Belarus released more than 100 political prisoners, including Nobel Peace Prize winner Ales Bialiatski and activist Maria Kolesnikova, multiple media outlets reported on Saturday. Belarus released a total of 123 prisoners following talks between authoritarian President Alexander Lukashenko and U.S. President Donald Trump’s special envoy for Belarus John Coale, BBC reported. The U.S. reportedly agreed to lift sanctions on potash, a key fertilizer component and an important export for Belarus, a historical ally of Russia. Kolesnikova was sentenced four years ago to a long prison term after being convicted of attempting to seize power illegally. 

Crops tailor-made using new gene-splicing techniques should face fewer regulations than genetically modified organisms, EU negotiators agreed Thursday.  Critics are calling it a GMO rebrand; proponents say they are bringing science back in style. The late-night negotiations — dragged across the finish line with the help of the European Parliament’s far right — capped years of haggling over how to ease the path for a new generation of gene-editing technologies developed since 2001, when the EU’s notoriously strict regulations on GMOs were adopted. The deal’s backers tout NGT’s potential to breed climate-resilient plants that need less space and fertilizers to grow, and they argue the EU is already behind global competitors using the technology. But critics fear the EU is opening the door to GMOs and giving too much power to major seed corporations.   The agreement opens the door to “unlabelled — yet patented — GM crops and foods, boosting corporate market power while undermining the rights of farmers and consumers,” warned Franziska Achterberg of Save Our Seeds, an NGO opposing GMOs, calling the deal a “complete sell-out.” INNOVATION VS. CAPITULATION European lawmakers, however, were responding to fears that outdated GMO rules were holding back progress on more recent genomic tweaks with a lighter touch — and throttling innovations worth trillions of euros.  Currently, most plants edited using new precision breeding technology — which can involve reordering their DNA, or inserting genes from the same plant or species — are covered by the same strict rules governing GMOs that contain foreign DNA.  The deal struck by the EU’s co-legislators creates two classes for these more recent techniques. “NGT1” crops — plants that have only been modified using new tech to a limited extent and are thus considered equivalent to naturally occurring strains — would be eligible for less stringent regulations. In contrast, “NGT2” plants, which have had more genetic changes and traditional GMOs will continue to face the same rules that have been in place for over 20 years.  Speaking before the final round of negotiations, Danish Agriculture Minister Jacob Jensen argued that the bloc needs to have NGTs in its toolbox if it wants to compete with China and the U.S., which are already making use of the new tech.  The deal “is about giving European farmers a fair chance to keep up” echoed center-right MEP Jessica Polfjärd, the lead negotiator on the Parliament’s side of the deal. She added that the technology will allow for the bloc to “produce more yield on less land, reduce the use of pesticides, and plant crops that can resist climate change.” Polfjärd had struggled to keep MEPs on the same page even as the bill advanced into interinstitutional negotiations. Persistent objections from left-wing lawmakers, including a key Socialist, forced her to embrace support of lawmakers from the far-right Patriots for Europe, breaking the cordon sanitaire.  Martin Häusling, the Green parliamentary negotiator, called the result miserable, saying it gives a “carte blanche for the use of new genetic engineering in plants” that threatens GMO-free agriculture.  DAVID AND GOLIATH In a hard-won victory for industry, the final legislation allows for NGT crops to be patented.  For Matthias Berninger, executive vice president at the global biotech giant Bayer, it’s just good business. “When we talk about startup culture in Europe … we also need to provide reasonable intellectual property protections,” he said in an interview. Yet safeguards meant to prevent patent-holders from accumulating too much market power don’t go far enough for Arche Noah. The NGO advocating for seed diversity in Europe, warned of a “slow-motion collapse of independent breeding, seed-diversity and farmer autonomy” if the deal makes it to law as is. They have MEP Christophe Clergeau, the Parliament’s Social-Democrat negotiator who led the last-ditch resistance.  In an interview on Thursday morning, he gave it five to 10 years before small breeders have disappeared from the bloc and farmers are “totally dependent” on the likes of Bayer and other huge companies. (Berninger said Bayer doesn’t want to inhibit small breeders by enforcing patents on them.) The deal now needs to be endorsed by the Parliament and the Council of the EU before the new rules are adopted. At the end of the day, it’s up to consumers to pass judgment, DG SANTE’s food safety and innovation chief Klaus Berend said Thursday, appearing at the POLITICO Sustainable Future Summit directly before the late-night negotiations began.  “We know that in Europe, the general attitude toward genetically modified organisms and anything around it is rather negative,” he cautioned. The key question for new genomic techniques is “how will they be accepted by consumers?” Their acceptance, Berend added, “is not a given.” Rebecca Holland contributed to this report.

