OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Lantbrukarnas Riksförbund

LRF

Lantbrukarnas Riksförbund (LRF) is Sweden's politically independent farmers' organization representing over 128,000 members and 60,000 businesses in agriculture, forestry, horticulture, and rural sectors.

Lobbying Activity

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

28 Jan 2026 · Discuss the pig market situation and the Livestock Workstream

Meeting with Jörgen Warborn (Member of the European Parliament)

23 Jan 2026 · Tradepolicy

Response to Land use, land use change and forestry – establishing trajectories towards 2030

12 Dec 2025

The Federation of Swedish Farmers (LRF) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the proposed development trajectories for Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) up to 2030. As a representative of Swedens farmers and forest owners, LRF supports ambitious EU climate goals but urges that targets and methodologies be realistic, science-based, and supportive of both climate, bioeconomy and rural development. Realistic and Flexible Targets: Current annual binding targets for the land use sector are not realistically achievable due to methodological limitations, natural variability, disturbances, and changing geopolitical circumstances. Targets should be revised to reflect actual sector potential and allow full access to flexibility mechanisms, ensuring commitments are based on real circumstances rather than static historical assumptions. Recognition of Substitution Effects: Climate policy must fully account for the long-term emission reductions achieved by substituting fossil-based products with forest-based alternatives. The current LULUCF accounting does not sufficiently recognize the mitigation contribution of harvested wood products, which store carbon and replace more emission-intensive materials. In the coming update of LULUCF we stressed that substation effects need to be recognized. Socio-Economic and Rural Impacts: Forestry and forest-based industries are vital for rural employment, economic stability, and export revenues. Policies that force significant reductions in harvesting volumes would have severe consequences for the economy, labour market, and raw material supply for the EUs green transition. Such measures are neither politically nor economically viable and could paradoxically increase long-term emissions. Bio-Physical Realism and Local Adaptation: Targets derived from arithmetic extrapolation of past inventories do not adequately test whether increases in sinks are biophysically possible or consistent with observed trends. Member States should have greater freedom to choose the most appropriate means to achieve their goals, reflecting local conditions and climate events and current geopolitical realities. Active Forestry and Bioeconomy Integration: Active forest management and the bioeconomy are integral to the green transition. Climate policy and competitiveness should complement each other. The LULUCF framework should be recalibrated to enable flexible solutions rather than rigid annual point targets, with clear rules for handling large-scale disturbance events. Avoiding Counterproductive Restrictions: Policies focused primarily on restricting timber mobilization risk undermining forest health, the forest-based bioeconomy, and overall mitigation potential. Sustainable use of wood should be combined with stable carbon stocks and high annual carbon uptake, supporting long-lived wood products and substitution effects. Long term sustainable forest management is a key solution. Fair Treatment of Natural Disturbances and Uncertainties: Natural disturbances, inventory uncertainties, and delayed effects of management actions should not translate into direct compliance risks and costs for member states. The current system shifts climate risks and costs disproportionately onto the forestry sector, forest rich member states and its value chain. In conclusion the Federation of Swedish Farmers (LRF) recommends a comprehensive review and adjustment of the LULUCF targets and trajectories to ensure they are scientifically robust, economically viable, and supportive of both climate, bioeconmy and rural development objectives. The framework should recognize the full climate mitigation potential of the forestry sector, including substitution effects, and provide sufficient flexibility to adapt to local and changing conditions.
Read full response

Meeting with Sofie Eriksson (Member of the European Parliament)

19 Nov 2025 · Framtida EU-budgeten

Meeting with Pär Holmgren (Member of the European Parliament)

21 Oct 2025 · EU animal welfare legislation

Meeting with Alice Teodorescu Måwe (Member of the European Parliament)

16 Oct 2025 · Forestry

Swedish Farmers Urge Streamlined EU Food Safety Rules

14 Oct 2025
Topic — Simplifying EU regulations on food safety, plant protection, and animal welfare.
Message — The organization requests simplified regulations for small businesses, streamlined authorization for plant protection products and biocontrol, and updated BSE rules. They emphasize risk-based assessments and socio-economic impact considerations before withdrawing active substances.1234
Why — This would reduce compliance burden for their 60,000 small farm enterprises.567
Read full response

Swedish Farmers Urge Clear Market Incentives for Nature Credits

29 Sept 2025
Topic — EU framework for voluntary nature credits to incentivize biodiversity conservation on private land.
Message — The organization requests that the EU establish a common framework ensuring transparency and traceability, while leaving methodology, pricing, and transaction terms to market actors. They emphasize that administrative requirements must be kept to a minimum and that nature credits must remain voluntary and compatible with active land management.123
Why — This would create new income opportunities while avoiding heavy administrative burdens on farmers.45
Impact — Food producers and landowners lose if offsetting mechanisms drive up land prices or reduce agricultural land.6
Read full response

Meeting with Heléne Fritzon (Member of the European Parliament)

25 Sept 2025 · jordbruksfrågor

Meeting with Alisa Tiganj (Cabinet of Commissioner Christophe Hansen), Taru Haapaniemi (Cabinet of Commissioner Christophe Hansen)

25 Sept 2025 · Discussion on CAP and MFF

Meeting with Paulina Dejmek Hack (Cabinet of Commissioner Jessika Roswall)

25 Sept 2025 · MFF, CAP, bioeconomy

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

25 Sept 2025 · Exchange of views on the reform of the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) in the context of the future Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF)

Meeting with Ilaria Flores Martin (Cabinet of Commissioner Jessika Roswall), Paulina Dejmek Hack (Cabinet of Commissioner Jessika Roswall) and Lantmännen

19 Sept 2025 · Bioeconomy

Meeting with Matthieu Moulonguet (Cabinet of Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra) and Maa- ja metsätaloustuottajain Keskusliitto – Central Union of Agricultural Producers and Forest Owners and Bureau of Nordic Family Forestry

16 Sept 2025 · LULUCF and carbon removals and carbon farming certification framework (CRCF)

Meeting with Pär Holmgren (Member of the European Parliament)

12 Sept 2025 · MFF and CAP

Meeting with Heléne Fritzon (Member of the European Parliament)

12 Sept 2025 · CAP

Meeting with Heléne Fritzon (Member of the European Parliament)

26 Aug 2025 · CAP

Meeting with Jessica Polfjärd (Member of the European Parliament)

2 Jul 2025 · Cider

Meeting with Mauro Poinelli (Head of Unit Agriculture and Rural Development)

