BRUSSELS — Pressure is mounting on the European Commission to exempt fertilizers from its new carbon tariff scheme, as national capitals side with farmers over industry to unpick one of the EU’s newest climate policies. During a discussion requested by Austria on Monday, 12 countries called for a temporary exclusion of fertilizers from the European Union’s carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM), a levy on the greenhouse gas emissions of certain goods imported into the bloc. They argued that CBAM, which only became fully operational on Jan. 1, is sending already-rising fertilizer even higher, adding to economic difficulties for crop farmers. “European arable farmers are currently facing not just low producer prices, but also rising production costs. The main cost drivers are fertilizer prices, which have increased markedly since 2020,” Johannes Frankhauser, a senior official in Austria’s agriculture ministry, told ministers gathered in Brussels. Eleven countries backed Vienna in Monday’s meeting. Yet critics — which include fertilizer producers, environment-focused MEPs and several governments — warn that such an exemption would not only penalize the EU’s domestic producers but threaten the integrity of the carbon tariff scheme. “High prices of production inputs, including fertilizers, have a direct impact on the economic situation of farms… However, we want an optimal solution in order to maintain food security on one hand and on the other [avoid] possible negative impacts on the competitiveness of EU fertilizer producers,” said Polish Agriculture Minister Stefan Krajewski, whose country is a major fertilizer producer.  Germany, Belgium, Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands expressed similar sentiments.  CBAM was phased in over several years and is supposed to protect European producers of heavily polluting goods — cement, iron, steel, aluminum, fertilizers, electricity and hydrogen — from cheap and dirty foreign competition. EU manufacturers of these products currently pay a carbon price on their planet-warming emissions, while importers didn’t before the CBAM came into force. By introducing a levy on imports from countries without carbon pricing, the EU wants to even out the playing field and encourage its trading partners to switch to cleaner manufacturing practices. (Those partners aren’t too happy.) The CBAM price is paid by the importers, which are free to pass on the cost to buyers — in the case of fertilizers, farmers.  Fertilizers make up a substantial share of farms’ operating costs, and EU-based companies do not produce enough to match demand. CBAM is therefore expected to push up fertilizer costs, though estimates on by how much vary greatly. A group of nine EU countries led by France mentioned a 25 percent increase in a recent missive, while Austria reckons it’s 10-15 percent.  The main cost drivers are fertilizer prices, which have increased markedly since 2020,” Johannes Frankhauser, a senior official in Austria’s agriculture ministry, told ministers gathered in Brussels. | Olivier Hoslet/EPA Carbon pricing analyst firm Sandbag, however, says it’s far lower for the next two years — less than 1 percent, or a couple of euros per ton of ammonia, a fertilizer component that costs several hundred euros per ton without the levy. Responding to governments on Monday, Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen noted that the EU executive already tweaked the policy to provide relief to farmers in December, and followed up in January with a promise to suspend some regular tariffs on fertilizer components to offset the additional CBAM cost. SUSPENSION SUSPENSE The Commission in December set in motion legislative changes that could allow it to enact such a suspension in the event of “serious and unforeseen circumstances” harming the bloc’s internal market — in effect, an emergency brake for CBAM. The suspension can apply retroactively, the EU executive said earlier this month. Yet EU governments and the European Parliament each have to approve this clause before the Commission could make such a move, a process expected to take the better part of this year. Environment ministers can vote on the changes in March or June, and MEPs haven’t even chosen their lead lawmakers to work on the Parliament’s position yet. That’s why Austria on Monday called on the Commission to “immediately” suspend CBAM until “the regular possibility to temporarily suspend CBAM on fertilisers is ensured.” The legal basis for such a move is unclear, as the legislation in force does not feature an exemption clause.  Vienna’s request for a debate came after a group of nine countries — Bulgaria, Croatia, France, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Luxembourg, Portugal and Romania — wrote to the Commission requesting a suspension earlier this month. During Monday’s discussion, Croatia and Estonia also expressed support for such a move.  Ireland welcomed the Commission’s proposal of a suspension clause but asked for additional details.  Spain was ambivalent: “We need to strengthen our industrial capacity to contribute to the strategic autonomy of the European Union. But clearly, the decarbonisation of this sector mustn’t jeopardize farmers’ livelihoods,” said Spanish Agriculture Minister Luis Planas.  Italy, which previously signaled its support for a suspension, did not explicitly endorse such a move — merely backing the Commission’s already-announced tweaks to normal fertilizer tariffs in its intervention on Monday.  Not all countries took to the floor. Czechia, for example — whose new government is opposed to large parts of EU climate legislation, but whose prime minister owns Europe’s second-largest nitrogen fertilizer producer — remained silent. The Czech agriculture ministry did not respond to a request for comment. INDUSTRY ALARMED While exempting fertilizers may win governments kudos from farmers, European fertilizer manufacturers would be irate. The producers’ association Fertilisers Europe warned that such a move would be “totally unacceptable” and “undermine the competitiveness” of EU companies. Yara, a major Norwegian fertilizer producer, said that “CBAM was designed to ensure a level playing field. Weakening it through tariff reductions or retroactive suspension sends the wrong signal to companies investing in Europe’s green transition.” Mohammed Chahim, the vice president of the center-left Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, said that EU companies “need regulatory stability.” “European fertilizer producers have spent precious time and significant resources, often with support from taxpayer money, to decarbonize,” said the Dutch MEP, who drafted the Parliament’s position on the original CBAM law. “Any exemptions for CBAM send a terrible signal — not just to our own industry, but to the world.”  It’s not only makers of fertilizer that are up in arms. Companies in the heavy industry sector — whose competitiveness CBAM is supposed to protect — are warning that granting an exemption once could produce a domino effect, encouraging buyers of all CBAM goods to lobby for relief.  German MEP Peter Liese, environment coordinator of the center-right European People’s Party, said earlier this month that a retroactive exemption would be “theoretically possible” but that he was “very much against it because I believe that if we start doing that, we will end up in a cascade. | Ronald Wittek/EPA “Once one sector gets an exemption, other sectors will want this too,” warned the Business for CBAM coalition, a lobby group of companies and industry groups. “We therefore call on the European Parliament and [ministers] to remove” the exemption clause, it added.  Similarly, German MEP Peter Liese, environment coordinator of the center-right European People’s Party, said earlier this month that a retroactive exemption would be “theoretically possible” but that he was “very much against it because I believe that if we start doing that, we will end up in a cascade. If we suspend it for fertilizers, there are immediately arguments to suspend it in other sectors as well.” 

