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.” 

The next time your favorite veggie burger quietly rebrands itself as a “plant-based patty,” you now know who to thank: Céline Imart. The grain farmer from southern France, now a first-term lawmaker in the European Parliament, slipped a ban on meaty names for plant-based, fermented and lab-grown foods into an otherwise technical measure. Inside the Parliament, it caused a minor earthquake. Her own group leader, German conservative Manfred Weber, publicly dismissed it as “unnecessary.” The group’s veteran agriculture voice, Herbert Dorfmann, voted against it. Diplomats from several capitals shrugged it off as “silly” or “just stupid.” And yet, as negotiations with EU governments begin, the amendment that everyone assumed would die in the first round is still standing — not because it has a powerful constituency behind it, but because almost no one is expending political capital to bury it. That alone says something about where Europe’s food politics are drifting. A FIGHT ABOUT MORE THAN LABELS Imart insists the amendment isn’t an attack on innovation, but a gesture of respect toward the farmers she represents. “A steak is not just a shape,” she told POLITICO in an interview. “People have eaten meat since the Neolithic. These names carry heritage. They belong to farmers.” She argues some shoppers genuinely confuse plant-based and meat products, despite years of EU surveys showing consumers largely understand what a “veggie burger” is. Her view, she argues, is shaped by what she hears at home. “Maybe some very intelligent people never make mistakes at the supermarket,” she said, referring to Weber and Dorfmann. “But a lot of people in my region do. They don’t always see the difference clearly.” In rural France, where livestock farming remains culturally central, Imart’s argument resonates. Across Europe, similar anxieties simmer. Farmers say they feel squeezed by climate targets, rising costs and what they see as moralizing rhetoric about “healthy and sustainable diets.” The EU once flirted with promoting alternative proteins as part of its Green Deal ambitions. Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen has spent most of the year soothing farm anger, not pushing dietary change. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images Today, that political moment has mostly waned. References to “protein diversification” appear in draft strategies only to be scrubbed from the final text. Public support remains dwarfed by the billions the Common Agricultural Policy funnels to animal farming each year. Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen has spent most of the year soothing farm anger, not pushing dietary change. This helps explain why an idea dismissed as fringe suddenly doesn’t feel fringe at all. Imart’s amendment taps directly into a broader mood: Defend the farmer first; innovation can wait. BOOM AND BACKLASH The industry caught in the crossfire is no longer niche. Retail sales of meat and dairy alternatives reached an estimated €6-8 billion last year, with Germany alone accounting for nearly €2 billion. Fermentation-based dairy substitutes are attracting investment, and even though cultivated meat isn’t yet authorized in the EU, it has already become a regulatory flash point. But the sector remains tiny beside the continent’s livestock economy, and is increasingly buffeted by political headwinds. After two years of farmer protests and fatigue over climate and environmental reforms, national governments have closed ranks around traditional agriculture. Countries like Austria, Italy and France have warned that novel foods could undermine “primary farm-based production.” Hungary went even further this week, voting to ban the production and sale of cultivated meat altogether. For alternative protein companies, the irony is hard to miss. They see their products as both a business opportunity and part of the solution to the food system’s climate and environmental footprint, most of which comes from animal farming. Yet they say politics are now moving in the opposite direction. “Policymakers are devoting so much attention to unnecessary restrictions that would harm companies seeking to diversify their business,” said Alex Holst of the Good Food Institute Europe, an interest group for plant-based and cultivated alternatives. He argued that familiar terms like “burger” and “sausage” help consumers understand what they’re buying, not mislead them. WHY THE NAMING BAN WON’T DIE The political climate explains why Imart’s idea suddenly resonates. But Brussels lawmaking procedure explains why it might survive. At the negotiating table, national governments are consumed by the Parliament’s more disruptive ideas on market intervention and supply management, changes they fear could distort markets and limit the authorities’ flexibility to act. Compared with those fights, a naming ban barely registers. Especially in an otherwise technical reform of the EU’s Common Market Organisation, a piece of legislation normally reserved for agricultural specialists focused on crisis reserves and market tools. That gives the amendment unusual space. Several diplomats privately complained it sits awkwardly outside the scope of the original European Commission proposal. But not enough to coordinate a pushback. The Commission, meanwhile, has signaled it can “live with” stricter naming rules, having floated narrower limits in its own post-2027 market plan. That removes what might have been the decisive obstacle. Retail sales of meat and dairy alternatives reached an estimated €6-8 billion last year. | Jens Kalaene/Getty Images Even translation quirks, like the fact that “filet,” “filete” and “fillet” can mean different things across languages, haven’t slowed it. Imart shrugged those off: “It’s normal that texts evolve. That’s the point of negotiation.” Whether the naming ban makes it into the final law will depend on the coming weeks. But the fact it is even in contention, after being mocked, dismissed and rejected inside Imart’s own political family, is telling. In today’s Brussels, appeals to heritage and identity land more softly than calls for food system innovation. In that climate, that’s all even a fringe idea needs to survive.