BRUSSELS — Europe’s most energy-intensive industries are worried the European Union’s carbon border tax will go too soft on heavily polluting goods imported from China, Brazil and the United States — undermining the whole purpose of the measure. From the start of next year, Brussels will charge a fee on goods like cement, iron, steel, aluminum and fertilizer imported from countries with weaker emissions standards than the EU’s. The point of the law, known as the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, is to make sure dirtier imports don’t have an unfair advantage over EU-made products, which are charged around €80 for every ton of carbon dioxide they emit. One of the main conundrums for the EU is how to calculate the carbon footprint of imports when the producers don’t give precise emissions data. According to draft EU laws obtained by POLITICO, the European Commission is considering using default formulas that EU companies say are far too generous. Two documents in particular have raised eyebrows. One contains draft benchmarks to assess the carbon footprint of imported CBAM goods, while the second — an Excel sheet seen by POLITICO — shows default CO2 emissions values for the production of these products in foreign countries. These documents are still subject to change. National experts from EU countries discussed the controversial texts last Wednesday during a closed-door meeting, and asked the Commission to rework them before they can be adopted. That’s expected to happen over the next few weeks, according to two people with knowledge of the talks. Multiple industry representatives told POLITICO that the proposed estimated carbon footprint values are too low for a number of countries, which risks undermining the efficiency of the CBAM. For example, some steel products from China, Brazil and the United States have much lower assumed emissions than equivalent products made in the EU, according to the tables. Ola Hansén, public affairs director of the green steel manufacturer Stegra, said he had been “surprised” by the draft default values that have been circulating, because they suggest that CO2 emissions for some steel production routes in the EU were higher than in China, which seemed “odd.” “Our recommendation would be [to] adjust the values, but go ahead with the [CBAM] framework and then improve it over time,” he said. Antoine Hoxha, director general of industry association Fertilizers Europe, also said he found the proposed default values “quite low” for certain elements, like urea, used to manufacture fertilizers. “The result is not exactly what we would have thought,” he said, adding there is “room for improvement.” But he also noted that the Commission is trying “to do a good job but they are extremely overwhelmed … It’s a lot of work in a very short period of time.” Multiple industry representatives told POLITICO that the proposed estimated carbon footprint values are too low for a number of countries, which risks undermining the efficiency of the CBAM. | Photo by VCG via Getty Images While a weak CBAM would be bad for many emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries in the EU, it’s likely to please sectors relying on cheap imports of CBAM goods — such as European farmers that import fertilizer — as well as EU trade partners that have complained the measure is a barrier to global free trade. The European Commission declined to comment. DEFAULT VERSUS REAL EMISSIONS Getting this data right is crucial to ensure the mechanism works and encourages companies to lower their emissions to pay a lower CBAM fee. “Inconsistencies in the figures of default values and benchmarks would dilute the incentive for cleaner production processes and allow high-emission imports to enter the EU market with insufficient carbon costs,” said one CBAM industry representative, granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive talks. “This could result in a CBAM that is not only significantly less effective but most likely counterproductive.” The default values for CO2 emissions are like a stick. When the legislation was designed, they were expected to be set quite high to “punish importers that are not providing real emission data,” and encourage companies to report their actual emissions to pay a lower CBAM fee, said Leon de Graaf, acting president of the Business for CBAM Coalition. But if these default values are too low then importers no longer have any incentive to provide their real emissions data. They risk making the CBAM less effective because it allows imported goods to appear cleaner than they really are, he said. The Commission is under pressure to adopt these EU acts quickly as they’re needed to set the last technical details for the implementation of the CBAM, which applies from Jan. 1. However, de Graaf warned against rushing that process. On the one hand, importers “needed clarity yesterday” because they are currently agreeing import deals for next year and at the moment “cannot calculate what their CBAM cost will be,” he said. But European importers are worried too, because once adopted the default emission values will apply for the next two years, the draft documents suggest. The CBAM regulation states that the default values “shall be revised periodically.” “It means that if they are wrong now … they will hurt certain EU producers for at least two years,” de Graaf said.