There is no longer a famine in Gaza, a United Nations-backed food security organization reported Friday, as the enclave slowly recovers from two brutal years of fighting between Israel and Hamas. Food security and nutrition have improved, the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification program wrote in a December brief. “Famine has been pushed back. Far more people are able to access the food they need to survive,” U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres told reporters on Friday. But 1.6 million Gazans still face profound food insecurity, with more than 100,000 children age 6 months to 59 months projected to battle acute malnutrition and require treatment through mid-October 2026, the IPC found. And the report cautioned that a resumption of full-scale hostilities in Gaza would throw significant portions of the enclave back into a famine for months, disrupting access to markets and stunting the cultivation of native crops. It underscores just how fragile the humanitarian situation remains in the region in the wake of Israel’s war against the Hamas militant group and October’s nominal ceasefire negotiated by the Trump administration. Trump won international applause for his work in bringing about the tentative peace and freeing 20 living Israeli hostages. But private documents POLITICO reported on in November showed administration officials expressing deep concern that elements of their ceasefire agreement could fall apart. And Israeli forces have continued to lob occasional strikes into Gaza since the deal was reached. “Sustained, expanded and unhindered humanitarian and commercial flows and access to these goods across the territory are critical to meeting the challenges identified in this IPC analysis,” the researchers wrote. “This will require a durable resolution to the conflict and the rebuilding of essential infrastructure and livelihoods.”

BRUSSELS — The European Commission has proposed rolling back several EU environmental laws including industrial emissions reporting requirements, confirming previous reporting by POLITICO. It’s the latest in a series of proposed deregulation plans — known as omnibus bills — as Commission President Ursula von der Leyen tries to make good on a promise to EU leaders to dramatically reduce administrative burden for companies.   The bill’s aim is to make it easier for businesses to comply with EU laws on waste management, emissions, and resource use, with the Commission stressing the benefits to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) which make up 99 percent of all EU businesses. The Commission insisted the rollbacks would not have a negative impact on the environment. “We all agree that we need to protect our environmental standards, but we also at the same time need to do it more efficiently,” said Environment Commissioner Jessika Roswall during a press conference on Wednesday.  “This is a complex exercise,” said Executive Vice President Teresa Ribera during a press conference on Wednesday. “It is not easy for anyone to try to identify how we can respond to this demand to simplify while responding to this other demand to keep these [environmental] standards high.”  Like previous omnibus packages, the environmental omnibus was released without an impact assessment. The Commission found that “without considering other alternative options, an impact assessment is not deemed necessary.” This comes right after the Ombudswoman found the Commission at fault for “maladministration” for the first omnibus.   The Commission claims “the proposed amendments will not affect environmental standards” — a claim that’s already under attack from environmental groups.   MORE REPORTING CUTS  The Commission wants to exempt livestock and aquaculture operators from reporting on water, energy and materials use under the industrial emissions reporting legislation.  EU countries, competent authorities and operators would also be given more time to comply with some of the new or revised provisions in the updated Industrial Emissions Directive while being given further “clarity on when these provisions apply.”  The Commission is also proposing “significant simplification” for environmental management systems (EMS) — which lay out goals and performance measures related to environmental impacts of an industrial site — under the industrial and livestock rearing emissions directive.  These would be completed by industrial plants at the level of a company and not at the level of every installation, as it currently stands.   There would also be fewer compliance obligations under EU waste laws.   The Commission wants to remove the Substances of Concern in Products (SCIP) database, for example, claiming that it “has not been effective in informing recyclers about the presence of hazardous substances in products and has imposed substantial administrative costs.”  Producers selling goods in another EU country will also not have to appoint an authorized representative in both countries to comply with extended producer responsibility (EPR). The Commission calls it a “stepping stone to more profound simplification,” also reducing reporting requirements to just once per year.  The Commission will not be changing the Nature Restoration Regulation — which has been a key question in discussions between EU commissioners — but it will intensify its support to EU countries and regional authorities in preparing their draft National Restoration Plans.  The Commission will stress-test the Birds and Habitats Directives in 2026 “taking into account climate change, food security, and other developments and present a series of guidelines to facilitate implementation,” it said.  CRITIQUES ROLL IN   Some industry groups, like the Computer & Communications Industry Association, have welcomed the changes, calling it a “a common-sense fix.” German center-right MEP Pieter Liese also welcomed the omnibus package, saying, “[W]e need to streamline environmental laws precisely because we want to preserve them. Bureaucracy and paperwork are not environmental protection.” But environmental groups opposed the rollbacks.  “The Von der Leyen Commission is dismantling decades of hard-won nature protections, putting air, water, and public health at risk in the name of competitiveness,” WWF said in a statement. The estimated savings “come with no impact assessment and focus only on reduced compliance costs, ignoring the far larger price of pollution, ecosystem decline, and climate-related disasters,” it added.   The Industrial Emissions Directive, which entered into force last year and is already being transposed by member countries, was “already much weaker than what the European Commission had originally proposed” during the last revision, pointed out ClientEarth lawyer Selin Esen.  “The Birds and Habitats Directives are the backbone of nature protection in Europe,” said BirdLife Europe’s Sofie Ruysschaert. “Undermining them now would not only wipe out decades of hard-won progress but also push the EU toward a future where ecosystems and the communities that rely on them are left dangerously exposed.” 

