed companies are restricted from using patents to dominate the agricultural market.6 7

Read full response

Meeting with Catherine Geslain-Laneelle (Director Agriculture and Rural Development) and European farmers

13 Mar 2025 · exchange of views on the vision on Agriculture and Food

Meeting with Johannes Van Den Bossche (Cabinet of Commissioner Christophe Hansen) and European farmers

13 Mar 2025 · Exchange of views on issues considered relevant by Copa-Cogeca

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 Brigitte Misonne (Head of Unit Agriculture and Rural Development), Ricard Ramon I Sumoy (Acting Head of Unit Agriculture and Rural Development) and European farmers

4 Mar 2025 · Copa-Cogeca’s Guiding Principles for the EU Livestock Sector in the 2024-2029 Mandate

Meeting with Eric Thévenard (Head of Unit Health and Food Safety) and European farmers

4 Mar 2025 · Management of weeds in cereals

Meeting with Costas Kadis (Commissioner) and European farmers

3 Mar 2025 · Courtesy meeting regarding fisheries and fish farming state in the EU

Meeting with Maria Pilar Aguar Fernandez (Director Health and Food Safety) and

27 Feb 2025 · • Climate change and new challenges (pests, weeds and diseases). • IPM support and dissemination to address challenges. • Access to market for biocontrol products • Electronic recording of pesticide use • MRLs

Meeting with Gijs Schilthuis (Director Agriculture and Rural Development) and European farmers

25 Feb 2025 · Presentation of the "Guiding Principles for the EU Livestock Sector in the 2024-2029 Mandate" by Copa Cogeca Exchange of views on the Communication from the EC “A Vision for Agriculture and Food” released the 19 of February

Meeting with Christophe Hansen (Commissioner) and

13 Feb 2025 · Review of the EU-Ukraine Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA)

Meeting with Elisabetta Siracusa (Director Agriculture and Rural Development) and

13 Feb 2025 · International trade relations

Meeting with Mario Milouchev (Director Agriculture and Rural Development) and

11 Feb 2025 · Appointment of the new COPA-COGECA Secretary-General last September 2024; the new SC was interested to know the work of the Directorate D in DG AGRI

Meeting with Diego Canga Fano (Acting Deputy Director-General Agriculture and Rural Development) and European farmers

11 Feb 2025 · Exchange of views on promotion policy, geographical indications, R&I and communication

Meeting with Luis Carazo Jimenez (Head of Unit Agriculture and Rural Development) and European farmers

4 Feb 2025 · Preparation of mission to Washington

Meeting with Ion Codescu (Head of Unit Environment)

16 Jan 2025 · Exchange of views on the Soil Monitoring Law proposal and the position expressed by COPA COGECA in the process.

Meeting with Pierre Bascou (Acting Deputy Director-General Agriculture and Rural Development) and

14 Jan 2025 · EU pork exports to China

Meeting with Pierre Bascou (Acting Deputy Director-General Agriculture and Rural Development) and

14 Jan 2025 · Imports of nitrogen fertilisers from Russia

Meeting with Martin Hojsík (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and European farmers

4 Dec 2024 · Soil Monitoring Law

Meeting with Tomas Baert (Cabinet of President Ursula von der Leyen) and European farmers and

3 Dec 2024 · Trade tensions - strategic thinking for agri-food trade

Response to Measures related to specific plant pests - Bactrocera

20 Nov 2024

Copa and Cogeca appreciate the opportunity to respond to this public consultation. Bactrocera dorsalis and Bactrocera zonata are priority quarantine organisms for the EU and are subject to increased preventive measures. These pests are monitored by trapping, visual inspection and fruit sampling, with increased surveillance in areas linked to the fruit and vegetable trade, as the greatest risk of introduction comes from infested fruit. While these subtropical species currently face limited risks of establishment in colder climates, climate change and rising temperatures are increasing concerns about their potential spread in the future. It is crucial for national authorities and stakeholders to effectively implement prevention and eradication measures. Harmonised and collaborative approaches between competent authorities and research institutions are essential to protect agricultural production from these pests. Monitoring and targeted interventions are key strategies for maintaining pest-free areas and reducing risks.

Read full response

Meeting with Karin Karlsbro (Member of the European Parliament) and European farmers and Lantbrukarnas Riksförbund

19 Nov 2024 · Ukraine and agriculture

European agri-cooperatives urge suspension of Union database regulation

7 Nov 2024

Topic — The Commission proposal aims to extend biofuel and biogas traceability requirements across the EU.

Message — Copa and Cogeca call for suspending the regulation to address concerns over workability and data protection. They suggest a pilot phase until 2026 and prioritizing national databases to avoid duplicate entries.1 2 3

Why — Suspending the draft would prevent new administrative burdens and duplicate reporting costs for farmers.4 5

Read full response

Meeting with Arash Saeidi (Member of the European Parliament) and European farmers

6 Nov 2024 · Echanges sur l'agriculture et la culture des céréales

Response to Amendment of protective measures against pests of plants - Tomato brown rugose fruit virus

4 Nov 2024

Copa and Cogeca thanks the Commission for the possibility to answer this consultation. We welcome the reclassification of the Tomato Brown Rugose Fruit Virus (ToBRFV) from a quarantine pathogen to a regulated non-quarantine pest (RNQP), a change we believe has been necessary for some time. In our view, ToBRFV has long fulfilled the criteria for RNQP, and this adjustment will ease burdens on tomato producers. We also support the repeal of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1032, alongside amendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 and Annexes IV, V, and XIII, as proposed by the Commission. While we agree that seed control measures should remain, we advocate for an additional requirement for plant producers, especially those growing seedlings intended for planting. Specifically, we recommend regular analytical testing to ensure pathogen absence, as visual inspections and seed quality control alone are insufficient to verify pathogen-free status, particularly given asymptomatic spread in seedlings. Finally, we seek clarification on whether this reclassification will fully integrate ToBRFV regulations into Regulation 2019/2072, and how it will impact current sampling and analysis requirements for consignments.

Read full response

Meeting with Tomas Baert (Cabinet of President Ursula von der Leyen) and European farmers

23 Oct 2024 · China follow-up meeting

Meeting with Veronika Vrecionová (Member of the European Parliament, Committee chair) and European farmers

2 Oct 2024 · Priorities of AGRI committee in the new mandate, priorities for next CAP planning period

Meeting with Elsi Katainen (Member of the European Parliament) and European farmers

20 Sept 2024 · Current forest and bioeconomy issues

Meeting with Michael Hager (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis), Miriam Garcia Ferrer (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis)

20 Sept 2024 · Trade defence investigations

Meeting with Wolfgang Burtscher (Director-General Agriculture and Rural Development) and European farmers

19 Sept 2024 · exchange of views on the report produced by the Strategic Dialogue on the Future of EU Agriculture

Meeting with Janusz Wojciechowski (Commissioner) and

16 Sept 2024 · First meeting with new Secretary General. Topics: Food Chain, Deforestation Regulation, Strategic Dialogue.

Meeting with Martin Hojsík (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

2 Sept 2024 · soil, farmers

Meeting with Nicolas Schmit (Commissioner) and

10 Jul 2024 · Exchange on the COPA-COGECA EU election Manifesto “Repositioning Agriculture as a Strategic Asset for Europe”

Meeting with Olivér Várhelyi (Commissioner) and

20 Jun 2024 · Agriculture in the context of EU enlargement

Meeting with Joanna Stawowy (Cabinet of Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski) and European farmers

11 Jun 2024 · Informative Visit about the working methods of the European Commission and the Cabinet.

Meeting with Janusz Wojciechowski (Commissioner) and

11 Jun 2024 · To discuss the main elements of their Manifesto and some concrete ideas for actions for the future EU agricultural policy.

Response to Compartments for terrestrial animals

24 May 2024

Please find attached the feedback of Copa and Cogeca, representing EU farmers and agri-cooperatives

Read full response

Meeting with Miriam Garcia Ferrer (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis)

23 May 2024 · Trade policy, ATMs, Ukraine

Agri-cooperatives urge faster adoption of processed manure fertilisers

15 May 2024

Topic — The consultation concerns amending the Nitrates Directive to allow the use of processed manure fertilisers.

Message — Copa and Cogeca request implementation within six months and the removal of the 100 kg/ha application limit. They advocate for technology-neutral rules including various manure processing techniques and broader derogations for cattle manure and digestate.1 2 3

Why — Farmers would lower their production costs by replacing expensive imported synthetic fertilisers with processed local manure.4

Impact — Environmental groups lose protections if safeguards for Natura 2000 sites and drinking water sources are removed.5

Read full response

Meeting with Ursula von der Leyen (President) and European farmers and Confederazione Generale dell'Agricoltura Italiana

26 Apr 2024 · Meeting with COPA President, Copa Vice-President COGECA President, Cogeca Vice-President, 1st Vice President Copa (Confagricoltura, Italy), Deputy Secretary General Copa-Cogeca

Meeting with Joanna Stawowy (Cabinet of Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski) and European farmers

16 Apr 2024 · To exchange views on alternative proteins to animal-based foods which are often portrayed as more environmentally sustainable to EU animal production.

Meeting with Janusz Wojciechowski (Commissioner) and European farmers

22 Mar 2024 · To express to the Commission the growing concerns of EU farmers

Meeting with Maroš Šefčovič (Executive Vice-President) and European farmers and

14 Mar 2024 · High level dialogue on forest-based bioeconomy

Meeting with Tiemo Wölken (Member of the European Parliament) and European farmers

11 Mar 2024 · Green Claims Directive

Meeting with Peter Van Kemseke (Cabinet of President Ursula von der Leyen)

8 Mar 2024 · priorities agricultural sector

Meeting with Olivér Várhelyi (Commissioner) and

7 Mar 2024 · Ukraine

Meeting with Martin Hojsík (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

5 Mar 2024 · Soil Law

Meeting with Lukas Visek (Cabinet of Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič) and European farmers

20 Feb 2024 · Green Deal initiatives and agriculture

Meeting with Martin Hojsík (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

19 Feb 2024 · Soil Law

Meeting with Janusz Wojciechowski (Commissioner) and

14 Feb 2024 · ECR Spanish Delegation & Leaders of the Spanish Agri Association

Meeting with Eglantine Cujo (Cabinet of Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius) and European farmers and

9 Feb 2024 · Deforestation issues

Meeting with Ursula von der Leyen (President) and Confederazione Nazionale Coldiretti and

1 Feb 2024 · Meeting with Representatives of Farmers

Response to Business in Europe: Framework for Income Taxation (BEFIT)

24 Jan 2024

Please find attached, Cogeca's reply to the BEFIT consultation

Read full response

Meeting with Daniel Mes (Cabinet of Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra) and European farmers

22 Jan 2024 · Farming and climate action

Meeting with Daniel Mes (Cabinet of Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra) and European farmers

22 Jan 2024 · Agricultural Strategic Dialogue

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.

Meeting with Wolfgang Burtscher (Director-General Agriculture and Rural Development) and European farmers

9 Jan 2024 · Exchange on current affairs, relating to the CAP, including the upcoming strategic dialogue

Meeting with Maroš Šefčovič (Executive Vice-President) and European Environmental Bureau and

9 Jan 2024 · Farm visit and roundtable with agri-food chain stakeholders

Meeting with Angelika Winzig (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and European farmers

8 Jan 2024 · Gigabit Infrastructure Act

Meeting with Miriam Garcia Ferrer (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis) and European farmers

18 Dec 2023 · agriculture; food industry

Meeting with Andreas Schneider (Cabinet of Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski) and European farmers

18 Dec 2023 · The upcoming preparation and decision on the renewal of the Autonomous Trade Measures with Ukraine.

European agri-cooperatives urge tougher rules against unfair trading practices

29 Nov 2023

Topic — Evaluation of EU rules protecting farmers against unfair business-to-business trading practices.