TOURNAI, Belgium — Back in 2016, a freak storm destroyed the entire strawberry crop on Hugues Falys’ farm in the province of Hainaut in west Belgium. It was one of a long string of unusual natural calamities that have ravaged his farm, and which he says are becoming more frequent because of climate change. Falys now wants those responsible for the climate crisis to pay him for the damage done — and he’s chosen as his target one of the world’s biggest oil companies: TotalEnergies. In a packed courtroom in the local town of Tournai, backed by a group of NGOs and a team of lawyers, Falys last week made his case to the judges that the French fossil fuel giant should be held responsible for the climate disasters that have decimated his yields. It’s likely to be a tricky case to make. TotalEnergies, which has yet to present its side of the case in court, told POLITICO in a statement that making a single producer responsible for the collective impact of centuries of fossil fuel use “makes no sense.” But the stakes are undeniably high: If Falys is successful, it could create a massive legal precedent and open a floodgate for similar litigation against other fossil fuel companies across Europe and beyond. “It’s a historic day,” Falys told a crowd outside the courtroom. “The courts could force multinationals to change their practices.” A TOUGH ROW TO HOE While burning fossil fuels is almost universally accepted as the chief cause of global warming, the impact is cumulative and global, the responsibility of innumerable groups over more than two centuries. Pinning the blame on one company — even one as huge as TotalEnergies, which emits as much CO2 every year as the whole of the U.K. combined — is difficult, and most legal attempts to do so have failed. Citing these arguments, TotalEnergies denies it’s responsible for worsening the droughts and storms that Falys has experienced on his farm in recent years. The case is part of a broader movement of strategic litigation that aims to test the courts and their ability to enforce changes on the oil and gas industry. More than 2,900 climate litigation cases have been filed globally to date. “It’s the first time that a court, at least in Belgium, can recognize the legal responsibility, the accountability of one of those carbon polluters in the climate damages that citizens, and also farmers like Hugues, are suffering and have already suffered in the previous decade,” Joeri Thijs, a spokesperson for Greenpeace Belgium, told POLITICO in front of the courtroom. MAKING HISTORY Previous attempts to pin the effects of climate change on a single emitter have mostly failed, like when a Peruvian farmer sued German energy company RWE arguing its emissions contributed to melting glaciers putting his village at risk of flooding. But Thijs said that “the legal context internationally has changed over the past year” and pointed to the recent “game-changer” legal opinion of the International Court of Justice, which establishes the obligations of countries in the fight against climate change. TotalEnergies, which has yet to present its side of the case in court. | Gregoire Campione/Getty Images “There have been several … opinions that clearly give this accountability to companies and to governments; and so we really hope that the judge will also take this into account in his judgment,” he said. Because “there are various actors who maintain this status quo of a fossil-based economy … it is important that there are different lawsuits in different parts of the world, for different victims, against different companies,” said Matthias Petel, a member of the environment committee of the Human Rights League, an NGO that is also one of the plaintiffs in the case. Falys’ lawsuit is “building on the successes” of recent cases like the one pitting Friends of the Earth Netherlands against oil giant Shell, he told POLITICO. But it’s also trying to go “one step further” by not only looking backward at the historical contribution of private actors to climate change to seek financial compensation, he explained, but also looking forward to force these companies to change their investment policies and align them with the goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. “We are not just asking them to compensate the victim, we are asking them to transform their entire investment model in the years to come,” Petel said. DIRECT IMPACTS In recent years, Falys, who has been a cattle farmer for more than 35 years, has had to put up with more frequent extreme weather events. The 2016 storm that decimated his strawberry crop also destroyed most of his potatoes. In 2018, 2020 and 2022, heat waves and droughts affected his yields and his cows, preventing him from harvesting enough fodder for his animals and forcing him to buy feed from elsewhere. These events also started affecting his mental health on top of his finances, he told POLITICO. “I have experienced climate change first-hand,” he said. “It impacted my farm, but also my everyday life and even my morale.” Falys says he’s tried to adapt to the changing climate. He transitioned to organic farming, stopped using chemical pesticides and fertilizers on his farm, and even had to reduce the size of his herd to keep it sustainable. Yet he feels that his efforts are being “undermined by the fact that carbon majors like TotalEnergies continue to explore for new [fossil fuel] fields, further increasing their harmful impact on the climate.” FIVE FAULTS Falys’ lawyers spent more than six hours last Wednesday quoting scientific reports and climate studies aimed at showing the judges the direct link between TotalEnergies’ fossil fuel production, the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from their use, and their contribution to climate change and the extreme weather events that hit Falys’ farm. They want TotalEnergies to pay reparations for the damages Falys suffered. But they’re also asking the court to order the company to stop investing in new fossil fuel projects, to drastically reduce its emissions, and to adopt a transition plan that is in line with the 2015 Paris climate agreement. Falys’ lawsuit is “building on the successes” of recent cases like the one pitting Friends of the Earth Netherlands