As Europe redefines its life sciences and biotech agenda, one truth stands out: the strength of our innovation lies in its interconnection between human and animal health, science and society, and policy and practice. This spirit of collaboration guided the recent “Innovation for Animal Health: Advancing Europe’s Life Sciences Agenda” policy breakfast in Brussels, where leading voices from EU politics, science and industry came together to discuss how Europe can turn its scientific excellence into a truly competitive and connected life sciences ecosystem. Jeannette Ferran Astorga / Via Zoetis Europe’s role in life sciences will depend on its ability to see innovation holistically. At Zoetis we firmly believe that animal health innovation must be part of that equation, as this strengthens resilience, drives sustainability, and connects directly to the wellbeing of people. Innovation without barriers Some of humanity’s greatest challenges continue to emerge at the intersection of human, animal and environmental health, sometimes with severe economic impact. The recent outbreaks of diseases like avian influenza, African swine fever and bluetongue virus act as reminders of this. By enhancing the health and welfare of animals, the animal health industry and veterinarians are strengthening farmers’ livelihoods, supporting thriving communities and safeguarding global food security. This is also contributing to protecting wildlife and ecosystems. Meanwhile, companion animals are members of approximately half of European households. Here, we have seen how dogs and cats have become part of the family, with owners now investing a lot more to keep their pets healthy and able to live to an old age. Because of the deepening bonds with our pets and their increased longevity, the demand for new treatment alternatives is rising continuously, stimulating new research and innovative solutions making their way into veterinary practices. Zoonotic diseases that can be transferred between animals and humans, like rabies, Lyme disease, Covid-19 and constantly new emerging infectious diseases, make the rapid development of veterinary solutions a necessity. Throughout the world, life sciences are an engine of growth and a foundation of health, resilience and sustainability. Europe’s next chapter in this field will also be written by those who can bridge human and animal health, transforming science into solutions that deliver both economic and societal value. The same breakthroughs that protect our pets and livestock underpin the EU’s ambitions on antimicrobial resistance, food security and sustainable agriculture. Ensuring these innovations can reach the market efficiently is therefore not a niche issue, it is central to Europe’s strategic growth and competitiveness. This was echoed at the policy event by Dr. Wiebke Jansen, Policy Lead at the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe (FVE) when she noted that ‘innovation is not abstract. As soon as a product is available, it changes the lives of animals, their veterinarians and the communities we serve. With the many unmet needs we still face in animal health, having access to new innovation is an extremely relevant question from the veterinary perspective.’ Enabling innovation through smart regulation To realize the promise of Europe’s life sciences and biotech agenda, the EU must ensure that regulation keeps pace with scientific discovery. The European Commission’s Omnibus Simplification Package offers a valuable opportunity to create a more innovation-friendly environment, one where time and resources can be focused on developing solutions for animal and human health, not on navigating overlapping reporting requirements or dealing with an ever increasing regulatory burden. > In animal health, biotechnology is already transforming what’s possible — for > example, monoclonal antibodies that help control certain chronic conditions or > diseases with unprecedented precision. Reviewing legislative frameworks, developing the Union Product Database as a true one-stop hub or introducing digital tools such as electronic product information (e-leaflets) in all member states, for instance, would help scientists and regulators alike to work more efficiently, thereby enhancing the availability of animal health solutions. This is not about loosening standards; it is about creating the right conditions for innovation to thrive responsibly and efficiently. Science that serves society Europe’s leadership in life sciences depends on its ability to turn cutting-edge research into real-world impact, for example through bringing new products to patients faster. In animal health, biotechnology is already transforming what’s possible — for example, monoclonal antibodies that help control certain chronic conditions or diseases with unprecedented precision. Relieving itching caused by atopic dermatitis or alleviating the pain associated with osteoarthritis significantly increases the quality of life of cats and dogs — and their owners. In addition, diagnostics and next-generation vaccines prevent outbreaks before they start or spread further. Maintaining a proportionate, benefit–risk for veterinary medicines allows innovation to progress safely while ensuring accelerated access to new treatments. Supporting science-based decision-making and investing in the European Medicines Agency’s capacity to deliver efficient, predictable processes will help Europe remain a trusted partner in global health innovation. Continuum of Care / Via Zoetis A One Health vision for the next decade Europe is not short of ambition. The EU Biotech Act and the Life Sciences Strategy both aim to turn innovation into a driver of growth and wellbeing. But to truly unlock their potential, they must include animal health in their vision. The experience of the veterinary medicines sector shows that innovation does not stop at species’ borders; advances in immunology, monoclonal antibodies and the use of artificial intelligence benefit both animals and humans. A One Health perspective, where veterinary and human health research reinforce each other, will help Europe to play a positive role in an increasingly competitive global landscape. The next five years will be decisive. By fostering proportionate, science-based adaptive regulation, investing in digital and institutional capacity, and embracing a One Health approach to innovation, Europe can become a genuine world leader in life sciences — for people and the animals that are essential to our lives. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Zoetis Belgium S.A. * The political advertisement is linked to policy advocacy on the EU End-of-Life Vehicles Regulation (ELVR), circular plastics, chemical recycling, and industrial competitiveness in Europe. More information here.