Message — Copa-Cogeca supports the extension of the Directive to non-food products and removing threshold levels. They request moving certain negotiated practices to the prohibited list to address power imbalances.1 2 3

Why — Strengthening these protections helps farmers secure fairer prices and reduces financial losses from buyer power.4 5

Impact — Large retailers face stricter limits on bargaining tactics and significantly higher financial penalties for infringements.6 7

Read full response

Meeting with Daniel Buda (Member of the European Parliament) and European farmers

21 Nov 2023 · Agriculture

Meeting with Martin Hojsík (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and CONSEIL EUROPEEN DES JEUNES AGRICULTEURS

17 Nov 2023 · Soil Health Law

Meeting with Helena Braun (Cabinet of Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič), Lukas Visek (Cabinet of Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič) and European farmers

13 Nov 2023 · The role of agriculture in the Green Deal

Meeting with Joanna Stawowy (Cabinet of Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski) and European farmers

13 Nov 2023 · Future of livestock policies; animal welfare

Meeting with Maroš Šefčovič (Executive Vice-President) and European farmers

6 Nov 2023 · Transition towards sustainable food systems

Meeting with Christophe Clergeau (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and European farmers and

26 Oct 2023 · Table ronde avec les représentants de l'industrie sur la proposition de règlement sur les nouveaux OGM

Meeting with Isabel Carvalhais (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

5 Oct 2023 · Production and marketing of plant reproductive material in the Union

Meeting with Martin Hojsík (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and European Environmental Bureau and

28 Sept 2023 · Soil Health Law

Response to Certification for hops and hop products

27 Sept 2023

Following the European Commissions plans to modernize the certification system for hops and hop products (current Regulation n.1850/2006), Copa and Cogeca would like to stress the optimal functioning of the currents system that assures quality controls and top marketing standards for European hops. The European Commission intends to update the system through two secondary legislation acts: a delegated regulation and an implementing one concerning the marketing standards and the certification and control systems for hops and hop products. Content Copa and Cogeca would like to stress the following points of concern: 1. The certification authority designed by the Member State offices shall be allowed to officially certify hops qualities and to appoint third parties as certification centers. No other entity such as approved operators shall be given delegated powers to implement such an activity. We believe that only certification authorities or designated certification centers have the know-how and the administrative infrastructure already in place that will guarantee the high level of their services. Opening certification actives to actors rather than the certification centers risks putting in jeopardy the strong certification system that represents the building stone of the strong European hop production. Opening to the possibility of national level decisions would also risk fragmenting the quality certification of hops and it could lead to favor fraudulent practices. Overall, the certification system as it currently stands does not pose any administrative burden to producers and, on the opposite, assures them that the care and quality of their production will be strongly enforced and recognized. Despite the bulk of the costs must be bored by the hop growers and the processors, reputation, reliability, traceability, and credibility of their production depends on a strong certification system. 2. Any criteria (minimum requirements) regarding seed content shall be part of the certification. The current definition sets the threshold for identifying seedless hops when the seeds weight is lower than 2% of the whole weight of the hop. We do believe that this definition is appropriate, and it represents an indirect measure of quality. We welcome the provisions as in the draft text. 3. Isomerized products shall be excluded from the certification. The difficulty in tracing the origin of hops once they had gone through isomerization as well as their processing method would prevent on-point and precise quality checks (in line with Art 1 (3), Reg 1850/2006). We argue this practice to be allowed but outside the scope of the certification standards. We welcome the provisions as in the draft text. In particular, we suggest the followings amendments: Recital 4 Remove or approved operator. Recital 8 Remove Or if the processing is carried out by approved operators. Recital 10 Remove and should be allowed to approve operators. Recital 11 Remove and approved operators. Recital 12 Remove or an approved operator. Article 2 (4) Remove at the premises of an approved operator. Article 2 (7) Remove or by an approved operator. Article 3 (1) Remove or by an approved operator. Article 4 (1) Remove or approved operator. Article 8 (1) Remove or if the processing is carried out by an approved operator. Article 9 (3) Remove or the approved operator. Article 10 (2) Remove and may approve operators. Article 12 Delete Article 12. Article 13 (1) Remove references to approved operators. Article 15 (1) Delete point d. Delete or the withdrawal of the approval of an operator. Article 16 Delete and approved operators and their code numbers.

Read full response

Meeting with Annukka Ojala (Cabinet of Commissioner Stella Kyriakides), Giorgos Rossides (Cabinet of Commissioner Stella Kyriakides), Ines Prainsack (Cabinet of Commissioner Stella Kyriakides), Roberto Reig Rodrigo (Cabinet of Commissioner Stella Kyriakides) and European farmers

28 Aug 2023 · Exchange with COPA-COGECA on the implementation of the Farm to Fork Strategy

Meeting with Peter Van Kemseke (Cabinet of President Ursula von der Leyen) and European farmers

28 Aug 2023 · on animal welfare

Meeting with Caroline Boeshertz (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis) and European farmers

18 Jul 2023 · Trade impact of animal welfare legislation

Meeting with Ines Prainsack (Cabinet of Commissioner Stella Kyriakides), Karolina Herbout-Borczak (Cabinet of Commissioner Stella Kyriakides) and European farmers

11 Jul 2023 · Meeting with COPA COGECA to discuss honey fraud and consumer information

Meeting with Roberto Reig Rodrigo (Cabinet of Commissioner Stella Kyriakides) and European farmers

4 Jul 2023 · New Genomic Techniques (NGTs)

Meeting with Kurt Vandenberghe (Director-General Climate Action) and European farmers and

27 Jun 2023 · Fit for 55

Meeting with Joanna Stawowy (Cabinet of Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski) and European farmers

27 Jun 2023 · Animal welfare reform

Meeting with Joanna Stawowy (Cabinet of Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski) and European farmers

16 Jun 2023 · The European Commission's proposal on food waste

Meeting with Helena Braun (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and European farmers and

15 Jun 2023 · EU forest related policies, including the upcoming forest monitoring proposal

Meeting with Elena Montani (Cabinet of Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius) and European farmers and

15 Jun 2023 · EU forest related policies, including the upcoming forest monitoring proposal

Meeting with Ralf Kuhne (Cabinet of Commissioner Stella Kyriakides) and European farmers

7 Jun 2023 · food waste

Meeting with Janusz Wojciechowski (Commissioner) and

23 May 2023 · Meeting with the farmers from 5 frontline Member States (Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia) about the impact of imports of Ukrainian agricultural products

Meeting with Katherine Power (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness) and European farmers

23 May 2023 · New genomic techniques and revision of legislation on seeds

Response to Revised marketing standards for fresh fruit and vegetables, bananas, nuts, dried fruit and pulses

17 May 2023

Copa Cogeca are in favour of maintaining an European regulation of fruit and vegetable marketing standards, with as many specific standards as possible, in favour of transparency and proper functioning of the EU single market and of value supply chain balance. Copa and Cogeca support the new provision in article 5.b regarding the mandatory indication of the country of origin. Copa and Cogeca understand the importance of origin labelling and the idea behind improving it by using larger and more visible characters to indicate the country (article 7 paragraph 1). However, this requirement would seem like regulatory overreach which interferes with the practical implementation of the marketing standards and should be avoided. We propose that when the country of origin is a Member State of the EU, the term "European Union" or the EU logo (in black and white) should appear next to the mention of the country, in order to highlight the fact that the produce is European. A transitional period should be introduced to allow operators to use up the stock of packaging materials and labels in compliance with the previous standards. Regarding the information particulars required by this regulation on marketing standards, Copa and Cogeca underline that the use of invoices for traceability checks is less effective than in the past. It has been replaced by much more performant particular digital traceability tools. Furthermore, invoices might continue to circulate among business operators after the consumption of the concerned produce, especially in the fresh produce market. Therefore, Copa and Cogeca request to replace the part of the sentence invoice and by Invoices or in article 6 paragraph 4. Regarding derogations for non-compliance with the marketing standards for fruit and vegetables, - an exception can apply within a given production area including transnational area as defined by the Member States concerned. If one of these concerned Member State has a different view, the provision remains not implementable. Therefore, Copa and Cogeca ask to delete the last part of the sentence 'as defined by the Member State(s) concerned' in article 5 paragraph 2; - a new exception is considered in situations of force majeure, it should only apply for fruit and vegetables produced in the EU Member States. Copa and Cogeca request that the requirement to mark preserving agent or other chemical substances used at post-harvest stage be eliminated from the citrus marketing standard, to ensure equal treatment for citrus and other types of fruit, which are actually using the same products but do not have to mark it. In the case of labelling clementine, the marketing standard indicates that the word clementine must be indicated on the label. It happens that some customers from certain countries, such as Poland or the Netherlands where the word clementine does not exist are demanding the suppliers not to use the term clementine when labelling despite the standard. Therefore, we ask to consider that the term clementine may be replaced by mandarine when the country use only the term mandarine. In the case of labelling pepper, Copa and Cogeca request that where it is specified that the packaging must include the indication: "Sweet peppers" if the content is not visible from the outside, the indication "Sweet Peppers" can be replaced by Peppers, which better adapts to consumer.

Read full response

Meeting with Helena Braun (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and European farmers

4 May 2023 · EU policies concerning forests, including nature restoration law

Meeting with Sarah Wiener (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and European farmers

25 Apr 2023 · Pesticide reduction, SUR, agricultural policy

Meeting with Frans Timmermans (Executive Vice-President) and European farmers and

29 Mar 2023 · Forest owners’ perspectives regarding the state of forests in the EU and discussion about EU policies impacting forest-based bioeconomy activities

European agri-cooperatives demand exemptions from packaging rules

23 Mar 2023

Topic — The Commission is reviewing requirements to reduce packaging waste and improve recycling design.

Message — The group requests exemptions for fruit, vegetables, and wine from packaging bans and reuse targets. They also want bio-based materials recognized and longer transition periods for implementation.1 2 3

Why — These exemptions would protect current business models and avoid high costs of changing equipment.4 5 6

Impact — Consumers may face higher food prices and more waste without protective packaging.7

Read full response

Meeting with Caroline Boeshertz (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis)

20 Mar 2023 · New genomic technics (NGT)

Meeting with Stella Kyriakides (Commissioner) and

6 Mar 2023 · EU animal welfare

Meeting with Lukas Visek (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and European farmers

27 Feb 2023 · New genomic techniques

Meeting with Roberto Reig Rodrigo (Cabinet of Commissioner Stella Kyriakides) and European farmers

27 Feb 2023 · New Genomic Techniques

Meeting with Janusz Wojciechowski (Commissioner) and

17 Feb 2023 · Commissioner will intervene at the Copa and Cogeca joint Praesidia on the future CAP

Meeting with Caroline Boeshertz (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis), Cristina Rueda Catry (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis) and European farmers

13 Feb 2023 · The impact of Animal Welfare in the negotiation of trade

Meeting with Joanna Stawowy (Cabinet of Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski) and European farmers

9 Feb 2023 · The issues related to animal welfare legislation reform: consultations, impact assessment, trade perspective.

Meeting with Annukka Ojala (Cabinet of Commissioner Stella Kyriakides) and European farmers

8 Feb 2023 · Framework on Sustainable Food Systems (FSFS)

Meeting with Mairead McGuinness (Commissioner) and

17 Jan 2023 · Sustainable Finance

Meeting with Joanna Stawowy (Cabinet of Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski), Maciej Golubiewski (Cabinet of Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski) and

14 Dec 2022 · GMOs and NGTs

Meeting with Cristina Rueda Catry (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis), Michael Hager (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis)

28 Oct 2022 · Food security and fertilisers.

Meeting with Lukas Visek (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and European farmers

4 Oct 2022 · EU Promotion Policy for agricultural goods

Meeting with Annukka Ojala (Cabinet of Commissioner Stella Kyriakides), Karolina Herbout-Borczak (Cabinet of Commissioner Stella Kyriakides) and European farmers

27 Sept 2022 · VTC meeting: Revision of food labelling rules

Response to Use of veterinary medicinal products for diseases in terrestrial animals

1 Sept 2022

Copa and Cogeca welcome the possibility to answer this consultation. For us, the Regulation and Annex concerning foot and mouth disease (FMD) and classical swine fever (CSF) aren't clear about the possibilities for the movements of vaccinated and unvaccinated pigs to other destinations than the slaughterhouse, especially in the first 30 days after completion of the protective vaccination and the completion of the surveillance. This is highly important for example for weaned piglets and weaners from 10 weeks of age that will be housed at a different location than the sow farm or they will move to a finisher farm. If they can't be moved within or outside the vaccination zone, this could have a huge impact on animal welfare if there is not enough housing capacity at their first location.