2 Jul 2025 · Exchange of views on the possible regulation on a marketing standard for cider and perry

Meeting with Andrea Gavinelli (Head of Unit Health and Food Safety)

19 Jun 2025 · Discussion on animal welfare

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

19 Jun 2025 · Meeting to discuss fertiliser market situation in Sweden

Meeting with Bettina Doeser (Head of Unit Environment)

19 Jun 2025 · Nature Credits; Nature Restoration Regulation

Meeting with Jessika Roswall (Commissioner) and

27 May 2025 · EU environmental policy and agriculture

Meeting with Christophe Hansen (Commissioner) and

27 May 2025 · Common Agricultural Policy, EU environmental policy

Meeting with Karin Karlsbro (Member of the European Parliament)

21 May 2025 · Tullfrihet för ukrainska produkter och importer av konstgödsel från Ryssland och Belarus

Swedish Farmers Urge EU to Prioritize Circular Bioeconomy Policy

20 May 2025
Topic — The initiative seeks solutions for a circular, climate-neutral bioeconomy boosting EU competitiveness.
Message — LRF calls for recognizing agriculture and forestry as strategic sectors for European autonomy. They request streamlined regulations and funding for bio-based products to replace fossil materials.12
Why — Streamlining EU rules would lower administrative costs and secure new markets for farmers.345
Impact — Fossil-based industries face increased competition from promoted bio-based alternatives and renewable energy.6
Read full response

Meeting with Matthieu Moulonguet (Cabinet of Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra)

24 Apr 2025 · Forests, bioeconomy and climate objectives

Meeting with Johan Danielsson (Member of the European Parliament)

4 Apr 2025 · Djurtransport

Meeting with Tomas Tobé (Member of the European Parliament)

4 Apr 2025 · Animal Transport

Meeting with Pär Holmgren (Member of the European Parliament)

3 Apr 2025 · Animal Transport Regulation

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

28 Mar 2025 · Soil Monitoring Law, farmers and foresters

Response to Updating the list of invasive species threatening biodiversity and ecosystem services across the EU

24 Mar 2025

We would like to comment on the proposal to include the Obama nungara on the list of invasive alien species. In Sweden, the government has decided on emergency measures to be able to deal with the Obama nungara as an invasive alien species according to the regulation. This has led to the horticultural sector with nursery and ornamental plant companies having to carry out inspections on imported plant material to prevent the spread and eliminate the presence of Obama nungara. The decision came into force on 7 January 2025 after findings were made in a public plantation in November 2024. We fully understand the decision that has been made, even if it has a major impact on and cost to the industry. The entire control procedure of imported plants lands on our companies as there is no requirement for controls in other countries. We need help to prevent the spread of the Obama nungara and therefore take a positive view of the species being included on the EU's list of invasive species. However, this entails more controls in an already tightly controlled industry. The cost of handling is also borne by the industry itself. Nor are there any funds set aside for research and the development of effective control methods, nor any compensation to apply for for companies that are facing sharply increased costs.
Read full response

Meeting with Taru Haapaniemi (Cabinet of Commissioner Christophe Hansen) and Maa- ja metsätaloustuottajain Keskusliitto – Central Union of Agricultural Producers and Forest Owners and

19 Mar 2025 · Upcoming EU policy developments around the forest-based bioeconomy, in light of the upcoming strategic initiatives of the Clean Industrial Deal and the new EU Bioeconomy Strategy

Federation of Swedish Farmers defends open-source plant breeding rights

14 Mar 2025
Topic — The EU is evaluating current legislation regarding intellectual property rights for plant varieties.
Message — The organization opposes plant patenting to protect innovation and the open-source nature of breeding. They demand the retention of full exemptions for researchers and farmers who save their own seeds.123
Why — This protects the ability of farmers and breeders to access and reuse plant varieties.45
Impact — Large biotech companies seeking patent protections would lose exclusive control over genetic traits.67
Read full response

Meeting with Adnan Dibrani (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

13 Mar 2025 · Regulation on cooperation between enforcement authorities for the UTP Directive

Swedish Farmers Urge Simpler Rules for Local Food Procurement

7 Mar 2025
Topic — Evaluation of EU directives governing the award of public procurement and concessions contracts.
Message — LRF requests simpler rules and framework legislation to facilitate local and regional food procurement. They want specific requirements for animal welfare and production standards to replace the lowest-price focus.123
Why — Local producers would increase market share by excluding cheaper, lower-standard international food competitors.4
Impact — International food suppliers lose market access if public contracts favor domestic production standards.5
Read full response

Meeting with Franck Conrad (Head of Unit Budget)

20 Feb 2025 · Exchanges of views on the CAP in the next MFF

Meeting with Taru Haapaniemi (Cabinet of Commissioner Christophe Hansen)

20 Feb 2025 · (1) Vision for Agriculture and Food, (2) Preparedness, (3) Future MFF

Swedish farmers urge simpler nature restoration reporting formats

7 Feb 2025
Topic — Commission consultation on uniform formats for EU national restoration plans.
Message — The federation requests aligning reporting formats with targets to reduce administrative burdens. They argue the format should exclude non-compulsory information and require prior testing.123
Why — These changes would lower compliance costs and protect landowners from mandatory mapping.45
Impact — Conservationists lose detailed monitoring data if high-resolution mapping requirements are removed.6
Read full response

Meeting with Alice Teodorescu Måwe (Member of the European Parliament)

7 Feb 2025 · Djurtransporter

Meeting with Jonas Sjöstedt (Member of the European Parliament)

22 Jan 2025 · Farmers

Meeting with Elsi Katainen (Member of the European Parliament)

22 Jan 2025 · Maatalouspolitiikan rahoitus, ruokaturva

Meeting with Herbert Dorfmann (Member of the European Parliament)

22 Jan 2025 · Priority issues for agriculture and forestry in the new mandate

Meeting with Heléne Fritzon (Member of the European Parliament)

21 Jan 2025 · Middag med LRF & Livsmedelsföretagen

Meeting with Alice Teodorescu Måwe (Member of the European Parliament)

21 Jan 2025 · Livmedelssäkerhet, jordbruk

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

21 Jan 2025 · Situation in CAP

Meeting with Abir Al-Sahlani (Member of the European Parliament)

21 Jan 2025 · Gemensamt möte med svenska parlamentariker

Meeting with Sofie Eriksson (Member of the European Parliament)

21 Jan 2025 · Livsmedelsäkerhet, beredskap och skog

Meeting with Taru Haapaniemi (Cabinet of Commissioner Christophe Hansen)

16 Jan 2025 · LRF asked for a meeting to exchange views on current issues in the agricultural sector as well as on the several meeting requests from Sweden inviting Commissioner Hansen to Sweden and also to meet him in Brussels.