Dear Commissioner Kadis, We write on behalf of hundreds of thousands of European Union citizens, as well as scientists, small-scale fishers and civil society organisations, with one demand: End bottom trawling in Europe’s marine protected areas (MPAs). This year has seen unprecedented momentum and mobilisation toward that goal. The EU Ocean Pact consultation was flooded with submissions calling for a ban on bottom trawling. Over 250, 000 citizens signed petitions. Legal complaints have been filed. Courts ruled for conservation. Scientific studies continued to reinforce the ecological and social benefits of removing destructive gear. And member states are moving ahead on marine protection — with Sweden and Greece banning bottom trawling in their MPAs, and Denmark beginning the same across 19 percent of its waters. In your recent remarks at the PECH Committee, you said: “I will repeat my position regarding banning bottom trawling in MPAs. I am not in favor of one size fits all. What I am saying is that in MPAs we can have management plans, as foreseen in the relevant legislation. The management plans can identify which activities are compatible with what we want to protect. If bottom trawling is compatible, it can continue. If not, it should be stopped. I could not imagine a Natura 2000 area, where the seabed is of high value and vulnerable, having a management plan that would allow bottom trawling.” Your own remarks acknowledged that bottom trawling should not occur in Natura 2000 sites that protect valuable and vulnerable seabeds. Yet this is the case today, and has been the case for the last three decades. Your insistence that “one size does not fit all” leaves the door wide open for the status quo to continue. This case by case approach that you describe is not protection; it risks prolonging decades of inaction by sidestepping the precautionary and preventative principle enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty, indulging member state inertia instead of ensuring coordinated EU leadership. It is a dangerous step backward from the EU international commitment to halt marine biodiversity loss, and undermines the EU’s own legal framework including the Habitats Directive. As a biologist, you know that destructive fishing methods such as bottom trawling by definition damage habitats, species, and ecosystems — and that these impacts are incompatible with the conservation objectives of MPAs. The scientific consensus is clear: bottom trawling and protection cannot coexist. > Your insistence that “one size does not fit all” leaves the door wide open for > the status quo to continue. Protect Our Catch The Habitats Directive does indeed provide for individual assessments in relation to the impacts of an activity in a protected area — but the crucial point is that such assessments must be carried out before any activity with likely significant effects can be authorised. Consistent with the precautionary principle, the starting position is therefore that bottom trawling in Natura 2000 MPAs is unlawful — unless an individual assessment can prove that there is no reasonable scientific doubt as to the absence of adverse effects. If case by case remains the Commission’s position, it not only contradicts its own objective set out in the Marine Action Plan, but also risks the credibility of the Ocean Pact and forthcoming act collapsing before they begin. Citizens, fishers, and scientists will see yet another series of paper park policies that undermine trust in EU leadership. So we ask: Commissioner, whose voices will the Commission prioritise? The 73 percent of EU citizens who support a ban? The 76 percent of the EU fleet who are small-scale fishers, providing more jobs with less impact? Or the industrial lobby, whose case by case arguments risk echoing in your speeches? > If case by case remains the Commission’s position, it not only contradicts its > own objective set out in the Marine Action Plan, but also risks the > credibility of the Ocean Pact and forthcoming act collapsing before they > begin. Furthermore, a case by case approach for the 5, 000 EU MPAs creates disproportionate and unnecessary administrative burden, whereas a just and consequent transition to a full end to bottom trawling in all MPAs under the Habitats Directive would be in line with the EU’s simplification agenda. It would not only contribute to the necessary clarity, simplicity and level playing field, but also replenish fishing grounds through spill-over effects that benefit fisheries. This year’s UN Ocean Conference in Nice laid bare the hypocrisy of bottom trawling in so-called protected areas. The Ocean Pact offered a chance to correct course, but ultimately delivered only aspirational goals and an endorsement of the continuation of the status quo. We urge you to: Commit now to including legally binding targets in the Ocean Act that would phase out destructive fishing such as bottom trawling in MPAs, ensuring healthy seas and a secure future for Europe’s low-impact fishers and the communities they sustain. As a scientist, you are aware of the evidence. As a Commissioner, you must act on it. This is not just about biodiversity, nature protection and climate resilience; it is about fairness, food security, and the survival of Europe’s coastal communities. The time for ambiguity has passed. The question is no longer whether to act case by case, but whether the Commission will demonstrate leadership by standing with citizens and fishers — rather than leaving space for industrial interests to dominate. > This is not just about biodiversity, nature protection and climate resilience; > it is about fairness, food security, and the survival of Europe’s coastal > communities. History will judge your leadership not on how carefully you calibrated the rhetoric, but by whether you delivered real protection for Europe’s seas and the people who depend on them. Sincerely, Protect Our Catch Protect Our Catch is a new European campaign supported by leading ocean advocates Seas At Risk, Oceana, BLOOM, Blue Marine Foundation, DMA, Empesca’t, Environmental Justice Foundation, Only One and Tara Ocean Foundation, in collaboration with fishers, that joins hundreds of thousands of citizen activists is calling on European leaders to ban destructive fishing such as bottom trawling in marine protected areas.