Read full response

Meeting with Joanna Stawowy (Cabinet of Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski)

25 Aug 2022 · The form of the FSFS-FSFS interactions and coherence with existing EU legislation- Inclusion of the three pillars of sustainability-FSFS role in ensuring a fair distribution of cost and benefits between all actors of the food chain

Meeting with Janusz Wojciechowski (Commissioner) and

23 Jun 2022 · Lifting of all tariffs and quotas for poultry meat imports from Ukraine

Meeting with Dārta Tentere (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness) and European farmers

21 Jun 2022 · Sustainable finance, taxonomy

Meeting with Frans Timmermans (Executive Vice-President) and European farmers

16 Jun 2022 · Sustainable food systems

Meeting with Stella Kyriakides (Commissioner) and

15 Jun 2022 · Animal welfare

Meeting with Wolfgang Burtscher (Director-General Agriculture and Rural Development) and European farmers

10 Jun 2022 · Exchange of views on the state of food communication

European agri-cooperatives urge EU to reward existing carbon farming

1 May 2022

Topic — The EU is creating a framework to certify sustainable carbon removals.

Message — They support common EU standards but insist on validating existing private schemes. The group advocates for rewarding specific farming practices rather than just new carbon credits to avoid penalizing early adopters.1 2

Why — This framework would provide legal security and create new income streams.3 4

Impact — Industrial polluters are warned not to use these credits to avoid reducing their own emissions.5

Read full response

Meeting with Janusz Wojciechowski (Commissioner) and

28 Apr 2022 · to hear Commissioner's views on the crisis management and the CAP process

Meeting with Thierry Breton (Commissioner) and European farmers

28 Apr 2022 · Impact Russian invasion of Ukraine on agricultural sector

Meeting with Frans Timmermans (Executive Vice-President) and European farmers and

7 Apr 2022 · European Green Deal and forest related policies, including the new European Forest Strategy for 2030

Response to Application of EU health and environmental standards to imported agricultural and agri-food products

16 Mar 2022

From Copa and Cogeca, representing EU farmers and cooperatives, we welcome the possibility to give feedback in this important process. Please find our feedback attached in PDF.

Read full response

Meeting with Janusz Wojciechowski (Commissioner) and

24 Feb 2022 · Pigmeat market management

Meeting with Janusz Wojciechowski (Commissioner) and

27 Jan 2022 · 2022 Annual Work Programme of the EU Promotion Policy

Response to Measures related to Clavibacter sepedonicus

11 Jan 2022

From Copa and Cogeca representing EU farmers and agri-cooperatives, we thank the Commission for the opportunity to answer this public consultation. Please find our feedback in the PDF attached.

Read full response

Response to Measures related to Synchytrium

11 Jan 2022

From Copa and Cogeca representing EU farmers and agri-cooperatives, we thank the Commission for the opportunity to answer this public consultation. Please find our feedback in the PDF attached.

Read full response

Meeting with Katherine Power (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness) and European farmers

15 Dec 2021 · EU Promotion policy

Meeting with Christiane Kirketerp De Viron (Cabinet of Commissioner Johannes Hahn) and Association de l'Aviculture, de l'Industrie et du Commerce de Volailles dans les Pays de l'Union Europeenne asbl and

14 Dec 2021 · Agricultural Promotion Policy

Response to Amendment of Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 to specify approval criteria for microbial active substances

23 Nov 2021

Copa and Cogeca welcome the opportunity to participate in this consultation. Please find our feedback attached.

Read full response

Meeting with Lukas Visek (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and European farmers

15 Nov 2021 · Sustainable food systems

Meeting with Janusz Wojciechowski (Commissioner) and

26 Jul 2021 · Food Systems Summit agenda; CAP ; carbon farming and CBAM

Meeting with Wolfgang Burtscher (Director-General Agriculture and Rural Development) and European farmers

19 Jul 2021 · Exchange of views

Meeting with Jorge Pinto Antunes (Cabinet of Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski) and European farmers and

25 Jun 2021 · Forest strategy

Meeting with Frans Timmermans (Executive Vice-President) and European farmers and

31 May 2021 · Exchange on Farm to Fork Strategy with European Livestock Voice

Meeting with Camilla Bursi (Cabinet of Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius) and European farmers and

28 Apr 2021 · to discuss the Preparation of the EU Forest Strategy

Meeting with Jorge Pinto Antunes (Cabinet of Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski) and European Landowners' Organization asbl and

28 Apr 2021 · to discuss the preparation of the EU Forest Strategy.

Meeting with Janusz Wojciechowski (Commissioner) and

22 Apr 2021 · Exchange of views on the future CAP negociations

Meeting with Maciej Golubiewski (Cabinet of Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski) and European farmers

25 Feb 2021 · Meeting with Copa Cogeca on agri-food in aircraft dispute

Meeting with Janusz Wojciechowski (Commissioner) and

16 Feb 2021 · Common Agriculture Policy reform.

Meeting with Janusz Wojciechowski (Commissioner) and

3 Feb 2021 · New EU Forest Strategy.

Meeting with Michael Hager (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis) and European farmers and

20 Jan 2021 · WTO aircraft dispute

Meeting with Janusz Wojciechowski (Commissioner) and

13 Jan 2021 · 2021 Annual Work Programme

Response to Climate change mitigation and adaptation taxonomy

17 Dec 2020

Farmers, forest owners and their cooperatives need to count on a strong support to continue to invest in more sustainable production methods and adaptation measures and smarter technologies. Guaranteeing access to finance is key, including access to finance earmarked for the recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. In this process, it is key to take stock of and recognise the existing legislation and the work done by farmers, forest owners and their cooperatives to improve sustainability in agriculture and forestry. This delegated act (DA) takes a strong stance on and a disproportionate approach to the agricultural and forestry sector, which is certainly not the main beneficiary of the financial products that Regulation 2020/852 focuses on. We clearly see that the Commission is using a DA, the role of which is to supplement certain non-essential elements of a legislative act, to regulate issues of high importance and to determine whether or not an economic activity is sustainable or significantly harms the environment. From a procedural perspective, the four-week period for consultation on a draft delegated act that is highly complex and detailed and that is not available in all EU languages is unacceptable. The proposal on the technical screening criteria is counterproductive and poses a challenge for Member States and the agricultural and forestry sector from a usability point of view. It also represents an unprecedented attempt to propose conflicting legislation and to enforce criteria that set a new policy in parallel with the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), other sectoral regulations and national legislation. In fact, Regulation 2020/852 states that when establishing and updating the technical screening criteria, the Commission should take into account “relevant Union law”. The technical screening criteria must be in line and compatible with existing measures in the CAP, REDII and the Forest Europe criteria on Sustainable Forest Management, which are part of national legislation and voluntary forest certification schemes. In addition, they need to take into account the EU Bioeconomy Strategy and the bioeconomy sectors’ important role in fighting climate change and replacing fossil-based materials. Any additional provisions that are stricter than those already in place under the CAP, that involve unfeasible criteria and that request the use of data that is unavailable as well as the proposed farm sustainability plans and annual reporting and targets, are simply unacceptable. The existing reporting system for the CAP must be used. With regards to the bioenergy economic activities, the technical criteria are impractical, unworkable and, above all, require a disproportionate amount of effort. Large parts of the EU bioeconomy risk being deemed unsustainable for taxonomy purposes, even though their primary purpose is to produce, process and add value to renewable resources as feedstock to make innovative, value-added products and materials. The DA refers to the uses of agricultural raw materials for industrial and energy applications, such as plastics, biofuels for transport, biowaste and organic chemicals. We cannot accept that a key criterion is that “Food or feed crops are not used as bio-based feedstock for the manufacture” of these bio-based products and ingredients. In addition to these comments, we underline that as an indirect effect, there is an obvious risk of carbon leakage to third countries in the short and mid-term if investments are hindered by the defined criteria. For all these reasons, we call on the Commission to reconsider the technical criteria included in this DA. We finally reiterate the primary and nurturing role of agriculture and forestry in the transition towards a more sustainable economy. While ensuring food and bio-mass security, farmers and their cooperatives carry out effective adaptation and mitigation actions and ensure vitality of rural areas. Please find in attachment a detailed analysis.

Read full response

Meeting with Katherine Power (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness) and European farmers

16 Dec 2020 · Copa and Cogeca joint Praesidia meeting

Meeting with Mairead McGuinness (Commissioner) and

15 Dec 2020 · Financial sustainability

Meeting with Janusz Wojciechowski (Commissioner) and

9 Dec 2020 · Common Agriculture Policy Reform

Meeting with Valdis Dombrovskis (Executive Vice-President) and European farmers

4 Dec 2020 · - COPA-COGECA’s contribution to the public consultation on trade policy review - how farmers can further benefit from international trade - importance of level playing field - enforcement of FTAS - Mercosur agreement - Brexit negotiations - US

Meeting with Frans Timmermans (Executive Vice-President) and European farmers

3 Dec 2020 · CAP and Green Deal

Meeting with Cristina Rueda Catry (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis), Michael Hager (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis) and

25 Nov 2020 · EU-US trade relations

Meeting with Agne Razmislaviciute-Palioniene (Cabinet of Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius) and European farmers and

25 Nov 2020 · Exchange of views on the upcoming EU Forest Strategy

Meeting with Jorge Pinto Antunes (Cabinet of Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski) and European farmers and

25 Nov 2020 · Meeting with forest stakeholders on the review of the Forest Strategy

Meeting with Helena Braun (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and European farmers and

25 Nov 2020 · Exchange of views on the upcoming EU Forest Strategy

Meeting with Jorge Pinto Antunes (Cabinet of Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski) and European farmers

12 Oct 2020 · Agriculture Data Space.

Meeting with Lukas Visek (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans)

16 Sept 2020 · Opportunities for cooperatives in the Farm to Fork Strategy

Response to Evaluation of the Sewage Sludge Directive 86/278/EEC

25 Aug 2020

Copa and Cogeca represent 22 million farmers and their family members as well as 22,000 cooperatives that are dedicated to providing 446 million EU citizens with safe, nutritious, high-quality and affordable food every day. Farmers, forest owners and their cooperatives are committed to the Paris Agreement and to contributing to the Sustainable Development Goals. Copa and Cogeca find that the Commission initiative to validate the 2014 evaluation is highly relevant both given the technological development since then, as well as changes in the political landscape with the introduction of initiatives such as the Bioeconomy Strategy, new fertilizer regulation and Farm-to-Fork Strategy. Copa and Cogeca agree that the 18 questions in the Commission´s roadmap guiding the content of the public consultation are suitable for the purpose of the hearing. Biological by-products and other side flows from industry and households can be returned to the biosphere through agriculture activities. Therefore, farmers, and agricultural production, play a key role in developing the circular bioeconomy. Threshold limits and restrictions on use must have critical focus in a possible revision of the Sewage Sludge Directive. All levels must reflect best practice in member countries to ensure optimal health and environmental safety. It is imperative that EU regulation on threshold limits and restrictions on use is dynamic to ensure that new knowledge on health and environmental effects can be reflected in regulation immediately. It must be possible to use sludge on agricultural soils without compromising the health of humans or animals or affecting the environment negatively. Therefore, European farmers have an interest in ambitious requirements to the contents of sludge. However, ambitious requirements must be balanced with cost efficient requirements to treatment of sludge, to avoid unnecessary technical or economic barriers to sludge application in fields. The agricultural sector should emphasise sludge as a valuable resource of nutrients that should be kept in the biological life cycle. However, authorities must ensure that the content of heavy metals, pollutants, drug residues and other potentially problematic compounds is minimised. Contamination of sludge or soils must be avoided effectively.

Read full response

European agri-cooperatives urge focus on fossil fuel methane cuts

5 Aug 2020

Topic — The EU consultation addresses methane emissions from agriculture, energy, and waste sectors.

Message — The strategy should prioritize reducing emissions from fossil fuels over agricultural processes. Methane accounting must recognize carbon removals by biomass and use updated models. Monitoring systems should be simple to avoid placing extra costs on farmers.1 2 3

Why — It avoids regulatory costs for farmers while creating new income from biogas.4

Impact — Fossil fuel companies would bear the primary burden for methane emission reductions.5

Read full response

Meeting with Ines Prainsack (Cabinet of Commissioner Stella Kyriakides), Karolina Herbout-Borczak (Cabinet of Commissioner Stella Kyriakides) and European farmers

15 Jul 2020 · VC meeting: Exchange of views on honey in the context of EU actions on food fraud and food labelling under Farm to Fork.