Meeting with Pär Holmgren (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

14 Jan 2025 · Forest Monitoring Law

Meeting with Karin Karlsbro (Member of the European Parliament) and European farmers and European agri-cooperatives

19 Nov 2024 · Ukraine and agriculture

Meeting with Pär Holmgren (Member of the European Parliament)

3 Oct 2024 · Agricultural sustainability

Meeting with Sofie Eriksson (Member of the European Parliament)

26 Sept 2024 · Svenska skogsfrågor och vad som är aktuellt i parlamentet

Meeting with Beatrice Timgren (Member of the European Parliament) and Södra Skogsägarna ekonomisk förening

25 Sept 2024 · EU Forestry

Meeting with Taru Haapaniemi (Cabinet of Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski)

2 Jul 2024 · Meeting to present LRF and discuss about general topics for the next mandate (e.g. strategic dialogue; future of agriculture; CAP; ETS; food chain; role of co-operatives; forestry).

Swedish Farmers Urge Fair Competition and National Exceptions

11 Apr 2024
Topic — Proposed EU-wide revision of animal welfare standards during animal transport.
Message — The Federation of Swedish Farmers requests reasonable transition times, financial support for small farms, and distinctions between domestic and international transport requirements. They advocate for species-specific journey times based on scientific evidence while questioning the practicality of mandatory veterinary supervision during loading.123
Why — These requests would lower compliance costs and prevent smaller Swedish farms from being out-competed by larger operations.45
Impact — Small-scale farms and the horse industry face significant financial strain if current proposals are implemented without changes.67
Read full response

Swedish farmers demand risk-based animal health and veterinary rules

28 Mar 2024
Topic — This evaluation assesses if current EU animal health rules remain fit for purpose.
Message — LRF requests that the frequency of veterinary visits be adjusted based on risk. They also suggest including antibiotic-resistant infections as a listed risk factor for EU intervention. Finally, they demand that member states keep the ability to use measures to protect their disease status.123
Why — Risk-based visits would alleviate burdens caused by a lack of competent veterinarians.4
Read full response

Meeting with Heléne Fritzon (Member of the European Parliament)

20 Mar 2024 · Samtal om markhälsodirektivet

Meeting with Jörgen Warborn (Member of the European Parliament)

1 Mar 2024 · Ukraine ATM

Meeting with Jessica Polfjärd (Member of the European Parliament)

1 Feb 2024 · Agriculture

Meeting with Heléne Fritzon (Member of the European Parliament)

1 Feb 2024 · Möte med LRF om deras prioriterade frågor nästa mandatperiod i Europaparlamentet (APA-level)

Meeting with Heléne Fritzon (Member of the European Parliament)

4 Dec 2023 · Möte med LRF för åsiktsutbyte om förslaget om ett direktiv om markhälsa (APA-level)

Meeting with Helena Braun (Cabinet of Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič) and Maa- ja metsätaloustuottajain Keskusliitto – Central Union of Agricultural Producers and Forest Owners and

30 Nov 2023 · EU forest monitoring and other forest related proposals

Meeting with Emma Wiesner (Member of the European Parliament)

13 Oct 2023 · Möte - djurskyddslagstiftningen

Meeting with Carina Ohlsson (Member of the European Parliament)

10 Oct 2023 · Möte med LRF

Meeting with Carina Ohlsson (Member of the European Parliament)

16 Aug 2023 · Gårdsbesök och dialog

Meeting with Heléne Fritzon (Member of the European Parliament)

29 Jun 2023 · Möte med Lantbrukarnas Riksförbund

Meeting with Heléne Fritzon (Member of the European Parliament)

21 Jun 2023 · Möte med LRF (APA level)

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 Janusz Wojciechowski (Commissioner) and

12 Jun 2023 · Drought at Sweden; CAP – current CAP and CAP post 2027 and the main drivers for that policy; Market situation for Swedish agriculture

Meeting with Jorge Pinto Antunes (Cabinet of Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski) and Maa- ja metsätaloustuottajain Keskusliitto – Central Union of Agricultural Producers and Forest Owners and

31 May 2023 · To discuss about the relevant forest-policy priorities, especially the upcoming forest monitoring law.

Meeting with Carina Ohlsson (Member of the European Parliament)

31 May 2023 · Dialog om social deal

Meeting with Janusz Wojciechowski (Commissioner) and

23 May 2023 · Speech (recorded video) at General assembly, ideas and outlook on CAP post 2027 and the main drivers for that policy.

Meeting with Emma Wiesner (Member of the European Parliament)

30 Mar 2023 · Gröna Given och livsmedelssäkerhet

Meeting with Carina Ohlsson (Member of the European Parliament)

28 Mar 2023 · Inbjuden till mingel och dialog

Meeting with Ilan De Basso (Member of the European Parliament)

28 Mar 2023 · Mottagning

Meeting with Emma Wiesner (Member of the European Parliament)

7 Feb 2023 · livsmedelsförsörjning i svårt geopolitiskt läge

Meeting with Jörgen Warborn (Member of the European Parliament)

18 Jan 2023 · Handelsfrågor

Meeting with Ilan De Basso (Member of the European Parliament)

17 Jan 2023 · Middag

Meeting with Emma Wiesner (Member of the European Parliament)

15 Nov 2022 · Diskussion om EU-rättsliga skogsfrågor

Swedish farmers call for flexible digital pesticide reporting

3 Nov 2022
Topic — The EU is defining rules for mandatory electronic record-keeping of pesticide applications.
Message — The reporting system must be easy to handle and integrate with existing programs. Farmers also want to record product doses according to labels instead of specific weight metrics.12
Why — This would minimize unnecessary bureaucracy and technical challenges for professional pesticide users.3
Impact — Regulatory agencies lose the benefit of standardized digital data for environmental monitoring.4
Read full response

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

16 Jun 2022 · They would like to raise some aspects in connection with the current crisis caused by Russia as well as the CAP strategic plans

Meeting with Pär Holmgren (Member of the European Parliament)

15 Jun 2022 · Farm to Fork

Response to Soil Health Law – protecting, sustainably managing and restoring EU soils