[1] https://digitalreport.protectedplanet.net/ [2] Satellite sea surface temperature measurements began in 1982; ocean heat content estimates are derived from in situ observations that started in 1960. [3] https://marine.copernicus.eu/osr9-summary/flipbook/ [4] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/28/world/europe/spain-beach-blue-dragon-sea-slugs.html#:~:text=The%20arrival%20of%20the%20tiny,what%20they’re%20dealing%20with. [5] https://marine.copernicus.eu/osr9-summary/flipbook/ [6] https://marine.copernicus.eu/osr9-summary/flipbook/

BRUSSELS — European farming leaders and green groups are girding for a long, hard fight following the Commission’s bombshell proposal for a new long-term budget and Common Agricultural Policy directly before the summer recess.  They share two fears upon returning to Brussels: that funding is under threat, and that member countries could take drastically different approaches to divvying up the money. Member countries will need to give out a minimum of €294 billion in income support for farmers between 2028 and 2034, according to the European Commission’s new proposal. That reduced cash pot includes subsidies based on the size of farms, incentives for eco-friendly practices, support for new and young farmers, and a host of other funding streams.  “The competition within each member state that these priorities will have is really very high,” anticipated Marco Contiero, EU agriculture policy director at Greenpeace.  Contiero wasn’t optimistic that environmental measures will triumph: “The budget dedicated to environmental measures and climate action — that’s where a massacre has taken place, unfortunately.” “It’s up to member states,” he continued. “They can, if there is willingness, increase enormously the action to make our farming more sustainable … But looking at the history of member states’ decisions, this is extremely unlikely.” The reform proposal follows a season of rural discontent across Europe earlier last year, with tractors lining the streets to express rage over cuts to fuel subsidies, high costs and cheap imports. As the European election that followed brought a farmer-friendly political tilt, lawmakers and farm lobbies expressed strong opposition to the Commission’s proposals. Copa-Cogeca, the powerful EU farmers’ lobby, in a statement labeled the proposed new agricultural policy and long-term budget the “Black Wednesday of European agriculture,” and has vowed to “remain strongly mobilised.” FEELING THE SQUEEZE The restructuring of the EU’s agriculture budget makes direct comparisons to the 2021-2027 period difficult — but analysis by Alan Matthews, professor emeritus of European agricultural policy at Trinity College Dublin, suggests the new plan represents a 15 percent reduction. And that’s before taking inflation into account. The new purse for the agricultural policy, commonly known as CAP, guarantees that around €300 billion will go into farmers’ pockets through various streams funded by the EU and co-financed by member countries. The burden of spending for things like climate incentives will be shared, while area-based support — paid out to farmers per hectare — will come from the EU’s coffers.   To deliver on promises to better target support for young or small farmers, European Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen has large landowners in his sights. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images Environmentalists worry that requiring member countries to chip in to unlock funding for climate-protection measures will deter their uptake, particularly given the overall budget reduction.  “If you tell me ‘more incentives and less rules,’ and you don’t provide me with a decent ring-fenced budget for those incentives to exist, you’re cutting rules and not providing incentives,” said Contiero. “And that’s the overall trap of this new proposal.” Similarly, young farmers are worried that their interests will fall by the wayside without a legally binding target for making sure they get their piece of the pie. Under the current CAP, 3 percent of funding goes to this group. In the fall, a 6 percent “aspirational” target will be announced — which leaves the European Council of Young Farmers unimpressed. An aspirational target in the context of a constrained budget means that its members “have to fight for money for young farmers, rather than what is now the case: that they have a certainty of 3 percent,” explained the organization’s president, Peter Meedendorp.  A Commission official familiar with the file, granted anonymity to speak candidly, dismissed those concerns, noting the legislation mandates member countries “shall” prioritize young farmers in their national plans, meaning they cannot be ignored. Nonetheless, the wine industry shares similar worries. Interventions to support the sector in the past had dedicated budgets. Now, such support is a single item on the list of  income-support measures member countries provide to farmers from the overall CAP pot.  “The Commission is sending the hot potato to member states,” said Ignacio Sánchez Recarte, secretary-general of the European Committee of Wine Companies. He argues that the plan risks damaging the level playing field and a bloc-wide approach to wine policy. ON THE DEFENSIVE To deliver on promises to better target support for young or small farmers, European Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen has large landowners in his sights. Traditionally, large farms win out on CAP payments: The latest data suggests that 20 percent of CAP beneficiaries receive 80 percent of direct payments. Under the new proposal, member countries can choose to pay farmers an average of €130 to €240 per hectare — up to a limit of €100,000, with progressive reductions in payments to that point.  Jurgen Tack, secretary-general at the European Landowners’ Organization, said that this proposal to limit subsidies risks ignoring professional farmers, who contribute significantly to European food security, in favor of less profitable and productive enterprises. The new CAP budget is “exactly the opposite of what we should support. Because what we see is that it’s no longer productivity, it’s becoming more and more a social support to farms,” he argued.  Several environmental organizations support limiting payments to large farms to encourage fairer distribution of funds and to free up money for environmental projects. In response, Tack contended that profitability and sustainability go hand in hand: The more money a farm has, the more it can spend on sustainable practices at scale. That debate may be irrelevant, as several previous attempts by the Commission to introduce such limits to subsidies since the 1990s failed to overcome opposition from key EU countries dominated by large farms. The most recent attempt to introduce such limits only survived the legislative process as a voluntary measure.  Contiero of Greenpeace wasn’t optimistic over how proposals to limit subsidies to large farms will fare over the next two years of negotiations: “This will be subject to the European Parliament and Council chainsaw. Everyone is waiting to see how horrible that massacre will be.”