against oil giant Shell, he told POLITICO. | Klaudia Radecka/Getty Images TotalEnergies’ culpability derives from five main faults, the lawyers argued. They claimed the French oil giant continued to exploit fossil fuels despite knowing the impact of their related emissions on climate change; it fabricated doubt about scientific findings establishing this connection; it lobbied against stricter measures to tackle global warming; it adopted a transition strategy that is not aligned with the goals of the Paris agreement; and it engaged in greenwashing, misleading its customers when promoting its activities in Belgium. “Every ton [of CO2 emissions] counts, every fraction of warming matters” to stop climate change, the lawyers hammered all day on Wednesday. “Imposing these orders would have direct impacts on alleviating Mr. Falys’ climate anxiety,” lawyer Marie Doutrepont told the court, urging the judges “to be brave,” follow through on their responsibilities to protect human rights, and ensure that if polluters don’t want to change their practices voluntarily, “one must force them to.” TOTAL’S RESPONSE But the French oil major retorted that Falys’ action “is not legitimate” and has “no legal basis.” In a statement shared with POLITICO, TotalEnergies said that trying to “make a single, long-standing oil and gas producer (which accounts for just under 2 percent of the oil and gas sector and is not active in coal) bear a responsibility that would be associated with the way in which the European and global energy system has been built over more than a century … makes no sense.” Because climate change is a global issue and multiple actors contribute to it, TotalEnergies cannot hold individual responsibility for it, the fossil fuel giant argues. It also said that the company is reducing its emissions and investing in renewable energy, and that targeted, sector-specific regulations would be a more appropriate way to advance the energy transition rather than legal action. The French company challenges the assertion that it committed any faults, saying its activities “are perfectly lawful” and that the firm “strictly complies with the applicable national and European regulations in this area.” TotalEnergies’ legal counsel will have six hours to present their arguments during a second round of hearings on Nov. 26 in Tournai. The court is expected to rule in the first half of next year.

A group of 24 European politicians whose blood was tested for toxic PFAS chemicals over the summer all had the substances in their bodies, the NGOs involved in the testing revealed Tuesday. “I tested positive for four substances, and three of them can harm unborn children, act as endocrine disruptors, cause liver damage, and are suspected of being carcinogenic,” said Danish Environment Minister Magnus Heunicke in a written statement, describing his results as a “frightening reality.” It is “crucial that we take strong action against PFAS pollution so that we are no longer continuously exposed to these harmful chemicals,” he added. PFAS substances, commonly known as forever chemicals, don’t break down naturally and have been shown to accumulate in the environment and cause a host of health problems, including cancer, liver damage and decreased fertility. Most people in the world have some level of PFAS in their blood. For half of the EU leaders tested, contamination reached levels where health impacts are possible, according to the European Environmental Bureau and ChemSec. One person had levels indicating a potential risk of long-term health effects. The test results come days after the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Toxics and Human Rights Marcos Orellana slammed Brussels for proposing to dilute several chemical protection laws to help boost European industry. Denmark orchestrated the group test during a meeting of EU environment ministers in the northern Danish city of Aalborg in July. The country currently holds the rotating presidency of the Council of the EU and is one of five European countries that sent a joint proposal to the European Commission to phase out thousands of PFAS chemicals under EU chemicals law back in 2023. That proposal — currently in the hands of the European Chemicals Agency — has come under fire from industry groups, many of which are calling for exemptions to the proposed law. Tested politicians included EU Environment Commissioner Jessika Roswall, outgoing French Ecological Transition Minister Agnès Pannier-Runacher and Federal German Environment Minister Carsten Schneider. “Like many other citizens across Europe, I have PFAS in my body,” said Roswall in a written statement. “I tested positively on 6 out of 13 PFAS, including some that are classified as toxic for reproductive health. PFAS pollution is a vital public health issue.” The results of one of the test participants — Executive Director of the European Environment Agency Leena Ylä-Mononen — showed a decline in PFAS levels since she last had her blood tested, “reflecting trends observed among the European population for restricted PFAS.” Roswall has stated that the Commission will propose phasing out consumer uses of PFAS and exempt certain critical industries, which are yet to be defined. PFAS are involved in the production processes of several sectors, including semiconductors, batteries and pharmaceuticals. Those promises of exemptions have worried environmental groups, which are hoping for a wide-reaching phase-out of the chemicals. In a written statement on the tests, ChemSec’s Anne-Sofie Bäckar called for a “universal ban on all PFAS — not just in consumer products — before another generation pays the price for industry’s delay.” The Commission is expected to release its revision of the major chemicals regulation, REACH, this year, although the timeline is uncertain. The EU institutions are also working on a separate Commission proposal to simplify a set of EU laws spanning cosmetics, fertilizer and chemical classification regulations in a “chemicals omnibus” bill. U.N. Special Rapporteur on Toxics and Human Rights Marcos Orellana last week said the proposal risked undermining the European Union’s credibility as a “global leader in green policy and the rule of law.”