16 Mar 2022

Övergripande Lantbrukarnas Riksförbund håller förstås med om att jordhälsa är avgörande för hållbarhet. Den sista som det behöver förklaras för en bonde, som ju lever av jorden. När det gäller tillståndet för den svenska åkermarken mäts det kontinuerligt sedan 30 år tillbaka. I maj 2021 kom markforskare vid Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet med en rapport som de skrivit åt den svenska myndigheten Naturvårdsverket som en del i det svenska markövervakningsprogrammet. I rapporten framgår att halten organiskt material i den svenska åkermarken har ökat motsvarande 2,7 miljoner ton kol. Dessutom visar andra markparametrar goda värden. Det betyder inte att det inte finns problem med jordhälsan i Sveriges åkermark men det som exempel menar vi att problemen ser extremt olika ut inom EU. Därför tror vi inte att en lag är rätt väg att gå. Den riskerar att bli ett styrmedel som inte tillräckligt väl kan anpassas för att möta de specifika jordhälsoproblem som finns i unionens olika länder. B. Objectives Administration Lantbrukarnas Riksförbund (LRF) i Sverige känner oro för att en ny jordhälsolag kommer att medföra en omfattande administration för både lantbrukare och myndigheter. Vi hoppas inte att genomförandet av EU:s vattendirektiv ses som en förebild där marken ska skyddas på motsvarande sätt som vattenmiljön. Det har nu gått 22 år sedan vattendirektivet beslutades och fortfarande sker, efter en generation, inte många nya vattenvårdande åtgärder på grund av vattendirektivet. Vattenvårdande åtgärder görs men inte med det direktivet som grund. Det direktivet har just inneburit en omfattande byråkrati och är ett expertstyrt system där lantbrukarna är i kunskapsunderläge. Indicators Det finns flera välkända och användbara jordhälsindikatorer som pH, fosforinnehåll och halt organiskt material i jorden. Det finns emellertid också önskemål om fler indikatorer för markens fysikaliska och biologiska tillstånd. Det vore prematurt att göra andra än väl beprövade indikatorer till bindande i en jordhälsolag. Inte minst är markens biologiska liv till stor del fortfarande ett kosmos kvar att upptäcka och det behövs betydligt mer kunskap för att utveckla goda indikatorer. 20% and 50%-målen I februari 1998 träffades alla miljöministrar i länderna runt Östersjön där de fattade ett beslut om att minska näringstillförsel till Östersjön med 50%. Det inkluderade en kraftig minskning av näringsläckaget från åkermarken. Det lyckades inte. I de flesta länder i EU påbörjades miljöarbetet med att minska näringsläckaget från åkermarken på 1980-1990-talet. Inget land, förutom Danmark, har ännu lyckats med att halvera näringsläckaget trots att det gått 30-40 år. Att lyckas till 2030 kommer inte heller att vara möjligt. Det är bekymmersamt att i just detta delmål verkar inte kommissionen ha sammanställt erfarenheterna av det hittillsvarande arbetet och dragit lärdom av det. Mål som är ouppnåeliga motverkar sitt syfte och skapar uppgivenhet hos exempelvis lantbrukare. Om det egentligen inte är ett mål att halvera näringsläckaget utan en vision bör det förtydligas. Det stämmer inte att gödslingsbehovet minskar med 20 % om näringsläckaget halveras. Så fungerar inte naturen. Enligt den internationella rapporteringen är den genomsnittliga kväveutlakningen för åkermark i Sverige 18 kg kväve per hektar och år. Av dessa 18 kg är cirka 4 kg bakgrundsläckage och de 14 är antropogena. Om den antropogena delen av läckaget halveras med 7 kilogram till 7 kilogram så kan gödslingsbehovet minska med cirka 7 kg per hektar. Men den årliga genomsnittliga gödslingen med kväve är cirka 100 kg per hektar i Sverige. Den halveras alltså inte till 50 kilogram för att kväveutlakningen minskar med 7 kilogram per hektar. Det måste ligga något räknefel bakom detta mål i F2F?
Read full response

Response to Measures related to Globodera

11 Jan 2022

LRF Trädgård is of the opinion that it is most important that appropriate measures are taken to prevent the spread of Globodera spp. The question is if it is possible to achieve full eradication. The previous Directive have measures to be taken by Member states to facilitate the eradication of these pests on production site. We are looking forward to see Meloidogyne spp. regulated with measures to eradicate and prevent the spread.
Read full response

Response to Measures related to Clavibacter sepedonicus

11 Jan 2022

LRF Trädgård is of the opinion that it is important that appropriate measures be taken to eradicate and prevent the spread of Clavibacter michiganensis. It should be clarified whether this also applies to private cultivation or only to professional cultivation. It is important that the rules concerning infested zones and buffer zones for this pest and all the other aspects regulated in the Plant Health Law annexes and legislative acts should are as clear as possible.
Read full response

Response to Measures related to Ralstonia

11 Jan 2022

LRF Trädgård is of the opinion that it is important that appropriate measures be taken to eradicate and prevent the spread of Ralstonia solanacearum. It should be clarified whether this also applies to private cultivation or only to professional cultivation. It is important that the rules concerning infested zones and buffer zones for this pest and all the other aspects regulated in the Plant Health Law annexes and legislative acts should are as clear as possible.
Read full response

Response to Measures related to Synchytrium

11 Jan 2022

LRF Trädgård is of the opinion that it is important that this pest is being regulated under the Plant Health Law. So appropriate measures can be taken to eradicate and prevent the spead of Synchytrium endobioticum. Dealing with this pest can be problematic if no suitable control measures are available, for example if pesticides are not authorized for the crops and plants affected, among other issues. It should be clarified whether this also applies to private cultivation or only to professional cultivation. The rules concerning infested zones and buffer zones for this pest and all the other aspects regulated in the Plant Health Law annexes and legislative acts should also be clarified.
Read full response

Meeting with Asa Webber (Cabinet of Commissioner Ylva Johansson), Brian Synnott (Cabinet of Commissioner Ylva Johansson)

1 Jul 2021 · Forest Strategy and REDIII

Meeting with Valeria Miceli (Cabinet of President Ursula von der Leyen)

16 Mar 2021 · Draft Delegated Act, EU Taxonomy

Meeting with Katherine Power (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness)

16 Mar 2021 · Draft Delegated Act, EU Taxonomy

Response to Revision of the Energy and Environmental Aid Guidelines (EEAG)