KYIV — The drone struck just after sunrise. Oleksandr Hordiienko, a 58-year-old farmer from Ukraine’s southern Kherson region, was driving across his war-scarred fields when the Russian munition slammed into his car. At his funeral in Odesa in early September, mourners called him “the farmer with a shotgun,” a defiant hero who resisted occupation for three years. He cleared thousands of mines from the 1,000 hectares his cooperative shared with a dozen other farmers and patrolled the skies with a Turkish shotgun and jerry-rigged electronics to protect his workers from drones. For Ukraine’s farmers, his death symbolized the resilience of the men and women who continue to produce grain, milk and potatoes under fire. For Europe it was a reminder that the “Ukrainian farmer” is not just an agribusiness boss controlling vast swathes of land, but also includes men like Hordiienko, fighting to protect their land with a shotgun. Across the EU, such nuance is often lost. Hostility to Ukraine’s mega farms and their ability to drown Europe in highly competitive exports has often shifted the bloc’s politics against Kyiv, despite the war. Ukraine’s vast expanses of highly fertile “black earth” have long made it the “breadbasket of Europe” — something many in the EU see as a threat. In Poland, farmers’ border blockades over Ukrainian grain imports have soured public opinion on Kyiv’s war efforts. In Hungary, ministers have cast Ukraine’s accession to the bloc as a threat to EU farm subsidies, warning that money meant for European farmers risks being siphoned away. And in France, President Emmanuel Macron moved last year to join Poland in pushing for tighter quotas on Ukrainian cereals to appease his own restive farmers. Behind all of this looms the image of Ukrainian farm giants and oligarch-owned holdings — MHP, Kernel, UkrLandFarming — that are big enough to rival the agri powerhouses of Brazil or Argentina. These few dozen companies dominate Ukraine’s exports and have become the face of the country’s agriculture in Europe, looming as an existential threat at the border. The reality on the ground in Ukraine is more complex, and includes tens of thousands of smaller commercial farms and millions of households who have kept the country fed throughout the war. LEAVING WAS NOT AN OPTION Akhmil Alkhadzhi, whose father came from Syria, runs a family company that cultivates 3,500 hectares. In Europe that would be a mega-farm; in Ukraine, it’s considered middling. He built it from scratch, starting with just 20 hectares in the 1990s and expanding steadily with his wife. When Russia invaded, wheat prices collapsed to $70 a ton from $250 to $300 before the war, and sunflower seeds plunged to barely $110 per ton from about $600 to $650. To keep the business alive, Alkhadzhi sold his apartment abroad. “We stayed without an apartment, but with a business,” he said. He employs 60 workers — “that’s 300 or 400 lives depending on us.” Hostility to Ukraine’s mega farms and their ability to drown Europe in highly competitive exports has often shifted the bloc’s politics against Kyiv, despite the war. | Sergei Supinsky/AFP via Getty Images The war was only part of the challenge. Droughts have cut his wheat yields from 6 or 7 tons to just 2 tons per hectare, and with banks demanding interest rates of over 20 percent he has had to improvise, renting low-till machinery to conserve water before scraping together enough to upgrade. Climate change is pushing him toward sustainability choices even without EU rules.  Yet leaving was never an option. “Three days before the war, my family said if Russians come close, we will go. But when it started, no one left. We stayed. We were more needed here.” CHAMPAGNE AND COMBINE HARVESTERS A day before Hordiienko’s death, Alkhadzhi found himself among the guests at a very different kind of gathering. At an elite yacht club on the southern edge of Kyiv, prosecco sprayed from a fountain as a live band played pop classics. European diplomats mingled with Ukrainian ministry officials and the owners of some of the country’s largest farms. This was a reception hosted by UCAB, Ukraine’s biggest agribusiness lobby, providing a gilded day of meaty dishes, strong spirits and relentless networking. The spectacle was as much about politics as farming, a show of survival, clout and ambition after three years of war. Even Ukraine’s agri barons have been battered, losing swathes of leased land and infrastructure to occupation and bombardment. Yet they remain global players, with balance sheets and export volumes big enough to compete on world markets. What many farmers in Poland or France fear is the scale of these companies and the possibility that Ukrainian grain or poultry could undercut them. Anton Zhemerdeev, a brisk, fresh-faced manager at TAS Agro, shrugged when asked about those fears. His company controls 80,000 hectares across five Ukrainian regions — a number so outlandish in EU terms that it borders on science fiction. The average European farm is just 17 hectares. “Eighty thousand hectares is big, yes,” he said with a grin, “but we don’t sell everything to Europe.” Much of TAS Agro’s grain heads to Asia and the Middle East. The EU, he argued, is just one market among many. But unlike Asia, it is also a political one, with borders that can slam shut overnight and quotas that shift with the political winds.  