Efforts by Brussels to dilute the bloc’s chemical laws are undermining the European Union’s credibility as a “global leader in green policy and the rule of law,” a top U.N. human rights official has warned in a letter shared with POLITICO. “Simplicity and efficiency should not come at the expense of retrogressive measures or the health of the population, especially those that are the most vulnerable to toxics and pollution such as children,” writes U.N. Special Rapporteur on Toxics and Human Rights Marcos Orellana. The source of Orellana’s concern is a European Commission proposal, published in the summer, to simplify a set of EU laws spanning cosmetics, fertilizer and chemical classification regulations in a “chemicals omnibus” bill. The aim of the bill is to create a “more predictable and less burdensome regulatory landscape” — part of the EU’s broader simplification drive to help Europe’s businesses and boost its economy. But the proposal “seems to conflict with [the] rights set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, including the rights to health and environmental protection,” Orellana writes in his letter, dated Sept. 25 and addressed to the bloc’s delegation to the U.N. The bill proposes, for example, that some of the rules governing what sort of cancer-causing chemicals are allowed in cosmetics be relaxed — angering consumer groups who warn it could endanger people’s health. Orellana expresses misgivings about the “weakened safeguards preventing the use of [carcinogenic, mutagenic or reproductive toxic substances] in cosmetics,” and writes he is “particularly concerned” by new proposed flexibilities on product labeling and advertising. He notes the bill has not undergone a full impact assessment. As it stands, he concludes, there is a “high risk” that the proposal would “negatively impact human rights, including the rights to health and a healthy environment, reversing recent improvements and creating legal uncertainty for businesses that have already invested in compliance.” Moreover, he sees “no compelling justification to explain the abovementioned measures,” and asks “how the EU intends to ensure [the] compatibility of the proposed omnibus package with international human rights norms and standards.” Industry groups including the European Chemical Industry Council and Cosmetics Europe have welcomed the bill, with the latter denying the legislative tweaks will impact consumer safety. The file is currently being negotiated by the European Parliament and EU countries.

CARDIFF, Wales — At the edge of a sprawling wheat field on the outskirts of Cardiff, arable farmer Richard Anthony sticks a shovel in the ground and offers up a fistful of soil for a sniff.  “The first thing [I do when] I walk into a field: I catch a handful of soil,” he says. “[The] first thing I do is smell it, to see if it smells healthy.” His mind is on climate change. The clump in his palm is indeed healthy — but it’s dry. It comes at the tail end of an unusually hot spring. Anthony and his wife, Lyn, are planting crops in increasingly short “weather windows,” dodging the wet days of the previous fall. “It does worry me,” he told POLITICO, acres of wheat plants swaying behind him. “But we, as farmers, have always had to adapt. And we’re having to adapt to climate change.” Farmers like the Anthonys are looking for guidance from the Senedd — the Labour-led devolved Welsh parliament down the road in Cardiff Bay. “Farming is seen as the biggest problem with climate change, and we’re not. We’re the only industry that can actually do something about it,” Anthony said. But Welsh ministers’ key environmental plans are in disarray, delayed for over a year after farmers angrily rejected proposals they say would hit jobs and livelihoods. Annoying farmers is bad news for Labour in Wales, a country where 90 percent of land is given over to agriculture. And it has consequences in Westminster, too, for a U.K. government that can’t afford another political bloody nose. Welsh national elections next May will be a crucial mid-term litmus test for the appeal of Keir Starmer’s embattled Labour. The 2026 Senedd vote is seen by party leaders in London “as a staging post between now and [the general election in] 2029,” said one Welsh union boss in February. Labour is going backward in Wales.  Welsh polls published Tuesday show Labour, in charge at the Senedd since 1999, dropping to third place, losing support to both populists Reform UK and nationalists Plaid Cymru. The party is being punished, experts say, for its own perceived inertia and a far too cozy relationship with Westminster. “The Welsh government are in a very difficult situation, in that both they are unpopular as incumbents and they’re also paying a price for the unpopularity of the U.K. Labour government,” said Jac Larner, a politics lecturer at Cardiff University. “So at the moment there is a general resistance, I think, to taking any tough decisions.”  THE CLIMATE MOMENT Faltering climate policy contributes to the sense that Welsh ministers are “losing perceptions of competence,” Larner argued. The challenge is substantial. Within the next decade, agriculture could become Wales’ largest source of emissions. To hit a U.K.