Meeting with Lukas Visek (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans)

10 Jul 2020 · Sustainable food systems

Response to EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change

30 Jun 2020

Copa and Cogeca represent 22 million farmers and their family members as well as 22,000 cooperatives that are dedicated to providing 446 million EU citizens with safe, nutritious, high-quality and affordable food every day. Climate change is affecting every farmer across the globe. It is affecting our lives, communities and countries today, and will do so even more in the future. Weather events are becoming increasingly extreme and frequent, temperatures are on the rise and global greenhouse gas emissions are higher than ever. If no action is taken, the rise in the world’s average surface temperature is likely to exceed the limit of three degrees during the course of this century. Food production will be exposed to even more extreme weather conditions. Relocation of food production could lead to land abandonment and desertification in some regions of the world and may increase the need for arable land in areas that are now covered by forests. EU agriculture and forestry have significant potential to increase adaptation and mitigation efforts, to reduce their emissions, to sequester carbon and to boost economies in a sustainable manner. The future does not lie in decreasing productivity and shifting production as well as climate impacts (carbon leakage and water scarcity) to third countries. We have to make sure that the consumption of food and non-food production (bio-based fuels, chemicals and materials) complies with all the sustainable development goals including trade policy. Adaptation to climate change involves measures to reduce the impact of excessive rainfall, extreme heatwaves, spring frost and droughts on plant growth, carbon sequestration, biomass production and livestock rearing. Preventive measures such as irrigation or drainage, frost and hail control infrastructure, water rights, soil fertility (biological, chemical, physical) management and risk management tools have to be deployed to get a vast number of farmers on board. In times of severe drought, the water retention capability of peatland soil has to be acknowledged with regard to adaptation and food security. For some sectors, such as wine and forestry, it must be possible to adjust adaptation measures to the geographical specificities of production. Plant and livestock breeding ensure that the species and varieties best suited to different conditions are made available. European farmers and agri-cooperatives need to have access to technological advancements in order to overcome a number of challenges, such as remaining competitive, adapting to and mitigating climate change, and providing an adequate supply of high-quality food. New plant breeding techniques could improve the tolerance of plant varieties to water stress and pests. Each new breeding technique should be analysed and discussed by experts on a case-by-case basis and according to strict scientific criteria. We cannot afford to lose time by refraining from using cutting-edge technologies. Similarly, in forestry high-quality seedlings and adapted tree varieties improve adaptation to climate change and forest damage. Integrated pest management (including being able to rely on the use of authorised plant protection products) is a necessary adaptation measure to ensure food security in situations where diseases and pests are spreading, emerging and jeopardising food production. This includes being able to rely on the use of plant protection products that have been deemed safe by authorities. Voluntary measures, supported by public authorities or the private sector, that promote climate action and provide economic return for farmers should be encouraged by EU legislation. Every farmer should have the possibility to access the best adaptation measures tailored to their own needs and be able to count on both a set of available options and an adequate advisory system. This is particularly relevant given that each farm has its own features and needs related to climate resilience.

Read full response

Meeting with Ines Prainsack (Cabinet of Commissioner Stella Kyriakides) and European farmers

30 Jun 2020 · VC meeting on African Swine Fever

Meeting with Virginijus Sinkevičius (Commissioner) and

19 Jun 2020 · To exchange the views regarding the Biodiversity Strategy.

Meeting with Stella Kyriakides (Commissioner) and European farmers

18 Jun 2020 · VC Meeting on Farm to Fork Strategy

Meeting with Janusz Wojciechowski (Commissioner) and

2 Jun 2020 · the new MFF; the Recovery Plan; Farm to fork; the Biodiversity strategy

Meeting with Frans Timmermans (Executive Vice-President) and European farmers

28 May 2020 · Farm to Fork Strategy

Meeting with Catherine Geslain-Laneelle (Cabinet of Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski) and European farmers

27 May 2020 · To present priority measures for the European honey sector.

Meeting with Catherine Geslain-Laneelle (Cabinet of Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski) and Association de l'Aviculture, de l'Industrie et du Commerce de Volailles dans les Pays de l'Union Europeenne asbl and European Live Poultry and Hatching Egg Association

8 May 2020 · To discuss measures taken from the EU Commission to support the EU Poultry Sector in the context of the COVID-19 crisis.

EU agri-cooperatives demand food security protections in Climate Law

1 May 2020

Topic — The consultation gathers feedback on enshrining climate neutrality targets into EU law.

Message — The organization demands that individual farmers are not held liable for climate targets. They insist the law explicitly protects food production and includes stakeholders in policy-making.1 2

Why — This protection shields farmers from legal liability and prevents production costs from rising.3 4 5

Impact — Environmental groups lose if methane is excluded from net-zero targets for the sector.6

Read full response

Response to Climate change mitigation and adaptation taxonomy

27 Apr 2020

Copa and Cogeca represent 22 million farmers and their family members as well as 22,000 cooperatives that are dedicated to providing 446 million EU citizens with safe, nutritious, high-quality and affordable food every day. Farmers, forest owners and their cooperatives are the first to feel the impact of climate change. We are committed to the Paris Agreement and contributing to the Sustainable Development Goals. A farm sustainability management tool is being proposed for the agricultural sector. This tool can only be useful if it is part of CAP measures and CAP reporting with a clear monitoring, reporting and verification workload at farm level to demonstrate compliance with a sustainable agriculture. Copa and Cogeca insist on emphasising that the cost of complying with the taxonomy must be lower than the benefit a farmer or cooperative gains from the financing. In any case a substantial contribution to an even more sustainable agriculture will only be achieved if there is a clear economic incentive for farmers and cooperatives. This incentive must be market driven and respect the basic characteristics of agriculture (nature and biological processes) that cannot be completely controlled and will therefore always produce emissions. The technical screening criteria has to be in line and substitutable with existing sustainability measures in the CAP, REDII and SFM. Sustainability is already defined in sectorial regulation and must not be redefined for sustainable investment purposes. In this context, regarding CAP requirements as ‘DNSH compliant’ but not ‘substantially contributing’ is unacceptable. It implies that none of the existing greening measures and ecosystem services within the CAP are substantially contributing to climate change mitigation and adaptation. In the taxonomy report, the TEG Sustainable Finance mentions the principles put forward in the EU Forestry Strategy, which advance both the benefits of sustainable forest management and the multifunctional role of forests. The screening criteria have to take into account sustainable forest management practices and must not undermine the role forests play in the bioeconomy. In this respect, the scope of the taxonomy has to be enlarged to include “enabling” activities involving long-lived and harvested wood products. The taxonomy at this point does not go far enough, because it focuses only on “greening of” activities, to protect and enhance forest carbon stocks and sinks. Sustainable finance in forestry must not restrict itself to conservation practices. The administrative and economic burden of a proper audit every three years is disproportionate compared to the benefit a farmer gets. This is why the existing reporting approach must be used. The same challenge affects forestry, where there is no reason why this kind of reporting is necessary nearly ten times in one rotation period. New techniques are constantly being developed, and it is vital to be able to adapt the list and add new techniques/initiatives. Which initiatives are the optimal choice depends on geographical and climatic conditions, cultivation practice, etc. It is therefore essential that all initiatives on agricultural land are voluntary and based on choice to ensure that the individual farmers can decide what is best for their land and their business. Thus, good management practice should be ensured through highly qualified consultancy services and intelligent legislation providing flexibility for the farmer rather than rigid schedules and controls. Farmers that have already reduced emissions from production will find it harder to reduce them further than farmers who have not yet taken any steps to reduce emissions. It is therefore necessary to develop a system that assesses GHG emissions with the aim of achieving a common climate efficiency goal and not simply comparing them to emissions from a specific year in the past.

Read full response

Meeting with Janusz Wojciechowski (Commissioner) and

22 Apr 2020 · Covid19 and its consequences to the EU agriculture sector

Response to EU rules on industrial emissions - revision

21 Apr 2020

The EU Directive 2010/75 EU pursues the goal of enforcing the same level of environmental protection at a similar technological level throughout Europe. In accordance with this Directive, the EU Commission adopted Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/302 of 15 February 2017 establishing BAT conclusions of the BREF documents as binding guidelines for livestock installations in the field of pig and poultry farming. These apply to farms with more than 40 000 places for poultry, more than 2 000 places for fattening pigs and more than 750 places for sows. Measures to reduce emission levels must therefore be taken in feeding, emissions reduction in the barn, manure storage and monitoring requirements according to BAT. Member States have four years (until 2021) to review and, if necessary, update permits. The implementation of a key piece of the IED framework is therefore not complete at this stage. We thus believe it is premature to carry out an evaluation of its impacts and we consider the plans to revise the Directive as unfounded. This is especially relevant considering the possibility of revision or tightening of the BAT conclusions, which were adopted through a lengthy, complicated and broad process and will be implemented through considerable investments by the agricultural sector. BREF implementation varies greatly between the different Member States, and the uniformity of the implementation needs to be given much more attention. BREFs are useful tools that contribute to improving the environmental performance of activities. The current system enables the evaluation of existing techniques and can be used to provide updated information on emerging techniques, but also to establish a dialogue between national and European bodies. However, the BREF shows some limitations and there are areas where the framework should be revised: some technical specificities or farming systems, regardless of their impact on the environment, are hardly or insufficiently considered and there are some difficulties regarding recognition of techniques as equivalent to BATs. These constraints may lead farms to abandoning some techniques or may prevent the implementation of environmentally friendly innovations. It also seems necessary to deepen the impact assessment on the economic and social aspects upstream of technical decisions. We see a need for uniform specifications across Europe for the requirements regarding emission reductions in animal husbandry and enhanced consistency of implementation across member states. Emissions from livestock are already covered by other legislative frameworks and good agricultural practices, such as methane in climate policy (Effort Sharing Regulation) and ammonia (from all livestock keeping, including pigs and poultry) in the NEC-directive. In order to avoid double regulation and red tape and to be able to provide efficient, effective and widely accepted EU legislation, the sectors included under the IED should be kept to an absolute minimum. We believe that it is not desirable to extend the current scope of this Directive to cattle or to smaller farm entities, however we deem it important to continue the work of improving practices through advice to farmers and voluntary measures that are adapted to farming systems. The integration of the decarbonisation of industry into the scope of IED must be approached very carefully. Without proper carbon accounting methodologies in agriculture which include soil carbon sequestration, justifying any decarbonisation for agricultural activities is not acceptable. Finally, as regards the coherence with other EU legislation, we would like to highlight a point regarding the E-PRTR component regarding data confidentiality. Today, in accordance with the regulation, most of the eligible data must be available to the public on the dedicated platform. The confidentiality declarations used by Member States must be harmonised across Member States.

Read full response

Meeting with Thierry Breton (Commissioner) and

16 Apr 2020 · COVID crisis: exit and recovery of the agro-food ecosystem

European agri-cooperatives demand climate targets protect food production

15 Apr 2020

Topic — Consultation on increasing the EU greenhouse gas emission reduction target for 2030.

Message — The organization demands that climate laws explicitly protect food production and use updated science for methane accounting. They insist that higher climate targets require more funding rather than cuts to agricultural budgets.1 2

Why — Redefining carbon accounting and incentives would generate new income streams for farmers.3

Impact — The transport sector would face significantly higher emission reduction requirements to compensate.4

Read full response

Meeting with Catherine Geslain-Laneelle (Cabinet of Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski) and European farmers

30 Mar 2020 · To exchange views on the consequences of African Swine Fever in the European market, and the possible measures and solutions to avoid any major disruption.

Meeting with Catherine Geslain-Laneelle (Cabinet of Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski) and European farmers

30 Mar 2020 · Pour présenter les différentes actions nécessaires pour améliorer la situation de marché alarmante du miel dans l’UE.

European agri-cooperatives demand Just Transition Fund support for rural areas

12 Mar 2020

Topic — The European Commission is consulting on the creation of the Just Transition Fund.