When Poland closed its border in 2023, Ukraine’s harvest was redirected to the Romanian port of Constanța instead. “Poland missed the chance to modernize. Romania took it,” he said, referring to investments in ports and railways that captured the trade. Another producer at the yacht club, Ihor Shyliuk, whose Cygnet Agrocompany runs 30,000 hectares and a sugar factory in western Ukraine, fumed at the European Commission’s tight quotas. Serbia, he noted, enjoys bigger export allowances to the EU than does Ukraine, even though it’s a fraction of its size. “Why is our sugar quota smaller than Moldova’s?” he also asked. “Politics, not economics.” Those quotas are due to improve under a deal struck between the Commission and Kyiv over the summer, though Shyliuk remained skeptical, arguing that politics will continue to outweigh economics in the EU’s farm trade. The presence of these giants and medium-sized players is exactly what makes Ukraine’s EU bid so sensitive. In Poland, farmers’ border blockades over Ukrainian grain imports have soured public opinion on Kyiv’s war efforts. | Andriy Andriyenko/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images Kyiv formally applied for EU membership days after Russia launched its full-scale invasion in 2022, and has since begun accession talks that promise to be lengthy and fraught. Agriculture looms especially large because farm products are one of Ukraine’s biggest exports and trade in them is already a contentious issue, pitting Kyiv against the EU’s powerful farm lobbies and the national governments that back them. OVERLOOKED MILLIONS Step away from the yacht club and the massive combine harvesters, however, and yet another Ukraine comes into view. Alongside Ukraine’s farm giants are tens of thousands of registered family farms, typically 50–100 hectares in size, selling into domestic markets and anchoring local rural economies. Nearly 4 million households also work the land, cultivating over 6 million hectares. Many tend only a hectare or two, but together they produce 95 percent of the country’s potatoes, 85 percent of its vegetables, 80 percent of its fruit and berries and three-quarters of its milk. Together, these farms and plots are the backbone of Ukraine’s food security, yet they are often invisible in the debate. During the war, many families have relied almost entirely on their own milk, potatoes and chickens. For some, farming is not just a business, but a lifeline. That lopsided map of Ukraine’s agriculture — comprising towering agriholdings at one end and millions of smaller farms and household plots at the other— was drawn long before the war. It’s the legacy of Soviet collectivization and the land reforms that followed, a process that left families with small parcels and allowed companies to lease and consolidate those remnants into today’s sprawling estates. The top 10 holdings each control hundreds of thousands of hectares. But without the smallholders, Ukraine’s villages would have starved long ago. The debate in Brussels often overlooks this complexity, even if the fears of European farmers about the overall size of Ukraine are not unfounded. Ukraine’s largest farms operate on a scale incomprehensible in Europe, with vertical integration and global reach. Their land runs into the hundreds of thousands of hectares. They can produce wheat cheaper than anyone in the EU. Corruption scandals have fed suspicions, from ministers accused of seizing state land to regional officials caught taking bribes for quarantine certificates. But the fixation on oligarchs obscures a more complicated reality. The debate in Brussels reduces Ukraine to a threat — vast, deregulated, and impossible to absorb without crushing EU farmers. Yet for every holding with a yacht club cocktail reception, there are thousands of family farms adapting to EU rules, millions of households growing potatoes in backyards, and many farmers like Hordiienko, fighting and dying in the fields. The war has also nudged Ukraine’s farm economy to adapt. With ports under attack and borders often restricted, producers are putting more focus on processed goods such as sunflower oil, poultry and sugar, which already make up nearly half of agri-food exports. For Zhemerdeev of TAS Agro, even 80,000 hectares is just one part of a bigger picture. What matters, he insisted, is that Ukraine’s fields are not just symbols of geopolitical competition. They are home to people — some rich, some struggling, some heroic — all bound by the same stubborn conviction: “The land is worth fighting for.”

Policymakers are overlooking a $370 billion market that will determine whether climate goals succeed or fail.  In the grand narrative of the clean energy transition, materials like lithium, rare earths and silicon dominate headlines. Yet the most strategically important materials for this transition may be hiding in plain sight, dismissed by policymakers as environmental villains rather than recognized as the enablers of human progress they truly are. The $370 billion blind spot Polyolefins — the family of materials that includes polyethylene and polypropylene — represent perhaps the greatest strategic oversight in contemporary clean industry policy Here is a reality check. Polyolefins represent a global market approaching $370 billion, growing at over 5 percent annually.1,2 They make up nearly half of all plastics consumed in Europe.3 By 2034, global production is expected to hit 371 million tons.4  Yet in the European Union’s Clean Industrial Deal — a €100 billion strategy for industrial competitiveness — polyolefins receive barely a mention.4 This represents a profound strategic miscalculation. While policymakers focus on securing access to exotic critical materials like lithium and cobalt, they overlook the fact that polyolefins are already critical materials— they simply happen to be abundant rather than scarce. In the infrastructure-intensive clean energy transition ahead, abundance is not a weakness; it is the ultimate strategic advantage. > While policymakers focus on securing access to exotic critical materials like > lithium and cobalt, they overlook the fact that polyolefins are already > critical materials. The EU’s REPowerEU plan calls for 1,236 GW of renewable capacity by 2030 — more than double today’s levels.4 Every offshore wind farm, solar array and electric grid connection depends on polyolefins. They insulate cables, protect components and form structural parts of turbines and solar panels. Every solar panel relies on polyolefin elastomers to protect its inner workings for up to 30 years, even in harsh weather.8 And every grid connection depends on polyethylene-insulated cables to carry electricity efficiently across long distances. 