-wide target of net zero by 2050, most emissions cuts will have to come from high-polluting sectors like farming. The Welsh government’s solution is the Sustainable Farming Scheme (SFS) — a program designed to help farmers adopt low-carbon activities like planting more trees. The thinking is that with the offer of cash, farmers will dedicate more of their land to mopping up planet-wrecking emissions, making the most of its natural potential to sequester carbon and store it deep in the soil. Wales should reap the benefits of these “natural carbon sinks,” says the U.K.’s independent climate advisers, the Climate Change Committee.  But ministers paused the SFS roll-out after initial plans, published in December 2023, provoked protests and a backlash over a draft 10 percent tree-planting target, which farmers said would cost thousands of agricultural jobs. The Welsh government says details will now be finalized this summer, with the scheme up and running in 2026. With 90 percent of its land used for farming, Wales is seeing instability over climate and agriculture policy. | Abby Wallace/POLITICO “I think we’ve come from such a bad place, it’s going to be quite hard to lift it back up,” said Abi Reader, a dairy farmer and deputy president of the National Farmers Union Cymru.  Behind Reader, on her farm in the Cardiff town of Wenvoe, a large shed groans as rows of cattle diligently shuffle into the parlour, waiting to be hooked up to clinking machines for milking. “It’s difficult to say whether we should be signing up to it [the SFS] or not, because we’ve got no details of any of the costings,” Reader said.  “We’re all business people at the end of the day and, you know, we’ve all already done our budgets for next year. And there’s nothing to go to a bank manager with and say: ‘I want to borrow this, or can you support me for that?’” ‘BANG, BANG, KICK A MAN’ The SFS has caused unrest on another politically sensitive topic: livestock. A Welsh government estimate suggested the scheme could reduce livestock numbers by as much as 120,000. If ministers in Cardiff follow separate CCC advice published in May — on how to hit climate goals by 2033 — cattle and sheep numbers in Wales need to fall by nearly a fifth. Some of this will come from wider trends toward lower meat and dairy consumption — but it will also be driven by policies like the SFS, which incentivize farmers to rely less on livestock. The Welsh government must “engage with farmers and their communities, and support them to diversify their incomes,” the CCC said. This advice has spooked farmers, who see a threat to years of family-owned businesses. “Would that mean I’d have to move away from here?” asked third-generation beef farmer Tom Rees in his kitchen in Cowbridge, gesturing to the fields beyond the window where his father and grandfather also farmed. His farm slopes downhill toward a patch of land that often floods when a neighboring river overflows. It’s sliced up into rectangular fields by colorful hedgerows that act as corridors for local wildlife and as shelter for his cows on sunny days — but planting hedges isn’t how Rees wants to earn a living. “I went to college to study agriculture, to come on the farm because I wanted to produce food,” he said. “I don’t want to plant a woodland.” Rees hopes to pass the farm on to his 15-month-old son Henry — but is worried about uncertainty over the SFS, as well as issues around bovine tuberculosis and inheritance tax changes. He said: “Dad’s left the farm in a better place than when he took it on. We want to take it on a bit further, so we could leave it for Henry. … [But] with the government in Westminster and the government in the Senedd — you just really feel, Why are we bothering? “It’s bang, bang, kick a man while you’re down. That’s what it feels like, and that’s what a lot of farmers feel like in Wales.” The Welsh government refused to comment on the SFS, confirming only that details will be published this month. A spokesperson said the government is “reviewing” the CCC’s advice, which will inform decisions on a new climate goal for Wales before the end of the year. “We’re trying to take forward a future for agriculture in Wales, which is to do with thriving, living businesses and communities within Wales,” Huw Irranca-Davies, Wales’ cabinet secretary for climate change and rural affairs, told POLITICO in an interview last year. ANNOYING VOTERS Labour’s support has traditionally been low in rural Wales, where votes flow instead to the Conservatives or Plaid Cymru. But the mess over agricultural policies is deepening Labour’s woes, argued Cardiff University’s Larner. “By annoying these people, you kind of block off the possibility that any of these people at all will vote Labour,” he said, “So it’s just a kind of narrowing of the vote pool in which you can fish for extra voters come other elections.” Meantime, Plaid Cymru and Reform are making their pitches to rural voters. “You have to take the farmers with you on this journey. And that’s one lesson, I think, that the Welsh government has learned the hard way,” said Llyr Gruffydd, Senedd member for North Wales and Plaid’s agriculture and rural affairs spokesperson. Plaid will “reassess” the SFS when more details are published, Gruffydd said. His party is not about to announce plans to “plow a different furrow,” he said, but he didn’t rule out ditching the unpopular scheme either. When Plaid sees the plans, Gruffydd argued, it can decide “whether this is something that we can pursue, whether we feel we need to amend it — or, God forbid, whether we have