10 Dec 2020

LRF welcome the European Green Deal and the European Commission’s ambitions aiming to make Europe the first climate-neutral continent by 2050. The enabling of Member States to fund projects for environmental protection (including climate protection and green energy) and energy generation is important for the general European objective to promote renewable energy and to bring about the transition to a green economy. In the response to the revision of the Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 (2014/C 200/01) revision roadmap The Federation of Swedish Farmers – LRF – would like to take the opportunity to provide feedback to the European Commission. About LRF LRF is an interest and business organisation for the green industry with approximately 140 000 individual members. Together they represent some 70 000 enterprises, which makes LRF the largest organisation for small enterprises in Sweden. Almost all cooperatives within Swedish agriculture and forestry are also members. LRF, and its six subsidiaries, promote development of the green industry and its farmers of agricultural and forest land, growers and entrepreneurs so that they can fulfil their vision of growth, profitability and power of attraction. Key recommendations from LRF • Improve the guidelines consistency with the Directive (EU) 2018/2001 (REDII). • High indirect land-use change feedstock according to article 26 § 2 of the REDII should not be eligible for support. • Do not hinder the possibility to stimulate the use of biofuels on farm level in agriculture and forestry sectors.
Read full response

Response to Fitness Check of the EU legislation on animal welfare

14 Jul 2020

Please find below a contribution from the Federation of Swedish Farmers (LRF). • LRF welcomes the Commission’s initiative of an evaluation of the EU animal welfare rules. The animal welfare is important for several reasons i.e. sustainability, good animal health and welfare, low use of antibiotics, consumer preferences and the farmers’ interest in taking good care of their animals. • Animal welfare is mainly guaranteed through the skills of the stockman and the suitability of the production system to meet the animals’ needs. LRF would like to stress that the production system used is important as well as the legislation in the area but that is not the major, and not the only, determining factor for animal health and welfare. • LRF considers that a comprehensive and scientific approach is necessary in the evaluation as well as in the future work to improve the EU animal welfare legislation. • Animal welfare has a multidimensional nature which comprises health, biosecurity, antibiotic resistance, physiology and behaviour. Each and every one of these factors need to be considered when assessing animal welfare. • When implementing animal welfare principles at farm level, a broad and comprehensive approach is needed, which takes into account environmental, social and economic impacts. • The EU rules on animal welfare must allow for increased production and profitability at farm level. • It is important with a level playing field at EU level, in order to avoid distortions of trade and competition amongst EU Member States. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that the commonly decided rules are properly and equally implemented and enforced in all Member States. Today this is not the case which is a problem that urgently needs to be solved. The current situation is a threat to the democratic process within the EU as well as to the market (unequal competition). • The current rules on animal welfare are often very prescriptive which forces the farmers to solve a problem more or less exactly in the same way. The conditions on different farms however vary greatly within a Member State as well as between Member States. This entails a wide variety of possible ways to meet the animals needs and challenge the development of a common legislation that is valid for all systems in the production. The outcome of such a legislation is not effective and there are, as mentioned above, problems today when it comes to fulfilling the legislation equally between the Member States. LRF would like to see a proposal from the Commission to develop a simplified EU legislation with goal oriented (targeted) rules on animal welfare allowing for more flexibility for the farmers with limited administrative and production costs. • The Swedish national animal welfare law states to a high extent a level of animal welfare above the level of the EU-legislation. It is necessary to secure the competitiveness of the farmers who has put a large effort in both time and money to fulfill the requirements in the national legislation of a high animal welfare standard above the EU level, but with no possibility to receive for instance animal welfare compensations for these efforts. It is important that the EU level of legislation is considered the baseline for EU animal welfare compensations and not as today, the national level. • For animal welfare reasons, LRF would like to see a total ban in the EU legislation on slaughter without prior stunning, without the possibility of derogations. The current situation is not acceptable from an animal welfare point of view. • It is important for the animal welfare that beak trimming will be forbidden. • Surgical procedures should always be carried out with anaesthetics. This must be regulated in the EU legislation. • A maximum transportation time for live animals need to be introduced in the EU-regulation. To transport meat, semen, eggs and embryos are preferred. •
Read full response

Response to Sustainable use of pesticides – revision of the EU rules

9 Jul 2020

The Federation of Swedish Farmers – LRF – is an interest and business organization for the green industry with approximately 140 000 individual members. Together they represent some 70 000 enterprises, and more than 4% of Sweden´s GNP, which makes LRF the largest organization for small enterprises in Sweden. The implementation of the Directive differs between Member States, as well as national regulations and applications. The effect is a difference in both the supply and the use of plant protection products (PPPs) between the countries in Europe. The states' starting point also differs, as does their ability to implement different parts of the Directive. In a review it would therefore be appropriate to carefully analyze the extent to which each Member State has succeeded in living up to the objectives of the Directive and in which parts it has failed, and what would be required to succeed. Not least in the light of the various parts of the European Green Deal, there is reason to strive for a holistic view of EU's market and production. All three aspects of sustainability need to be observed – the environmental, social and economic. The review of the Directive should lead to equal competitive conditions in the single market. A seemingly inadequate application of alternative methods may be due to the absence of such alternatives, such as biological or mechanical solutions for a specific production or situation. The directive not only imposes requirements on those who use PPPs, but also on the Member States to develop the knowledge and provide the necessary prerequisites. Such a prerequisite may be that there are effective PPPs containing low-risk and basic substances approved and available on the market. IPM is applied by all growers in Sweden. However, IPM requires access to the right tools in the form of methods to cope with plant protection problems and knowledge as well as financial opportunities. A crop rotation must consists of crops for which there is a market for example. A requirement for additional record keeping risks making IPM an administrative burden without the benefit needed. Every cultivation have different conditions and an improved application of IPM requires great efforts in the form of knowledge and access to qualified advice. This further underscores the need to analyze the situation when demands for a sharp reduction. Knowledge of the products´ risk profile should be given to users in the instructions of each product. Training is also provided at the mandatory courses in Sweden. How products can be safely used in a strategy is given by the national agency as well as by the national campaign Focus on Pesticide Use. For example, diflufenican has been the subject of extensive information; in general the access to information and advice is crucial. There has been some positive development through the Directive, for example regular inspections on spraying equipment and compulsory training courses for professional users. Other parts, as harmonized risk indicators, have been added recently making it difficult to see the effects quite yet. The fulfillment of certain parts of the Directive might primarily be supported by targeted efforts, such as enhanced counseling, rather than additional requirements and objectives. Part of the current differences between Member States is the availability of derogations due to emergency (Article 53 of Regulation 1107/2009). Some countries are generous with repeated derogations, while others are not. In a situation where there is a shortage of active substances, the availability of emergency use becomes a powerful competition tool and a more uniform application of article 53 within the EU is highly needed. Regarding the detailed risk profile, this should be an issue primarily addressed in the evaluation process of a substance. Promoting low-risk alternatives might primarily be addressed under Regulation 1107/2009.
Read full response