7 Multiply these requirements across thousands of installations, and the strategic importance of polyolefins becomes undeniable. Yet, currently, the policy framework treats these materials as afterthoughts, focusing instead on the relatively small quantities of rare elements in generators and inverters while ignoring the massive volumes of polyolefins that make the entire system possible. Beyond energy: the hidden dependencies The strategic importance of polyolefins extends far beyond energy infrastructure. As one example, modern medical systems depend fundamentally on polyolefin materials for syringes, IV bags, tubing and protective equipment. Global food security increasingly depends on polyolefin-based packaging systems that extend shelf life, reduce waste and enable distribution networks — feeding billions of people. Meanwhile, water infrastructure relies on polyethylene pipes engineered for 100-year lifespans. These applications are rarely considered alongside energy priorities — a dangerous fragmentation of strategic thinking. The waste challenge and a circular solution Let’s be clear, plastic waste is a real environmental challenge demanding urgent action. However, the solution is not abandoning these essential materials, it is building the infrastructure to capture their full value in circular systems. The fundamental error in current approaches is treating waste as a material problem rather than a systems problem. Europe currently captures only 23 percent of polyolefin waste for recycling, despite these materials representing nearly two-thirds of all post-consumer plastic waste.3 That’s not because the material can’t be recycled. The infrastructure to do so isn’t at the scale needed to collect, sort and recycle waste to meet future circular feedstock needs. Polyolefins are among the most recyclable materials we have. They can be mechanically recycled multiple times. And with chemical recycling, they can even be broken down to their molecular building blocks and rebuilt into virgin-quality material. That’s not just circularity, it’s circularity at scale. This matters because the EU’s target of 24 percent material circularity by 20305 is unlikely to be met without polyolefins. However, current frameworks treat them as obstacles rather than enablers of circularity. The economic transformation The transition represents an economic transformation, creating competitive advantages for regions implementing it effectively. A region processing 100,000 tons of polyolefin waste annually could capture €100-130 million in additional economic value while creating up to 1,000 jobs.6 > A region processing 100,000 tons of polyolefin waste annually could capture > €100-130 million in additional economic value while creating up to 1,000 jobs. At the end of the day, the clean energy transition must be affordable. Polyolefins help make that possible. They’re cheaper, lighter and longer lasting than many alternatives. Manufacturers with access to cost-effective recycled feedstocks can reduce input costs by 20-40 percent compared with virgin materials. Polyethylene pipes cost 60-70 percent less than steel alternatives while lasting twice as long.9 These aren’t marginal gains. They’re system-level efficiencies that make the difference between success and failure at scale. The strategic choice The real challenge isn’t technical, it’s institutional. Polyolefins sit at the crossroads of materials, environmental and industrial policy, yet these areas are treated as separate domains. There’s also a geopolitical angle. Unlike lithium or rare earths, polyolefins can be produced from diverse feedstocks — natural gas, biomass and even captured CO2 — enabling domestic production and supply chain resilience. This flexibility is a major asset, but current policies largely overlook it. > The path forward requires recognizing polyolefins as strategic assets rather > than environmental problems. The path forward requires recognizing polyolefins as strategic assets rather than environmental problems. This means including them in critical materials assessments — not because they are scarce, but because they are essential. It means coordinating research and development efforts rather than leaving them to fragmented market forces. Most importantly, it means recognizing that the clean energy transition will succeed or fail based on our ability to build infrastructure at unprecedented scale and speed. And that infrastructure will be built primarily from materials that combine performance, abundance, sustainability and cost-effectiveness in ways only polyolefins can provide. The choice facing policymakers is clear: continue treating polyolefins as problems to be managed or recognize them as strategic assets enabling the clean energy future. The regions that understand this integration first will shape the global economy for decades to come. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Grand View Research. (2024). Polyolefin Market Size, Share, Growth | Industry Report, 2030. Retrieved from https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/polyolefin-market 2. Fortune Business Insights. (2024). Polyolefin Market Size, Share & Growth | Global Report [2032]. Retrieved from https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/polyolefin-market-102373 3. Plastics Europe. (2025). Polyolefins. Retrieved from https://plasticseurope.org/plastics-explained/a-large-family/polyolefins-2/ 4. European Commission. (2025). Clean Industrial Deal. Retrieved from https://commission.europa.eu/topics/eu-competitiveness/clean-industrial-deal_en 5. European Commission. (2022). Circular economy action plan. Retrieved from https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/circular-economy-action-plan_en 6. Watkins, E., & Schweitzer, J.P. (2018). Moving towards a circular economy for plastics in the EU by 2030. Institute for European Environmental Policy. Retrieved from https://ieep.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Think-2030-A-circular-economy-for-plastics-by-2030-1. 7. Institute of Sustainable Studies (2025). EU Circular Economy Act aims to double circularity rate by 2030 EU Circular Economy Act – Institute of Sustainability Studies 8. López-Escalante, M.C., et al. (2016). Polyolefin as PID-resistant encapsulant material in PV modules. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, 144, 691-699. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927024815005206 9. PE100+ Association. (2014). Polyolefin Sewer Pipes – 100 Year Lifetime Expectancy. Retrieved from https://www.pe100plus.com/PPCA/Polyolefin-Sewer-Pipes-100-Year-Lifetime-Expectancy-p1430.html --------------------------------------------------------------------------------