to say, let’s get back to the drawing board.” Nigel Farage’s Reform, riding high in the polls and fresh from smashing Labour in local elections in May, wants to scrap net-zero targets altogether. “Farmers want lower costs to stay afloat. Net stupid zero adds costs for no benefit,” said Deputy Leader Richard Tice. Reform is set to benefit, too, from anger over the fate of Welsh steelmaking. Thousands of job losses loom at the Port Talbot plant as it shifts to a lower-emitting electric arc furnace, a political gift to Farage when he argues that climate-friendly policies wreck traditional industries. “That’s the one big example we’ve seen of net-zero related policy, and is one of loss of jobs with not very much put in place to support workers to do anything different,” said Joe Rossiter, co-director at the Institute of Welsh Affairs. “When it all shakes out, I do think the fight will be Labour vs. Reform for the top spot,” said one Labour insider who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. The U.K. government “has been completely focused on making sure the transition to green steelmaking is as good as it can be.” Asked about the example of Port Talbot, Reader, the dairy farmer, was nervous about the precedent it set for other climate policies. “If they damage Welsh agriculture in the same way [as steel], I think that’s really letting down Wales,” she said.  ALL IN IT TOGETHER The Welsh government’s other big problem? It has cuddled up so tightly to Westminster that Labour’s performance in Cardiff will rebound in London and vice-versa. “There’s no ‘other’ for them to blame, because they’ve tied themselves very closely, rhetorically as well, to the U.K. government,” Larner said. Some Welsh Labour MPs defend the U.K. government’s record. “If you look at the amount of money that the Labour Party is investing in the agricultural sector, that shows a huge commitment to the industry,” said Henry Tufnell, Labour MP for Pembrokeshire. After months spent arguing the benefits of having Labour governments in both Cardiff and London, Senedd First Minister Eluned Morgan in May pivoted to emphasize the divide between them. Expect more attempts to put “clear red water” between the two camps, Larner said. Yet when Starmer addressed the Welsh Labour conference in north Wales last month, the old closeness was back. “Next year it’s a clear choice. Two Labour governments working together for the people of Wales … or risk rolling back all the progress we are making,” the prime minister said. As Starmer spoke, a clutch of farmers protested outside. ‘Starmer: farmer harmer,’ read one placard. Voters will say soon enough what they make of that bond between Labour in Wales and Westminster.

CAN DENMARK SELL GREEN AGRICULTURE TO A SKEPTICAL EU? As Copenhagen takes the helm of the Council, its bold climate credentials face the hard grind of EU politics — and a bloc more interested in competitiveness than carbon cuts. By LUCIA MACKENZIE and BARTOSZ BRZEZŃSKI Photo-Illustration Matthieu Bourel for POLITICO This article is part of the Danish Presidency of the EU special report. Denmark’s incoming EU presidency is set to coincide with a bruising debate over the future of farming in Europe, and Copenhagen wants climate at the center of it. Fresh off a historic domestic deal to tax agricultural emissions, Danish officials are touting their country’s “high ambitions” for green policy. Minister for Green Transition Jeppe Bruus said Denmark hopes to infuse its six-month presidency with lessons from home, where collaboration with farmers and a sweeping Green Tripartite Agreement last year marked a rare political consensus on climate and agriculture. But as Denmark prepares to steer the Council of the EU from July, it finds itself pitching a climate-forward message to a bloc moving in the opposite direction. After more than a year of farmer unrest, a rightward shift in the European Parliament, and pullback from Ursula von der Leyen’s first-term Green Deal, the stage is set for a presidency marked more by firefighting than forward motion. “Look, we can actually solve a lot of those crises that we are in — the climate crisis, the biodiversity crisis, the focus on creating jobs and growth — and deliver on food security … in a sustainable way,” Bruus told POLITICO in an interview. “We see this as a task that combines what we’re good at.” That pitch may resonate with green-minded stakeholders, but Denmark’s room for maneuver is limited. DOMESTIC SUCCESS, EUROPEAN CONSTRAINTS Last year, Denmark became the first country in the world to legislate a tax on greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture — something even climate-progressive nations like New Zealand couldn’t manage. Under the so-called Green Tripartite Agreement, livestock emissions will be taxed starting in 2030, with revenue earmarked for green initiatives and farmer support. The deal was driven by necessity as much as ambition. Agriculture accounts for nearly 29 percent of Denmark’s overall greenhouse gas emissions and around 80 percent of its methane and nitrous oxide emissions — largely from livestock and fertilizer use.  