Message — The group argues the fund must support rural businesses and geographically diffuse carbon-intensive sectors. Transition plans should cover all facilities with high emissions, not just industrial sites. They insist this funding should not justify further cuts to the Common Agriculture Policy.1 2 3

Why — Expanding the fund's scope would provide agricultural businesses with additional financial assistance.4

Impact — Historically industrial regions may receive less funding if the budget is redirected.5

Read full response

Response to Minimising the risk of deforestation and forest degradation associated with products placed on the EU market

4 Mar 2020

Copa and Cogeca are the united voice of farmers and agri-cooperatives in the EU. Together we represent over 22 million farmers and their family members and the interests of 22.000 agri-cooperatives. Copa and Cogeca understand the importance of the problems that European Commission is trying to tackle with this initiative. EU has already a lot of tools to fight against deforestation but we agree that more can be done in the future. We consider that the impact that deforestation has on local communities and on the violation of property rights is an important point that needs to be acknowledged. EU Agriculture sees its responsibility and emphasises that the transition to sustainable and deforestation-free supply chains has to be supported by consumer behavior and market forces to ensure continuation of sustainable investments and innovation in the sector. A level playing field for EU agricultural production and third country imports is a prerequisite to ensure that overall performance against deforestation globally is increased. As a study by the Commission shows EU consumption was responsible for 10% of worldwide deforestation between 1990-2008. In the same period the EU share of global GDP has been approximately 30% (IMF, World Economic Outlook Database). This indicates that deforestation-free supply chains should not only be achieved by diverting deforestation-free trade flows to the EU market. Special emphasis should be put on local governance to encourage deforestation-free economic activities at local level. Copa and Cogeca believe it is important to provide reliable and solid information to EU consumers. Therefore, it is of the outmost importance to avoid delivering simplistic messages not built on science-based criteria. In addition, as the safeguard of the EU internal market is of the outmost importance, each labelling legislative initiative has to be harmonized across the European Union, in order to avoid disruptive national laws that can damage the free trade within the European Union, creating unnecessary market barriers. Although certification schemes have been increasingly utilised in recent years to communicate with EU consumers, it is pivotal that each potential certification scheme would be utilised to share the premium price across all the food chain. Certification schemes have been too often imposed on primary producers in order to access specific retailers markets (pre-conditions), imposing the certifications costs to farmers and agri-cooperatives but with no sharing of the premium price that consumers are willing to pay, when they buy quality products responding to their e.g. social, ethical, environmental beliefs. Special attention should also be put into the REDII directive and the associated regulation. Under the current provisions, it is obvious that there is a major risk that the use of palm oil for energy will increase, while European farmers, who respect high environmental standards, will face a cap on EU crop-based biofuels. Copa and Cogeca stated in May 2019, that “in the event that [palm oil] exports [from third countries] increase compared to 2019 levels and that deforestation continues, the delegated act [EU 2019/807] should be amended to integrate stricter criteria for the certification of low ILUC-risk feedstock and adequate safeguards to curb their expansion into high carbon stock land.”

Read full response

Meeting with Stella Kyriakides (Commissioner) and European farmers

27 Feb 2020 · Farm to Fork Strategy

Meeting with Frans Timmermans (Executive Vice-President) and European farmers

13 Feb 2020 · Role of Agriculture in the Green Deal

Response to Climate Law

6 Feb 2020

European farmers, forest owners and their cooperatives are the first to feel the impact of climate change. 22 million farmers and their family members and 23 000 agri-cooperatives are committed to the implementation of the Paris Agreement and support it as an essential part of the European and international political agenda. European Climate Law has to provide certainty and stability to the agricultural sector and take into account its capacity, potential and constraints when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Copa and Cogeca agree that all sectors have to play their part and that incentives for developing climate-friendly and sustainable practices, products and technologies have to be strengthened. The EU farming model is based on diversified, local and family farm structures, and is among the most efficient farming systems in the world. As such it has allowed EU agriculture to increase its overall productivity by 25% since 1990 while reducing its GHG emissions by 20% over the same time period. Agriculture has decoupled its environmental impact from production growth. Still, today and in the future, more needs to be done to enhance adaptation and mitigation. The time has come to majorly step up sustainable intensification and take innovative action. We have to take the lead and pave the way for the food production of tomorrow. We want to provide European solutions for global challenges. We must show the way forward by producing more food with less environmental impact. Natural emissions from farming cannot be avoided completely, only reduced to a certain extent. However, they are part of a natural cycle, whereas fossil fuels disrupt this cycle. The difference between long-lived fossil fuel emissions and short-lived natural emissions from farming needs to be considered when designing climate policies. The Climate Law must focus on reducing fossil fuels. Any weakening of the EU’s current border protection for agricultural products could dramatically undermine efforts to reduce emissions and could well prevent a net global emissions reduction. Additionally, given increasing global pressure on agricultural systems due to climate change, EU agriculture will have to play a role in supplying sustainably produced food, feed and agricultural raw materials to disadvantaged parts of the world. Global emissions can benefit from a sustainable trade with EU agricultural products, which come with lower emission intensities than products from other parts of the world. Forestry and agriculture are the sectors that have great potential to offer when it comes to mitigating climate change and promoting the shift towards bio-economy – this potential needs to be recognised. The sector can deliver an overall climatic benefit to society by increasing carbon stored in long-lived wood products (e.g. in construction) and the carbon content in soils and by promoting circular approaches based on biogenic sources. Carbon credit schemes might provide financial incentives for climate mitigation in farming and CO2-sequestration in land use and forestry. Biogenic energy sources represent the main part in the portfolio of renewable energies in the EU. Ambitious dissemination and further technological development of bioenergy in all application areas (heating & cooling, mobility & electricity) is key to achieving climate goals. Each sector must reduce its GHG-emissions within the boundaries of its area of influence. Agriculture and forestry can contribute as a natural carbon sink, but this means that farmers’ and forest owners’ contribution must be remunerated. This must be provided for in European Climate Law. We also believe that the Commission should increase its efforts towards boosting research and innovation in agriculture. This could make a vital contribution to reducing emissions and improving efficiency. Innovation, research and practical solutions should be a supported with ambitious measures rather than becoming binding regulation.

Read full response

Meeting with Lukas Visek (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and European farmers

21 Jan 2020 · Meeting to discuss EVP’s participation in the Praesidia meeting of COPA COGECA

Meeting with Lukas Visek (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and European farmers

12 Dec 2019 · Green Deal and agriculture

Response to Organics production rules

29 Nov 2019

Copa-Cogeca’s working party on organic farming would like to raise the following points. - As regards the usable area, in several Member States a “veranda” is considered an integral part of the poultry house system which benefits from the same conditions as the indoor building, as required by Annex II, part II, point 1.6.1 of Regulation 2018/848, “Insulation, heating and ventilation of the building shall ensure that air circulation, dust level, temperature, relative air humidity and gas concentration are kept within limits which ensure the well-being of the animals”. Therefore, we understand that, in this case, they should be considered as being part of the indoor area of a poultry house and thus included in the usable area. - If the withdrawal period for vaccines, treatments for parasites and compulsory eradication schemes is increased to 48 hours after treatment, this will have detrimental consequences on the rearing of organic ruminants and monogastrics. Organic egg and dairy producers will see a dramatic loss in their income because the products produced during the withdrawal period will not be sold as organic. In the worst-case scenario, animal welfare will be jeopardised. Therefore, it should be clarified that where a zero-day withdrawal period applies for vaccines, treatments for parasites and compulsory eradication schemes, this should be maintained. - For parent birds and pullets, the open-air areas should be substituted by a roofed outdoor area in order to avoid significantly increasing the health risks for the birds and the costs for the organic farmers. - We fear that fixing the maximum for multi-tiered systems at three levels would hamper EU organic poultry production. Instead of limiting the number of levels, we believe that this should be regulated by fixing the maximum stocking density on the ground floor. This would give farmers the possibility to decide on the system best adapted to their climatic conditions and to innovate further in order to improve animal welfare. - In addition, there needs to be a 10-year transition period for all farms that are not yet compliant with the new requirements in the implementing act. This transition period should also apply to all farms compliant with national standards developed under the current organic regulation. - As regards the annex, the maximum flock size in a single compartment should be 12 500 pullets. For broilers, the stocking density in the outdoor area (for fixed houses and mobile houses) should be 2 m2/bird. For piglets of no more than 35 kg, the stocking density in the indoor area should be 0.02m2/kg. For brood sows, the stocking density in the outdoor area should remain at 1,9 m2/head.

Read full response

Meeting with Jerzy Bogdan Plewa (Director-General Agriculture and Rural Development) and European farmers

30 Oct 2019 · Cap refrom post 2020, trade related aspects

Response to Tariff quotas with licences

22 Aug 2019

By default, Copa and Cogeca support efforts to simplify and modernise the current regulatory framework. Regarding the current proposal to simplify rules concerning reduced tariffs schemes we believe that the Commission must take in account the conclusions of the meeting of the Committee of agriculture and rural development of the European Parliament that took place on 19 February 2019, and the opinion of the EU stakeholders and revise the current proposal by maintaining some of the flexibility of the current system while providing the simplification aimed with the revision. The revised draft should:  include exports as reference for over demanded TRQs;  remove limitations on CN codes and origin for all over demanded TRQ’s;  move the details of the requirement for reference quantity from the “Delegated Act” to the “Implementing Act” so as to improve the future flexibility of the TRQ administration; TRQs are applied to products that are considered sensitive. Following more than 70 international trade agreement and other trade arrangements, the management of TRQs became an effective tool for market management, with direct impact on prices for producers. • According to our experts, the current proposal will drastically decrease the effectiveness of TRQ management as market management tool in order to help to balance our internal market for poultry. It will in fact provide an unnecessary concession to third countries multinationals. • In recent negotiations with Canada and Mexico, the EU negotiator understood the importance of retaining the power to manage TRQs. Therefore, has managed to retain the control of management of TRQs for new market access for sensitive sectors. Taking in account that currently 25% of the poultry breast consumed in the EU is imported (overall poultry imports amount to 900.000 tonnes of poultry meat), mostly from Brazil, Thailand and Ukraine, the proposed changes (to the existing TRQs) will, de facto, transfer the bargaining power from the EU to multinationals from third country exporters. • Operators can only increase their share of the allocated licenses by importing on full duty. Importing on full duty is impossible for EU SME importers, so they will lose market share. Third country producers (such as Brazil, Thailand or Ukraine) will be instantly rewarded with extra licenses for every kg of imports on full duty – and they have the economical capacity to do it. Only large 3rd country producers can build new reference quantities which will offer them dominance in the TRQs concerned. • Large 3rd country producers will take full control of quota within a matter of (few) years. The elimination of EU importing SMEs has an impact in the capacity to export EU produce to third countries. In addition, it will allow third country multinationals to build capacity in the EU market, through their subsidiaries, leading to an increase of EU imports from third countries (even) with full duty. With this shift of bargaining power, third countries multinationals will be able to set the price in the EU market. Thanks to the increase of the quota rent, the 3rd country exporters will sell more high-value products (such as the poultry breast) in the EU, with full-duty payment. For example, it’s important to keep in mind the dynamics of the EU market, each poultry breast imported into the EU leads to the replacement of one broiler in the EU. In a period of trade uncertainty and higher chances of Hard brexit, we call on the Commission to revise the draft according to the proposals of the EU agricultural sector.

Read full response

Response to Establishing a list of priority pests

4 Jul 2019

Dear Sir or Madam. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this public consultation. Please find attached the feedback from Copa and Cogeca, representing EU farmers and agri-cooperatives. Best regards.