Response to Climate change mitigation and adaptation taxonomy

27 Apr 2020

The Federation of Swedish Farmers – LRF – is an interest and business organisation for the green industry with approximately 140 000 individual members. Together they represent some 70 000 enterprises, which makes LRF the largest organisation for small enterprises in Sweden. Agriculture and forestry have unique opportunities to bind carbon in soils, but more importantly, in renewable materials and fuels – and thereby actively contributing to replacing fossil raw materials via the bioeconomy. This contribution needs to be made explicit in the taxonomy. Parts of the proposed farm sustainability management tool risk being of marginal benefit, or even harm. The measures might be generally correct, but can, depending on the soil, weather, type of farming and other factors, have effects quite opposite the intended. For example, increasing carbon storage in soil by raising the water level can lead to significant emissions of both nitrous oxide and methane leading to negative climate impact. There is also a risk of “carbon leakage” if the cost and administrative burdens for financing further reduces the competitiveness of agricultural production, that, like the Swedish, is among the most efficient in terms of climate and environment while struggling with profitability. The demonstration of compliance with sustainable finance technical screening criteria, as presented in the taxonomy report of the TEG Sustainable Finance, risks to increase the administrative burden for small farms looking to invest, causing them a disadvantage. These producers play important roles by spreading the risks by increasing the diversity of farming approaches, and by providing practical test beds for new ideas, development and innovation. It is crucial that the technical screening criteria strive to be in line with the CAP and, for example, take future results-based approaches into account. Furthermore, deeper analysis of the socio-economic consequences of the taxonomy is needed.
Read full response

Response to Access to Justice in Environmental matters

3 Apr 2020

Please find the views of the Federation of Swedish Farmers in the attached file. Kind regards, Åsa Hill LLM
Read full response

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

13 Feb 2020 · Green Deal, Swedish agriculture and forestry

Response to Amendment of the rules on post import checks for plants for planting.

10 Feb 2020

LRF Trädgård appreciates the opportunity to give our point of view on the open consultation. LRF Trädgård is a member’s organisation for the Swedish horticultural producers. We believe that clarification is needed on what the first place of production is regarding imported plants in dormant stage. We get the impression that some plants will be checked twice when they are dormant: at the point of import as well as at the receiving company if the plants are resold while still at rest. Which, if so, seems unnecessary. Although we are not against further controls for imported plants, we hope that the new rules do not increase the costs for growers.
Read full response

Response to Rules on plant passports

9 Jan 2020

We appreciate the possibility to comment the Commission proposal in relation to rules on plant passports. Our understanding of article 83.2 in the plant health regulation 2016/2031 is that a traceability code on the plant passport is not to be required for plants that are ready for sale to final users. We think that the regulation to minimize the risks of plant pests and pathogens are enough to ensure healthy plants and plant material and additional demands for traceability codes are unnecessary. The administrative burden and costs on the producers of ornamental plants would be too high and not be in coherence with the raise in plant healthy safety. The risks of plant pests and pathogens should be managed early in the chain, during the pre-propagation/cultivation phase. They are controlled throughout their growth and should thus be free from plant pests and pathogens when they are ready for sale. To then have to include a traceability code on a plant passport will affect many times rapid trade flows and increase the administrative burden and cost for producers. Referring to article 69 in the plant health regulation, there are other ways to ensure traceability. In many cases the plant passport will be thrown away after purchase and planting of the plants by the final consumer. We therefore think that the requirement for a traceability code should thus only be used in a few specific cases of plant species where there is a clearly identified risk for pests and pathogens that can be present in plants that are ready for sale to final users. Point 1 in the Annex to the proposal ´All plants for planting that produce a persistent wood stem, including trees, shrubs, vines and climbing plants´ is too broad, and not at all clear enough what species are actually meant. It is also not clear if the requirement in point 1 also covers plants for planting that at the time of selling as a plant ready for sale to final user, have not yet produced a ´persistent wood stem´. Instead we would urge the Commission to have a short and specific list containing the name of the possible concerned species and a clear reason why these species should be included, otherwise there is a high risk that the requirement will be implemented in different ways among MS.
Read full response

Response to Listing regulated pests, plants, plant products and other objects

10 Sept 2019

Vi anser att det är ytterst angeläget att Meloidogyne chitwoodi och Meloidogyne fallax finns med på listan över karantänskadegörare. Att fortsatt ha krav på inventeringar samt krav på att sätta in åtgärder när skadegörarna påträffas är viktigt för att hindra ytterligare spridning till nya områden inom EU. Eftersom det är en marksmitta är de ytterst svåra att utrota när de väl kommit till ett fält. Kvaliteten på grödorna påverkas negativt och växtföljden blir problematisk vilket i sin tur kan leda till minskad produktion och ökat behov av användning av bekämpningsmedel. Vi är bekymrade över att tillräckliga åtgärder inte verkar vidtas i länder där Meloidogyne chitwoodi och Meloidogyne fallax har påträffas under senare år. Detta har medfört att Meloidogyne chitwoodi och Meloidogyne fallax nu har kommit till Sverige. Vi anser inte att en framtida reglering som RNQPs skulle ge ett tillräckligt skydd för att hindra fortsatt spridning.
Read full response

Response to Animal disease notification, reporting, surveillance, eradication and disease-free status

1 Jul 2019

Article 45 (b) - All susceptible animals that are temporarily unloaded within an member state or zone covered by an eradication program must stay in vector protected establishment or be transported during a vector-free period. This applies also for animals unloaded for a shorter period than 1 day to be sure of no spread of BTV
Read full response