With a legally binding goal to cut national emissions by 70 percent by 2030, the government concluded that without action on farming, the math wouldn’t add up. The Green Tripartite Agreement aimed to correct course by combining a phased-in tax with funding to support biodiversity, peatland restoration and farmer adaptation — all while keeping the sector economically viable. This was not imposed from above. The deal was brokered through Denmark’s traditional tripartite model, bringing together government, farmers, industry and environmental groups. As Bruus himself noted, it followed carbon taxes on Danish industry and relied on a broader societal consensus about climate responsibility. Bruus said the government had deliberately avoided designing the tax “in opposition to the farming community,” and emphasized that every krone raised would be reinvested back into the sector. The EU, however, doesn’t really do social partnership. It does “trilogues” — opaque three-way negotiations between the Parliament, Council and the European Commission, often shielded from the kind of inclusive dialogue Copenhagen embraced at home. And while Denmark’s domestic conditions allowed for a relatively smooth political landing, the same cannot be said of Brussels. The backlash to green rules — both organized and opportunistic — has pulled the center of gravity toward deregulation and “competitiveness,” a favorite watchword in the Commission’s post-2024 narrative reset. GREEN MANDATE, SHRINKING MOMENTUM The timing couldn’t be more sensitive. The Danish presidency will take place during early discussions on the EU’s next medium-term budget running from 2028 to 2034, with implications for farm spending and the future Common Agricultural Policy. It will also likely inherit hot files from previous presidencies, including rules on new genomic techniques and animal transport — issues guaranteed to stir both emotional and political backlash. The political headwinds are gale force.  Last year’s farmer protests prompted von der Leyen to launch a “strategic dialogue” with the agriculture sector — one that while heavy on green promises, has so far yielded a legislative shift emphasizing income security and global competitiveness. Meanwhile, the EU looks set to loosen more green requirements on farmers, as governments across the spectrum embrace softer rules to ease pressure on farmers and public administrations alike. Even Denmark’s climate credibility isn’t immune to scrutiny. Critics of the Green Tripartite Agreement argue the agricultural carbon tax is too modest to drive systemic change — it starts at just 120 kroner (€16) per metric ton in 2030, rising to 300 kroner by 2035, less than half the industrial rate.  Others point to its heavy reliance on voluntary measures and unproven technologies like biochar — the production of black carbon from biomass — and methane inhibitors . Still others argue that it risks punishing farmers who have set about reducing their emissions through other means. “It’s a start, not a solution,” said one senior EU diplomat familiar with the file. “Denmark has credibility on green agriculture, but selling that model to 26 other countries will be a much harder job.” NOT SO UNITED FRONT Denmark finds itself politically isolated on green agricultural policy, according to Alan Matthews, professor emeritus of European agricultural policy at Trinity College Dublin. While it has taken the lead in tackling farming emissions, most other governments are reluctant to follow. Ireland, another heavy agricultural emitter, is scrambling to meet its climate targets without tanking its dairy and meat industries. Germany now has a conservative-led government with little appetite for green experimentation. Even at home, right-wing parties have questioned the climate tax, with farmers warning of job losses and production leakage . Denmark could find an ally in the Commission — but not necessarily where it matters most, Matthews said. “Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen and DG AGRI are not prioritizing a climate or green agenda, and the buzzwords now for agricultural policy are competitiveness and resilience, meaning adapting to climate change impacts,” he said, referring to the agricultural wing of the Commission that’s in charge of the CAP budget. By contrast, Matthews noted, the Commission’s climate wing, DG CLIMA, “is aware that agriculture will need to contribute much more if the EU’s ambitious 90 percent reduction target by 2040 is to be achieved, and is open to investigating new policy instruments. But DG CLIMA is not central to the future CAP negotiations, so its ambitions do not carry much weight.” The Danish presidency is unlikely to radically reshape EU agriculture policy, but it may help inject long-term thinking into a space dominated by short-term panic. The upcoming EU Bioeconomy Strategy — expected in late 2025 — could offer an opening for the Danes to lead on a less politically toxic agenda, linking sustainability with industrial opportunity. Bruus has stressed that farmers won’t go green without a business case. At home, the Green Land Fund and other fiscal measures have sweetened the pill of new taxes. But at the EU level, any equivalent offer would require a major shift in the bloc’s budget logic — and a willingness to match rhetoric with revenue. That’s a tough sell, especially amid competing demands on the EU’s purse strings and an upcoming debate over who gets what in the post-2027 CAP. If Denmark is to make a mark, it may be less about securing bold new legislation and more about keeping the flame of the green transition alive at a time when many would rather extinguish it.