Read full response

Meeting with Risto Artjoki (Cabinet of Vice-President Jyrki Katainen) and European farmers

13 May 2019 · Common agricultural policy

Meeting with Jerzy Bogdan Plewa (Director-General Agriculture and Rural Development) and European farmers

12 Apr 2019 · Exchange of views

Meeting with Jerzy Bogdan Plewa (Director-General Agriculture and Rural Development) and European farmers

14 Feb 2019 · exchange of view CAP

Meeting with Michel Barnier (Head of Task Force Task Force for Relations with the United Kingdom) and European farmers and

4 Feb 2019 · Meeting with the Task Force for the Preparation and Conduct of the Negotiations with the United Kingdom under Article 50 TEU

Meeting with Michel Barnier (Head of Task Force Task Force for Relations with the United Kingdom) and European farmers

29 Nov 2018 · Meeting with the Task Force for the Preparation and Conduct of the Negotiations with the United Kingdom under Article 50 TEU

Meeting with Nathalie Chaze (Cabinet of Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis) and European farmers and Confédération Européenne des Vignerons Indépendants

21 Nov 2018 · Alcohol labelling

Meeting with Miguel Ceballos Baron (Cabinet of Vice-President Cecilia Malmström) and European farmers

8 Nov 2018 · on-going trade negotiations

Meeting with Nathalie Chaze (Cabinet of Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis) and European farmers

8 Nov 2018 · New breeding techniques

Meeting with Nathalie Chaze (Cabinet of Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis) and European farmers and Confédération Européenne des Vignerons Indépendants

8 Oct 2018 · Alcohol labelling

Meeting with Jerzy Bogdan Plewa (Director-General Agriculture and Rural Development) and European farmers

28 Sept 2018 · exchange of views

Meeting with Nathalie Chaze (Cabinet of Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis) and European farmers and Confédération Européenne des Vignerons Indépendants

21 Sept 2018 · Alcohol labelling

Meeting with Nathalie Chaze (Cabinet of Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis) and European farmers

12 Sept 2018 · New breeding techniques

Meeting with Vytenis Andriukaitis (Commissioner) and

3 Sept 2018 · Alcohol labelling

Response to Evaluation of the EU agricultural promotion policy

27 Jul 2018

Copa and Cogeca welcome the evaluation of the EU agricultural promotion policy. The EU promotion policy is without a doubt an excellent tool to enhance the competitiveness of our sector. Throughout the years, it has proved to be a very important instrument for European farmers and agri-cooperatives to increase consumers’ awareness of the high quality and added value of our products and the merits of EU agriculture. European products are characterised by their diversity and quality, as well as by tradition, know-how and high standards of production. The EU promotion policy is indisputably an excellent tool to promote all of the above in the EU and in third countries. We welcome the fact that the evaluation is also covering Commission initiatives such as the high -level missions. When it comes to promoting EU products in third countries, we need to undertake continuous efforts and actions aimed at opening new markets and eliminating possible barriers to trade. Only once this is done can we fully exploit the potential of the promotion policy. This is why we strongly welcome the high-level missions that have already been organised as well as those yet to come. These excellent initiatives facilitate exchange and encourage the conclusion of agreements between European and global partners that are active in the agri-food sector all over the world. We believe that a key part of the evaluation should be devoted to looking at the experience of the actors involved in the preparation of programmes, including the different requirements of the policy (e.g. representativeness, origin, administrative requirements, etc.), the evaluation process and scope for possible simplification. The experience of the evaluators when assessing the proposals submitted during the calls as well as the feedback received by applicants on their proposals should also be analysed. Copa and Cogeca believe that establishing strategic priorities every year has been a good initiative to increase the impact of promotion and information campaigns all over the world. It makes it possible to take into account the trade agenda, emerging markets and export opportunities, but also the specificities of the different agricultural products and changing consumer trends. We therefore welcome the evaluation in this respect. Indeed, we need to ensure that the policy’s potential continues to be fully exploited and that the policy is tailored to future challenges (e.g. future Brexit market disruptions). The EU promotion policy is, in the majority of cases, a long-term policy. Consequently, when it comes to assessing the efficiency and effectiveness of promotion programmes, we would like to emphasise just how difficult it is to measure the impact of actions beyond their immediate effects, particularly given that some of these impacts take a long time to occur. For this reason, significant weight should be given to the output and result indicators. As already highlighted, the EU promotion policy is a key tool to promote EU agricultural products. For this reason, Copa and Cogeca believe that the selection of promotion programmes and the actions foreseen should focus specifically on primary production in the future, and that the efforts made by European farmers as the first producers of food should be underlined. In this respect, it would be important to evaluate existing statistics in order to ensure that the proposals selected relate to the different agriculture sectors, with a policy tailored their specificities. To conclude, Copa and Cogeca would like to reiterate their support for and commitment to this evaluation. We hope to have the opportunity to share the experience of EU farmers and their cooperatives with regard to the implementation of this essential piece of legislation. It is therefore very important to ensure that there is enough time for proper consultation and involvement of the different actors.

Read full response

Meeting with Nathalie Chaze (Cabinet of Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis) and European farmers

9 Jul 2018 · Alcohol labelling

Response to Initiative to improve the Food Supply Chain

13 Jun 2018

Cogeca welcomes this Commission’s proposal for a Directive to curb UTPs in the food supply chain. Purely voluntary systems did not work and we called for legislation to address this problem. We continue to see a recurrent use of UTPs all across Europe and several Member States have introduced national legislation to curb its use. Nevertheless, we need a European solution for what is clearly a European problem. Such a solution must not endanger the well-functioning legislative systems already in place in Member States. We need to improve the functioning of the food supply chain and we need to have a more balanced distribution of the consumer Euro along the food supply chain. The use of UTPs will not deliver on these objectives and will put at stake the viability and sustainability of the farming sector across the EU. This proposal for a Directive needs to: - create a level playing field for economic operators across the EU regardless of their economic size; - ensure a proper functioning of the internal market and prevent its fragmentation; - provide a “platform” to address transnational UTPs, and; - provide guidance and coordination to Member States in dealing with complex cases. Among these basic elements, the definition of UTPs is fundamental to have a definition of what is and constitutes UTPs. It is not so much the compilation of a list of UTPs (that cannot ever be exhaustive) that is relevant but capturing the principles and essence of any actions that are unfair, unethical and abusive in commercial relations in the food chain. Scope: the Directive should apply to all businesses and not only to SMEs suppliers and non-SMEs buyers. Coverage: Cogeca considers that a legislation aiming to improve the functioning of the food supply chain should cover food and non-food products derived from agricultural products listed in Annex I to the TFEU. An essential element is the control and enforcement. These should fall under the responsibility of an independent authority responsible for the monitoring and control of its implementation but most importantly the enforcement of the legislative provisions acting in a proactive and robust manner. This authority must be able to apply (and collect) any sanctions deemed necessary to correct or redress the situation in case of non-compliance with the rules. Sanctions should aim to: - Change the behaviour of the offender; - Eliminate any financial gain or benefit from noncompliance; - Be responsive and appropriate to the offender; - Proportionate to the nature of the offense and harm caused; - Restore the harm caused by noncompliance of the rules; - Deter future noncompliance. Economic sanctions applied must be sufficiently important to act as a deterrent thus preventing any further repetition of actions. Repeated behaviour must also be considered when determining the sanction. Non-economic sanctions could also be used. The “fear factor” also needs to be addressed and for that, anonymity must be provided so that those suffering from these practices can come forward and voice their problems. Furthermore, this authority must be able to receive anonymous complaints and initiate and conduct “ex-officio” investigations. Member States authorities should communicate to the EU level authority the cases under investigation and, upon completion, the decisions and, when applicable, the sanctions imposed. Farmers being the weakest link in the chain are suffering their impacts and they cannot endure this situation any longer. When unfair and unethical behaviour leads to financial gains, only legislation backed by proper enforcement can deliver the necessary results. We need a cultural change in business ethics. The European Commission and Member State authorities must implement a coordinated approach to prevent aggressive, unfair and abusive commercial practices that do not serve consumer interests.

Read full response

Meeting with Nathalie Chaze (Cabinet of Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis) and European farmers

29 May 2018 · Alcohol labelling

Meeting with Cristina Rueda Catry (Cabinet of Commissioner Phil Hogan)

7 May 2018 · Future of the CAP

Response to Negotiation mandate for revising an agreement with the US on the import of hormone-free beef

24 Apr 2018

Copa and Cogeca thank the European Commission for consulting stakeholders on this very important issue. We considered that the management of the TRQ was made correctly given access to the EU market to several operators. We support the European Commission initiatives concerning negotiations on the further implementation of a specific provision provided in the current existing EU-US Revised Memorandum of Understanding provided that the following principles are followed: • The overall size of the TRQ should remain unchanged as the EU is also in bilateral negotiations with other countries benefiting from this agreement; • Any agreement with the US on the import of hormone-free beef is fully in line with WTO law; • Exceptions for the use of any hormone preparation in hormone-free beef products are unacceptable. We hope you can take this comments in consideration, Copa and Cogeca

Read full response

Meeting with Carl-Christian Buhr (Cabinet of Commissioner Mariya Gabriel) and European farmers

23 Apr 2018 · Launching event of the EU code of conduct on agricultural data sharing

Meeting with Nathalie Chaze (Cabinet of Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis) and European farmers and

10 Apr 2018 · Alcohol labelling

Meeting with Jyrki Katainen (Vice-President) and European farmers

26 Mar 2018 · Food Supply Chain

Response to Update of the 2012 Bioeconomy Strategy

16 Mar 2018

Copa and Cogeca, representing the European farmers and agri-cooperatives, welcome the publication by the EU Commission of the Roadmap on the update of the Bioeconomy strategy, and underline the importance of the EU agriculture and forestry sectors to maximize the potential of bioeconomy in EU. We welcome the fact that the update aims to strengthen sustainability and deliver on jobs and growth as well as support valorization of local resources and involve more effectively primary producers in the supply chain. However, we fail to see in the eight action points presented in the roadmap how these issues will be addressed as none of the points cover issues related to primary producers and biomass availability and mobilisation. EU-grown sustainable biomass is the first enabler of an EU bioeconomy and further boosts the vitality of the entire value-chain. Promoting and supporting sustainable biomass production and mobilisation in the EU is key to further developing the bioeconomy. Involvement of primary producers in the structures of the bioeconomy initiatives and decision making processes is of utmost importance to strengthen partnerships between different actors of society and enhance public awareness of the sustainable use of biomass resources. We do consider that the importance of the bioeconomy is still underestimated at EU level and better policy coherence and coordination is still needed. There is a need for creating a stronger link between the updated EU Bioeconomy Strategy and the future CAP, the future Cohesion policy and also the EU Forest Strategy that is currently being reviewed by the Commission. The future Bioeconomy Strategy action plan should highlight the importance of the future CAP in supporting the further development of the bioeconomy. This could be by providing the right tools to promote active land management, prevent land abandonment, support investments to foster innovation and to stimulate precision farming and forestry for a more efficient use of resources. In addition, the role of the advisory services, knowledge transfer and training is crucial in helping farmers to increase the sustainability of their current business when producing biomass and to benefit from new business opportunities. The action plan should also ensure coherence with regional development policy post 2020. Enough funds should be provided to support infrastructure, broadband and services in rural areas to ensure efficient rural business. Progress in the bioeconomy can only be achieved if rural areas are attractive to live and work in for future generations. In the context of policy and incentives coherence, the revised strategy should also come up with concrete proposals on how to raise awareness and promote the benefits of bio-based products to stimulate market demand. In this context, the existing legislative and non-legislative sustainability framework for renewable raw materials should be acknowledged and promoted. In order to ensure a sustainable development of bioeconomy, we need to continue to support an efficient use of resources and to avoid any promotion of principles such as ‘’the cascade use’’ that goes against a market oriented economy. Any link between this approach and bioeconomy will be detrimental to the development of local supply chains and will lead to overly-prescriptive administrative burden. We believe that the European Commission should better promote the replacement of fossil-based raw materials with EU grown renewable materials in strategic sectors such as energy, construction, packaging, automotive, fertiliser and textile industries.