Response to Enhancing Market transparency in the agri-food chain

17 Jun 2019

About market transparency The Federation of Swedish Farmers (LRF) supports the different legislative initiatives around the Food Chain. The implementation of the directive on UTPs is vital and the question about market transparency is also very important. Our main aim is of course that the farmers share of the consumer Euro is fair and that the farm gate prices constitutes a long term profitability on farm level. In general improved market transparency is positive for a small entrepreneur and a farmer on a big market. This is obviously the case when the products produced on the farm are sold to the consumers with limited processing, for example fruit, vegetables, potatoes and eggs. When farm products are processed into a broad variety of consumer products, for example milk, meat, poultry, cereals and sugar, the situation is different. It is of course very interesting for a farmer to know the difference between the farm gate milk price and the consumer price on milk. But fresh milk products represents only a limited part of the whole consumer market for dairy products. Therefore the LRF concludes that the aspects of market transparency differs between markets. For some less processed products increased information for the farmer is of great importance. For more processed products increased information is also positive but as put forward by the Danish Agriculture & Food Council this information might in different cases put a pressure on farm gate prices. In the annexes connected to the proposed Implementing Regulation clarity is lacking about consumer prices. It is of importance that the issue about market transparency covers the whole chain from the farmer to the consumer. The LRF finds it unclear whether the annexes covers up for relevant consumer prices. Lastly, the need to develop swift and modern techniques for reporting data in order to limit red tape should be mentioned. Federation of Swedish Farmers
Read full response

Meeting with Tatu Liimatainen (Cabinet of Vice-President Jyrki Katainen)

13 Jun 2019 · Future of Europe, elections and CAP.

Response to Amendment of the import and internal movement requirements of harmful organisms of plants

27 Nov 2018

Our comments relate to the suggested changes in Annex IV, Part B, point 24.2 in directive 2000/29/EC. Our basic position is that the supply of plants to a protected zone should be free from Bemisa tabaci, therefore there is no need to have so many inspections within the protected zone. We therefore think that the number of controls is disproportionate in point 24.2. It is not practicable. Under Point 24.2, we also believe that it is not practicable to have inspections immediately prior to their movement, given the very high demand for poinsettia plants to be ready around the first Advent Sunday. The word immediately needs to be removed in point 24.2 (e).
Read full response

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

14 Jun 2018 · CAP reform

Meeting with Andrew Bianco (Cabinet of Vice-President Karmenu Vella)

14 Jun 2018 · Biodiversity, Wolf, Water Framework

Response to Amendment of the list of transmissible animal diseases and amendment/repeal of acts in the Animal Health Law area

18 May 2018

I support the list of diseases that is suggested by the Commission. I do not want to see any changes The Animal Health Regulation (AHL) is an important tool for a good animal health that is the prerequisite for animal welfare and for lowering the use of antibiotics. The listing of diseases is important in order to regulate and keep exotic diseases out of the EU - but – listing of diseases must also facilitate disease prevention and eradication within the EU. If important endemic diseases are not listed, just because they already exist in the EU, the incentive to work towards disease prevention or eradication is lost. Disease prevention and lowering the need for antibiotics is crucial now. To reach this goal we need good husbandry and working towards a lower disease burden. An important step is a good biosecurity at the farm but also being able to maintain freedom from a disease in a country by having a safe trade. If AHL is reserved for only exotic diseases it will have a low impact on the use of antibiotics being an effective stop for eradicating endemic diseases. It is the diseases that are spread in the production that promotes the use of antibiotics, not the ones we don´t have. It is of utmost importance that countries and regions that have eradicated a disease are entitled to request testing prior to import of live animals. Not all diseases can be stopped at the farm gate. This should be done in accordance with the OIE chapter so it has as little impact on trade as possible. Infection with porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRS) is an example of a disease that some countries have managed to eradicate while it is still endemic in others. This is a disease with great economic impact. Looking at international studies, in US the total cost to the industry has been estimated at $664 million per year (https://www.prrs.com/en/prrs/cost/). In a study from Europe the annual losses at farm level ranged from a median of € 75 724 if the farm was slightly affected to a median of € 650 090 if the farm was severely affected in all stages. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167587716305517) Diseases like African Swine Fever has a great priority and this is not affected by the fact that countries are given the possibility to protect their current animal health. Another disease that is impossible to stop at the farm gate is Paratuberculosis.
Read full response

Meeting with Marco Valletta (Cabinet of Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis)

26 Apr 2018 · EU animal health legislation and reduction of use of antibiotics in the EU

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

26 Apr 2018 · Exchange of views on future of food and farming communication and food chain

Meeting with Tom Tynan (Cabinet of Commissioner Phil Hogan)

7 Feb 2018 · CAP Communication

Meeting with Maria Asenius (Cabinet of Vice-President Cecilia Malmström)

6 Dec 2017 · Access to justice in environmental matters

Response to Fitness Check of the Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive

17 Nov 2017

LRFs synpunkter angående Evaluation Roadmap Fitness check of the WFD Lantbrukarnas Riksförbund (LRF) har beretts möjlighet att lämna synpunkter på rubricerade. LRF är en intresse- och företagarorganisation för människor och företag inom det gröna näringslivet i Sverige. LRFs cirka 150 000 medlemmar driver tillsammans 70 000 företag och det gröna näringslivet står för 3,6 procent av Sveriges BNP och 4,8 % av sysselsättningen i Sverige. LRF ska medverka till utveckling av företag och företagare inom jord, skog, trädgård och landsbygdens miljö, så att de kan förverkliga sina ambitioner om tillväxt, lönsamhet och attraktionskraft. Ansatserna i Roadmap är goda men enligt LRFs uppfattning otillräckliga. LRF anser att det är nödvändigt med en genomgripande översyn av ramdirektivet för vatten (RDV). De beslut som fattas enligt vattenförvaltningen får stora konsekvenser för landsbygd och jord- och skogsbruk. Det ställer stora krav på reell samverkan med berörda enskilda verksamhetsutövare, boende och andra intressenter. Reell samverkan ger bättre underlag för biologiska, sociala och ekonomiska överväganden. Utan sådan samverkan fattas beslut ofta på bristfälliga eller felaktiga underlag och beslutens legitimitet och acceptans eroderar. De åtgärder som föreskrivs blir ofta ekologiskt felaktiga och onödigt kostsamma. RDV tar inte tillräcklig hänsyn till de sociala och ekonomiska hållbarhetsdimensionerna. Det finns goda möjligheter att skapa en ändamålsenlig samverkan som skapar förtroende och engagemang istället för konflikt. En förutsättning för det är att direktivets former för delaktighet och beslut förbättras och förtydligas. Även RDVs materiella bestämmelser kan och bör i samma syfte göras mer överskådliga. Det bör inarbetas ett mer dynamiskt synsätt på vattenkvalitet som tar hänsyn till klimatförändringarnas påverkan i vattenförekomsterna. Ett ändrat klimat kommer ofta att få större betydelse än åtgärder som vidtas eller underlåts. Detta grundläggande förhållande bör komma till uttryck vid beskrivning av miljömål och referenstillstånd samt integreras i bestämmelserna om klassificering och undantag. Det är angeläget att principen om one out – all out ses över. Principen är kontraproduktiv och hindrar eller försvårar angelägna miljöförbättringsåtgärder. LANTBRUKARNAS RIKSFÖRBUND Jan Olof Sundby Expert, miljö- och vattenrätt
Read full response