Read full response

Meeting with Marco Valletta (Cabinet of Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis) and European farmers

16 Mar 2018 · Unfair practices in the internal market, ASF, CAP reform

Meeting with Vytenis Andriukaitis (Commissioner) and

12 Mar 2018 · Alcohol labelling

Meeting with Vytenis Andriukaitis (Commissioner) and

22 Feb 2018 · African Swine Fever, Animal Welfare, Food waste

Meeting with Jerzy Bogdan Plewa (Director-General Agriculture and Rural Development) and European farmers

13 Feb 2018 · Exchange of views on the future of the CAP and Civil Dialogue Groups

Response to Commission Implementing Regulation on the provision of voluntary indication of origin or place of provenance of foods

1 Feb 2018

Copa and Cogeca believe that the primary goal of food labelling is to provide consumers with coherent and transparent information to enable them to make informed choices. We, indeed, acknowledge that consumer demand for information on the place of the origin of food is becoming increasingly important to consumers and that there is significant potential for consumers to be misled. Recent consumer research has shown that local provenance is valued by consumers, is associated with quality, and that purchasing locally produced food products makes consumers feel that they contribute to the local economy and employment. Unfortunately, EU farmers and their Cooperatives have identified several cases on the market of operators that link their product to a particular origin without any real connection to the primary ingredient’s place of farming. This is why we would like to start by stressing that the logic behind Article 26.3 of Reg (EU) No 1169/2011 is to prevent such cases. Unfortunately, the article of the regulation per se is already providing enough flexibility to operators that do not want to disclose further information on the origin of the primary ingredient but simply want to say that it has a different origin to that of the final product. Copa and Cogeca regret the fact that the draft text is still too flexible and vague. To start, the draft does not provide any legal certainty on what is meant by “given origin”. It should be clearly specified in the scope that it means any indication provided in relation to the country of origin or place of provenance of a food such as statements, terms, pictorial presentation or symbols. Above all, no consistency and consequent legal obligation is enforced between the level of geographical detail given for the food and the one given for the primary ingredient. Previous versions of the draft were clearer in this respect. We understand the need to provide a viable solution, nevertheless there needs to be a minimum level of consistency between both origins. With the current draft, one can easily label the origin of food at a city or a regional level giving information on the primary ingredient at EU/non-EU level. We wonder whether this is relevant for consumers and helps to avoid misleading practices. Voluntary information on food origin cannot become a marketing tool for operators trying to differentiate on the market but who do not have all the relevant final product information or who simply do not want to disclose further information on the provenance of the main ingredient. To render markets more transparent and to enable consumers to make informed choices, it is essential to develop clear and strict rules on voluntary origin labelling and this implementing act should play a key role in this respect. We would like to stress that the origin of an agricultural product refers to the place where the product was harvested or where the animal was reared, i.e. the “place of farming”. For the sake of consumer transparency, it is also of paramount importance that a clear distinction is drawn between indicating the place of farming and the definition of country of origin, which refers to the place of the last substantial modification. Indeed, we also wonder how the definition of origin for those sectors that do not have sectorial legislation is going to be applied. For example, the origin of meat is clearly defined in EU legislation and operators can only refer to the word “Origin” if the animal was born, raised and slaughtered in the same place. Otherwise, the place of rearing and the place of slaughtering has to be further specified at Member State level. At the same time, it is not clear in the draft whether existing EU sectorial legislation will apply mutatis mutandis or operators will have the flexibility to choose the origin of the primary ingredient. Please read the attachment for further information and to see some examples of misleading practices.

Read full response

Meeting with Marco Valletta (Cabinet of Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis) and European farmers

30 Jan 2018 · African Swine Fever, Plant Protection Products and Health and Food Safety Issues related to trade

Meeting with Cristina Rueda Catry (Cabinet of Commissioner Phil Hogan)

29 Jan 2018 · Future of the CAP

Response to Transparency and sustainability of the EU risk assessment model in the food chain

16 Jan 2018

Fifteen years after the adoption of the principles laid down in the General Food Law (GFL), EU agri-cooperatives would like to stress once again their support for and commitment to these principles. We believe that this is a fundamental piece of legislation which sets the foundations for food and feed safety, in particular by ensuring a high level of protection of human health, protecting consumers against misleading and fraudulent practices, and guaranteeing the effective functioning of the internal market and an integrated approach from farm to fork. We also believe that one of the essential principles laid down was the need to ensure that decisions relating to safety are supported by sound scientific evidence. Indeed, the GFL established the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) as the EU risk assessment body for food safety. For Cogeca, EFSA has played and should continue to play a central role in providing sound scientific opinions and guarantees to EU consumers. EFSA’s opinions and evaluations clearly require professional judgment, which needs to be achieved by respecting the highest standards of scientific expertise. Opinions adopted by EFSA are always the outcome of collective deliberations and it is important to consider the expertise, the excellence of the scientists and the quality of the research involved. It is therefore essential to continue to attract the best talent and new experts to EFSA’s work. When it comes to communication, it is vital that risk assessments and scientific reports in general are communicated in a balanced, professional and pragmatic way. Science cannot be politicised, nor can it spread widely unfounded information or limited findings as this could unsettle the public and create market problems. It is important to keep in mind that EFSA draws professional scientific conclusions that are not necessarily addressed to general public but to risk managers. Nevertheless, Cogeca appreciates EFSA’s efforts to improve general communication and thus the efficiency of EFSA’s work conducting professional and technical discussions. Of course, risk assessments need to be carried out in an environment of transparency and independence, thereby ensuring that the outcomes remain unbiased. The integrity of EFSA in delivering transparency and efficient deliverables, safeguarding food safety and consumer confidence, and supporting innovation is of the utmost importance for us. EFSA’s deliverables should be able to foster further development of innovative solutions that will help to face future challenges and to continue to build consumer confidence, which is a crucial element for the EU agri-food sector to innovate & become more competitive. We believe that harmonised EU safety assessments and trust in the food chain are important elements to foster growth and competitiveness, to protect the proper functioning of the internal market, and to support the EU’s trade agenda. Indeed, Cogeca will participate actively in the consultations organised as part of this initiative on transparency and sustainability of the EU risk assessment model in the food chain. We believe that it is very important to ensure enough time for proper technical consultations and a level playing field for the involvement of the relevant actors in such a complex issue. This will help to continue to build trust in the EU safety model that has proven to be a real success story. We need to learn from previous experience and to strengthen the role of EFSA by ensuring greater consistency and cooperation between the different EU risk assessment bodies, attracting good scientists, providing predictability & guaranteeing support from the different public authorities. Indeed, supporting a reliable and coherent regulatory framework, especially at times when there are uncertainties on the markets, is fundamental, so that agri-cooperatives can plan ahead to ensure an innovative, competitive & sustainable agriculture.

Read full response

Meeting with Miguel Ceballos Baron (Cabinet of Vice-President Cecilia Malmström) and European farmers

5 Dec 2017 · Mercosur negotiations, state of play

Meeting with Michel Barnier (Head of Task Force Task Force for Relations with the United Kingdom) and European farmers

30 Nov 2017 · Meeting with the Task Force for the Preparation and Conduct of the Negotiations with the United Kingdom under Article 50 TEU

Meeting with Jyrki Katainen (Vice-President) and European farmers

30 Nov 2017 · How the agriculture sector could benefit from EFSI.

Meeting with Vytenis Andriukaitis (Commissioner) and

23 Nov 2017 · African swine fever

Meeting with Vytenis Andriukaitis (Commissioner) and

23 Nov 2017 · Common Agricultural Policy; Trade from EU standards point of view; Glyphosate

Meeting with Marco Valletta (Cabinet of Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis) and European farmers

31 Oct 2017 · Exchange of views on the CAP

Meeting with Miguel Ceballos Baron (Cabinet of Vice-President Cecilia Malmström) and European farmers

28 Sept 2017 · On-going negotiations with Mercosur

Response to Evaluation of the feed additives Regulation

25 Sept 2017

Cogeca welcomes the evaluation of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and Council on additives for use in animal nutrition. EU agri-cooperatives believe that this is a very important piece of legislation in the area of animal nutrition because it establishes the regulatory framework for authorising the placing on the market and use of feed additives in Europe. Indeed, feed additives represent a very important element in the nutrition of food-producing animals. After several years of implementation, we believe that it is relevant to evaluate whether this framework contributed and facilitated the development of innovative solutions for all species (including minor species) that could help meet our challenges at affordable prices for farmers in Europe. Guaranteeing a high level of protection of human and animal health, protecting consumers against misleading practices, and ensuring that decisions relating to safety are supported by a sound scientific basis are very important elements for agri-cooperatives. It is also essential to establish and safeguard a level playing field to encourage the free movement of goods, an effective functioning of the internal market and an integrated approach from farm to fork. As for animal production, it is in the interest of agri-cooperatives to continue to ensure sustainable livestock production, with healthy and productive animals that can meet all the challenges ahead. Cogeca believes that proper animal nutrition is a prerequisite for good animal health and welfare. It also plays a very important role in improving end product quality, increasing efficiency and reducing the environmental impact. Labelling is also a very important element in this exercise, and EU agri-cooperatives would be happy to contribute to the evaluation by sharing their experience during these years of implementation. To conclude, Cogeca would be very happy to get more involved in the evaluation by sharing the experience of EU agri-cooperatives with the implementation of this piece of legislation. We hope that these comments will be granted your full consideration.

Read full response

Meeting with Jean-Luc Demarty (Director-General Trade) and European farmers

19 Sept 2017 · Mercosur

Meeting with Jerzy Bogdan Plewa (Director-General Agriculture and Rural Development) and European farmers and

15 Sept 2017 · Exchange of views

Response to Initiative to improve the Food Supply Chain

22 Aug 2017

Copa and Cogeca welcome the publication by the European Commission of the Inception Impact Assessment “Initiative to improve the food supply chain” and have been calling for tangible actions to improve the functioning of the food supply chain and, in particular, to curb unfair trading practices. CONSIDERATIONS ON THE OBJECTIVES AND POLICY OPTIONS Copa and Cogeca fully support actions from the European Commission to address: i) Unfair Trading Practices; The imbalances of power in the food supply chain between price setters and price takers has led to undue pressure being put on the weaker links in the food chain (farmers and agri-cooperatives) and quite often have forced them to accept unfair and abusive prices and conditions. Under these circumstances prices often do not even cover production costs nor enable them to have an economic return on their activity. This is a known problem with a EU-wide dimension. Given these circumstances, the high level of concentration of the retail sector and the fundamental importance of defending a well-functioning Internal Market, Copa and Cogeca favour an EU framework legislation to address and curb UTPs in the food supply chain – option 3. This is the only way to address an EU wide problem. Indeed an EU framework legislation that includes the prohibition of UTPs as well as control and enforcement mechanisms combined with deterrent sanctions is the way to address this problem. UTPs put at stake the viability and sustainability of the farming sector across the EU. This should not however impact negatively on the work of agri-cooperatives to improve farmers’ position in the food chain. A significant number of Member States have already adopted legislation to curb UTPs and, with a view to safeguard a well-functioning Internal Market it is necessary to bring a EU wide solution to this problem that has clearly a EU dimension. Copa and Cogeca have worked in the past with other stakeholders in the food chain to address UTPs but relying solely on a voluntary approach (e.g. guidelines, recommendations and other non-legislative actions) hasn’t worked. The Supply Chain Initiative (SCI), to which Copa and Cogeca have not signed up to, has not delivered on a reduction of UTPs, therefore a legislative approach is the solution. Farmers’ income has dropped 20% in the past four years, therefore clear tangible and immediate action must be taken not only to reverse this situation but also to improve farmers’ share of the consumer Euro. ii) Market Transparency, and; In addition to these measures it is necessary to increase market transparency. In this respect improved information will enable all operators in the food supply chain to make better informed decisions and, in particular, farmers and agri-cooperatives, will have the possibility to improve their efficiency and have a clearer view on the distribution of added value along the food chain including to consumers. To achieve this option 2 is clearly the preferred one. However one should also explore mandatory reporting on prices in order to have robust, reliable and anonymous data along the food supply chain. iii) Producers cooperation. The items are important to improve farmers position in the food chain but one cannot fully achieve this without addressing the conditions for an improved cooperation between farmers. We therefore believe that it is necessary to provide to agri-cooperatives and other types of producer organisations with an economic activity the necessary derogations from Competition law so that they can contribute to improve farmers’ income and their share of the consumer Euro. In this context option 2 is an improvement to the current situation to enable farmers to concentrate supply, add value to their produce and improve their position in the food supply chain. However further steps to amend articles 152, 206 and 210 of Reg. (EU) n° 1308/2013 are necessary.