Response to Commission Implementing Regulation laying down rules on plant passports

27 Oct 2017

LRF och LRF Trädgård representerar de svenska plantskolorna och prydnadsväxtodlarna. Punkt 7 i bilagan kräver att det i fråga om ersättning av växtpasset ingår registreringsnummer för den professionella aktören som utfärdat det ursprungliga växtpasset. EU-förordning 2106/2013 kräver inte att den unika identitetskoden för den ursprungliga utgivaren av växtpasset ska ingå i ett ersättningsväxtpass. Naturligtvis måste spårbarheten bibehållas och vara synlig för behöriga myndigheter. Utgivaren av eventuella ersättningspasset måste kunna visa detta för inspektörer av den behöriga myndigheten genom sina egna system. Att öppet visa registreringsnummer för en tidigare professionell aktör skulle äventyra kommersiell konfidentialitet. Vi har inget emot att storleken på växtpasset inte är reglerat men vill samtidigt betona behovet att se till möjligheten att samköra etiketter för växtpass och växtpass för skyddad zon. Om det inte blir tillåtet kan det medföra extrakostnader för de som utfärdar växtpass eftersom de flesta plantskolor måste utfärda båda typerna.
Read full response

Meeting with Paulina Dejmek Hack (Cabinet of President Jean-Claude Juncker)

21 Sept 2017 · Future of Europe

Response to Initiative to improve the Food Supply Chain

17 Aug 2017

Initiative to improve the food supply chain The Federation of Swedish Farmers (LRF) supports initiatives to improve the functioning of the food supply chain. We find the proposals from The Agricul-tural Markets Task Force useful and appreciate the Impact Assessment deliv-ered from the Commission in the end of July. A food chain that functions well and meet the demands of consumers and so-ciety must be competitive. And it is vital that all parts of the chain, from the farmers to the retailers, are profitable. If this is not the case the whole chain does not develop successfully and there is a high risk of distortion of competi-tion within the chain where the farmer is the weakest link. In Sweden the farm-ers own cooperatives in many sectors which helps the situation in the food chain to some extent, but the retailer dominance is still perhaps among the greatest in the EU. As agricultural markets today to a great extent are global-ized, the prices on the EU market also follows the movements on the world market. This means volatile prices from time to time. These changes along with continuous structural changes within the food chain makes it important to ad-dress the issue of balanced agricultural markets. When considering actions and regulations it is important also to assess the ad-ministrative burden and red tape involved. It is of course vital that the benefits of the measures are considerably greater than the costs. This question should be further elaborated in the next Impact Analysis. At this stage the LRF only shortly comments the three main areas of the Impact Analysis. Unfair trading practises • The LRF recommends option 4. We would support a framework legisla-tion to address UTPs including some general criteria as well as giving the Member states the possibility to address national differences. We al-so think that the question of administrative systems and red tape can be handled appropriately in option 4. Producer cooperation • The LRF prefers option 2. It is vital to further promote cooperation amongst farmers in order to strengthen their position in the food chain. The issue of value sharing mechanisms is also important. It would how-ever not be beneficial for the farmers if sub-groups of members in a co-op could negotiate more beneficial deals at the cost of other members. Farmers coops must be able to decide whether to implement new mech-anisms. Market transparency • The LRF prefers option 2. We do think that increased market transpar-ency from all stages of the food chain would be helpful to improve the food chain. It must however be further investigated which stages in the food chain that would gain most from increased transparency.
Read full response

Meeting with Tom Tynan (Cabinet of Commissioner Phil Hogan)

7 Feb 2017 · Business discussion

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

11 Jan 2017

To begin with, we welcome the efforts made by the Commission services to simplify the greening requirements and implementation. However, the overall proposal contains several parts that cannot be considered as simplification. Most notably the ban on use of plant protection products (PPP) on certain Ecological Focus Areas (EFA) will increase the bureaucracy and production constraints for farmers. The greening rules are complex to begin with and the ban of PPP convey more obstacles and will reduce the possibility to use for example nitrogen fixing crops (NFC) as EFA. This will in turn lead to a situation where the possibilities for using different types of EFA will be reduced. We therefore suggest that this part of the proposal should be withdrawn. The ban of use of pesticides will have a major impact on the possibility to grow nitrogen fixing crops as ecological focus areas. Since the greening requirements were implemented we have seen a very welcomed increase of production of nitrogen fixing crops which in turn has decreased the need of imported fodder. The major part of farmers who have used nitrogen fixing crops for EFA do not have the possibility to produce without chemical treatments. The proposal will thus lead to a situation where farmers must choose other EFAs. Regarding under-sowing, the Commission has proposed that “… this prohibition [of plant protection products] shall apply from the moment of harvesting of the main crop until the sowing of the next main crop.” We welcome the fact that the Commission has proposed to set a timeframe for the ban on PPP. However, in Sweden, the normal practice for catch crops is that the farmer doesn’t sow a winter crop after the catch crops. For both the agri-environmental payment for catch crops in pillar 2 and for EFA under-sowing the farmer must keep the catch crop/under-sowing until a fixed date in the late autumn (after the end of the growing season). The proposal will thus cause problems for farmers that don’t sow a winter crop, for farmers that for example wants the under-sowing to become the main crop the next year or decide to not sow the field the next year. The proposal will also cause problem regarding controls since it might lead to a situation where controls must be made subsequent year(s) which also will affect the payment date. Our suggestion is that the phrase “… until the sowing of the next main crop” should be amended to “… until a date set by the Member State”. As a final comment, if the suggested ban on PPP will stay in the final regulation, the conversion factors for the EFAs in question should be revised so that they correspond to the more difficult growing conditions.
Read full response

Meeting with Andrew Bianco (Cabinet of Vice-President Karmenu Vella), Gabriella Pace (Cabinet of Vice-President Karmenu Vella)

10 Jul 2015 · Wolves Policy

Meeting with Marco Valletta (Cabinet of Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis)

25 Feb 2015 · Animal Health, Antibiotic Resistance

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

10 Feb 2015 · Swedish farmers views on TTIP