Read full response

Meeting with Jyrki Katainen (Vice-President) and European farmers

6 Jul 2017 · CAP, investment and trade.

Meeting with Tom Tynan (Cabinet of Commissioner Phil Hogan) and European farmers

4 Jul 2017 · Business discussion

Meeting with Günther Oettinger (Commissioner) and European farmers

15 Jun 2017 · MFF, CAP

Meeting with Xavier Prats Monné (Director-General Health and Food Safety) and European farmers

11 May 2017 · Animal welfare; Nutrition & Health; Food safety

Meeting with Cristina Rueda Catry (Cabinet of Commissioner Phil Hogan) and European farmers

18 Apr 2017 · Ecological farming

Meeting with Cristina Rueda Catry (Cabinet of Commissioner Phil Hogan)

15 Mar 2017 · Topics related to the meat sector

Meeting with Marc Lemaitre (Director-General Regional and Urban Policy) and European farmers

13 Mar 2017 · Exchange of views on the current and future role of ESIF for rural areas

Meeting with Cristina Rueda Catry (Cabinet of Commissioner Phil Hogan) and European farmers

25 Jan 2017 · Business discussion

Response to Changes to greening rules and clarifications of certain other direct payments' rules

12 Jan 2017

Continuation of the previous part (3/3) ...the weighting factors for short rotation coppice and catch crop or green cover should be harmonized with the one for NFC and therefore raise up to 0.7 to provide a balanced approach of the values of the element for biodiversity. Such an adjustment could better reflect the environmental value of EFA, as weighting factors are assigned in consideration of EFAs biodiversity objective taking into account the agronomic function of particular elements. Furthermore the weighting factors to calculate the total hectares of EFAs do not fully recognize the environmental benefits of catch crops, nitrogen fixing crops and short rotation coppice compared to the land lying fallow.

Read full response

Meeting with Juergen Mueller (Cabinet of Vice-President Karmenu Vella) and European farmers

10 Jan 2017 · Contribution of the Common Agricultural Policy to Environmental Objectives

Meeting with Elisabetta Siracusa (Cabinet of Commissioner Phil Hogan), Peter Power (Cabinet of Commissioner Phil Hogan) and European farmers

10 Jan 2017 · Upcoming CAP process

Meeting with Cecilia Malmström (Commissioner) and European farmers

8 Dec 2016 · Trade and agriculture

Response to Commission Implementing Regulation amending the criteria of low risk substances

1 Dec 2016

Availability of Plant Protection Products is a key element to implement proper Integrated Pest Management (IPM). However, this is not only about active substances or products but also about preventative measures and/or suppression of harmful organisms, rotation, plant varieties, sowing dates which are often out of farmers’ control. The vast majority of pests and diseases in crops are controlled with cultural or physical measures. IPM is not a new concept for EU farmers and agri-cooperatives, as this is based on good farming practices that have evolved over time. However, we have to remind that IPM is also related to costs and economics. The whole debate on low-risk is closely related to the Directive on Sustainable Use of Pesticides and IPM principles. In this respect, since January 2014, Member States have put in place their National Action Plans (NAPs) on how to apply the general principles of IPM. These NAPs require to give wherever possible priority to non-chemical methods for pest management. Currently, there are only 7 low-risk authorised active substances (with no pending authorisations) and 11 basic substances. The average time to authorise low-risk active substances is the same as the non low-risk (more than 2.5 years since the submission of the dossier). These figures show clearly that these tools are far away from what is needed. From farmers and agri-cooperatives’ point of view, increasing availability of low-risk active substances should advance in parallel with other active substances or methods of control. Availability of a wide range of solutions is a key need in order to allow correct choices at farm level and avoid resistances. European agriculture needs to remain competitive while protecting human health and decreasing the pressure on the environment. We therefore, consider that there is a clear need for higher availability of substances and methods to fight pests and diseases, be they mechanical, biological or chemical. Copa and Cogeca have been actively involved in the work carried out by the working group on low-risk substances and that are included in the “Background document for the purpose of a possible amendment of the current low-risk criteria”. In addition, we have developed a roadmap for collaboration with the industry providing such tools. We therefore, consider, among other measures, the need for: • Approving a fast-track approval procedure for those substances that are likely to be considered as low-risk; • Increasing information provided to users through advice services and claims in the labels (this information has not to be misleading); • Unlimited periods of approval unless there are founded concerns to change it (due to unknown side effects) We want also to draw your attention to the fact that in whereas number 7, it seems to be a typo in the last sentence. In this part of the text, instead of chemicals, the text should refer to semio-chemicals. In addition, in whereas number 10, as well as the annex point 5.2.2., we propose to include the following change: “have demonstrated multiple resistance to anti-microbials with different modes of action” instead of “have demonstrated multiple resistance to anti-microbials”. Finally, as for any other active substance we claim for a level playing field in Europe. Currently, the authorisation of Plant Protection Products is done at national level, which endangers the situation for Minor Uses and Specialty Crops due to, among others, the lack of interest to invest in small markets or the inappropriate functioning of the mutual recognition system.

Read full response

Meeting with Tom Tynan (Cabinet of Commissioner Phil Hogan) and European farmers

29 Nov 2016 · Copa and Cogeca event in the European Parliament

Meeting with Vytenis Andriukaitis (Commissioner) and

17 Nov 2016 · Roundtable on the future of the General Food Law Regulation

Meeting with Jerzy Bogdan Plewa (Director-General Agriculture and Rural Development) and European farmers and European Oilseed Alliance

28 Oct 2016 · Biofuels

Response to Amendment of the technical Annexes of the Plant Health Directive 2000/29/EC

14 Oct 2016

Copa and Cogeca welcome the Commission’s proposal to amend the Annexes of Directive 2000/29, since last update took place on 6 February 2014. However, we would like to make the following comments: A) Regulation of new harmful organisms In the case of Saperda candida Fabricius, we want to express our doubts about the feasibility of complete physical protection. The requirement established in point 14, b, i, seems unworkable. We propose to skip this point. B) Revision of existing requirements of a number of harmful organisms Xylella fastidiosa was found in Italy for first time in October 2013. Copa and Cogeca therefore welcome the addition of Xylella fastidiosa in the list of harmful organisms that occur in the EU territory. C) Additional regulated plant commodities For citrus imports in the EU coming from contaminated areas, the Commission is proposing to allow exporting countries to choose an effective method against Thaumatotibia leucotreta. Copa and Cogeca would like to underline that EPPO only recommends cold treatment to combat this harmful organism. We therefore propose to strict to this recommendation. The European Commission proposes less stringer export conditions for citrus fruits contaminated by Phyllostica citricarpa and Xanthomanas citri when the final destination is processing plants. Copa and Cogeca find this proposal unacceptable as it does not take into account EFSA's recommendations on the risks to the EU's citrus groves. In line with EFSA, we propose the same measures regardless of the end market. D) Changes in Protected Zones Copa and Cogeca ask to pay attention to Integrated Pest Management requirements for certain potted plants destined for the final consumer regarding Bemisia tabaci. Indeed, it will very difficult at some production places to be free from this insect due to the permanent presence of Bemisia populations in several places of production in Europe. An inspection of the lot, the consignment or the crop could be establish prior to the movement of the potted plants. For imports, Finally, we request the European Commission to have shorter and more frequent updates. While emergency measures can be used to react to new developments on an interim basis, regular updates would establish clearer framework. As an example, the current package proposes new measures for the tomato pinworm and the vector of zebra chip disease of potatoes, while these threats have been known for some time. In addition, Copa and Cogeca consider that the new amendments have to be implemented as soon as possible, once they will be approved. This will give bring more clarity for controls and therefore improving the efficiency of the system.

Read full response

Meeting with Tom Tynan (Cabinet of Commissioner Phil Hogan) and European farmers

12 Oct 2016 · Cereals concerns

Meeting with Tom Tynan (Cabinet of Commissioner Phil Hogan) and European farmers

12 Oct 2016 · Agri matters

Meeting with Tom Tynan (Cabinet of Commissioner Phil Hogan) and European farmers

21 Sept 2016 · Nuffield project

Meeting with Cecilia Malmström (Commissioner) and European farmers

19 Sept 2016 · Agriculture in trade negotiations

Meeting with Cristina Rueda Catry (Cabinet of Commissioner Phil Hogan)

14 Jul 2016 · Bio agriculture

Meeting with Miguel Ceballos Baron (Cabinet of Vice-President Cecilia Malmström) and European farmers

22 Jun 2016 · Agriculture in on-going Trade negotiations

Meeting with Vytenis Andriukaitis (Commissioner) and

2 Jun 2016 · Glyphosate

Meeting with Vytenis Andriukaitis (Commissioner) and

4 Apr 2016 · Endocrine disruptors

Meeting with Phil Hogan (Commissioner) and

19 Feb 2016 · AGRI issues

Meeting with Miguel Ceballos Baron (Cabinet of Vice-President Cecilia Malmström) and European farmers

21 Jan 2016 · Agriculture in TTIP

Meeting with Arunas Ribokas (Cabinet of Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis) and European farmers

19 Jan 2016 · Russian Restrictions of pig mean exports

Meeting with Hilde Hardeman (Cabinet of Vice-President Jyrki Katainen) and European farmers

20 Nov 2015 · New breeding techniques

Meeting with Arunas Ribokas (Cabinet of Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis) and European farmers

17 Nov 2015 · Trade and investment communication

Meeting with Kaius Kristian Hedberg (Cabinet of Commissioner Elżbieta Bieńkowska) and European farmers

13 Nov 2015 · Introductory meeting

Meeting with Miguel Ceballos Baron (Cabinet of Vice-President Cecilia Malmström) and European farmers

12 Nov 2015 · Trade in agriculture

Meeting with Dermot Ryan (Cabinet of Commissioner Phil Hogan) and European farmers

26 Oct 2015 · new breeding technics regarding GMOs legislation

Meeting with Edward Bannerman (Cabinet of Vice-President Jyrki Katainen) and European farmers

19 Oct 2015 · EU trade strategy

Meeting with Nathalie Chaze (Cabinet of Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis) and European farmers

14 Oct 2015 · New breeding techniques, GMO

Meeting with Cristina Rueda Catry (Cabinet of Commissioner Phil Hogan)

6 Oct 2015 · EU Trade strategy; DDA; EU-Japan negotiations; SPS concerns in market access

Meeting with Elisabetta Siracusa (Cabinet of Commissioner Phil Hogan) and European farmers

20 May 2015 · Copa-Cogeca Lunch on Simplification of CAP

Meeting with Mathieu Fichter (Cabinet of Commissioner Corina Crețu) and STARCH EUROPE

18 May 2015 · EU bioeconomy policy

Meeting with Jean-Luc Demarty (Director-General Trade) and European farmers

6 May 2015 · Trade Negotiations

Meeting with Arunas Vinciunas (Cabinet of Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis), Nathalie Chaze (Cabinet of Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis) and European farmers

4 May 2015 · Plant protection materials

Meeting with Miguel Arias Cañete (Commissioner) and

17 Mar 2015 · : indirect land-use change of food-crop based biofuels & inclusion of land-use in the EU's emission reduction target for 2030

Meeting with Eduard Hulicius (Cabinet of Commissioner Věra Jourová) and European farmers

12 Mar 2015 · Infrastructure problems of European agriculture

Meeting with Patrick Costello (Cabinet of Vice-President Karmenu Vella) and European farmers

12 Mar 2015 · NEC Directive (Meeting with Policy Coordination Committee of Copa and the Cooperative Coordination Committee of Cogeca)

Meeting with Claes Bengtsson (Cabinet of Commissioner Margrethe Vestager)

11 Mar 2015 · Future development of infrastructures

Meeting with Tom Tynan (Cabinet of Commissioner Phil Hogan)

10 Mar 2015 · Meeting with Mr Mansel, Chairman of Copa-Cogeca Dairy working group on "Way to assist the farmers to pay the super-levy"

Meeting with Karmenu Vella (Commissioner) and European farmers

9 Mar 2015 · REFIT of Birds and Habitats

Meeting with Dermot Ryan (Cabinet of Commissioner Phil Hogan), Elisabetta Siracusa (Cabinet of Commissioner Phil Hogan) and European farmers

5 Mar 2015 · Present and discuss Copa-Cogeca’s preliminary ideas on CAP simplification

Meeting with Carlos Moedas (Commissioner) and European farmers and

2 Feb 2015 · Meeting with the European Bioeconomy Alliance on the Bioeconomy Strategy

Meeting with Lee Foulger (Cabinet of Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis) and European farmers

15 Jan 2015 · MIFID II

Meeting with Tom Tynan (Cabinet of Commissioner Phil Hogan)

15 Jan 2015 · MiFID and ongoing definition of level 2 legislation

Meeting with Carl-Christian Buhr (Cabinet of Commissioner Phil Hogan) and European farmers

16 Dec 2014 · General presentation, food supply chain, unfair trading practices