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.

AOSTA, Italy — The 380,000 wheels of Fontina PDO cheese matured each year are tiny in number compared to the millions churned out by more famous rivals — but that doesn’t make the creamy cheese any less important to producers in Valle d’Aosta, a region nestled in the Italian Alps.  Fontina’s protected designation of origin (PDO) provides consumers at home and abroad a “guarantee of quality and of a short supply chain,” explained Stéphanie Cuaz, of the consortium responsible for protecting the cheese from cheap copycats, as she navigated a hairpin turn on the way to a mountain pasture. With fewer than a hundred cows, a handful of farm hands and a small house where milk is transformed into cheese, the pasture at the end of the winding road feels far away from global trade tussles its flagship product is embroiled in. The EU’s scheme to protect the names of local delicacies from replicas produced elsewhere has proved controversial in international trade negotiations. For instance, in 2023, free trade talks with Australia were swamped by complaints from its cheese producers railing against EU demands that they refrain from using household names like “Mozzarella di Bufala Campana” and “Feta.”  Fontina was caught in the crossfire, having been included in the list of names the EU wants protected Down Under. Fontina DOP Alpeggio is a variant of the cheese produced during the summer months using milk from cows grazing in alpine pastures up to 2,700 meters above sea level | Lucia Mackenzie/POLITICO. No such protections exist in the U.S., where in the state of Wisconsin alone, there are a dozen “fontina” producers, one of which won bronze at the World Cheese Awards in 2022.  Europe’s small-time food producers find themselves in a bind: their protected status is vital for promoting their traditional products abroad, but charges of protectionism have soured some trade negotiations. Nonetheless, many of the bloc’s trading partners clearly see the benefits of the system, baking in similar protections for their own products into trade deals. PROTECTION VS PROTECTIONISM Fontina cheese can only be labeled as such if several strict criteria are met. Cows of certain breeds need to be fed with hay of a certain caliber and, crucially, every step of the cheesemaking process must take place within the region’s borders.   For Cuaz, who grew up on a dairy farm in Doues, a small town of around 500 people perched on the valley side, the protection of the Fontina name is vital to keep farming alive and sufficiently paid in the region. Tucked up against the French and Swiss borders, Valle d’Aosta is Italy’s least populated region, home to just over 120,000 inhabitants speaking a mixture of Italian, French and the local Valdôtain dialect. Fontina — which with its distinctive nutty flavor can be enjoyed on a charcuterie board, in a fondue, or encased in a veal chop — is one of over 3,600 foods, wines, and spirits registered under the EU’s geographical indications (GI) system. This protects the names of products that are uniquely linked to a specific region. The idea is to make them easier to promote and keep small producers competitive. In the EU alone, GI products bring in €75 billion in annual revenue and command a price that’s 2.23 times higher than those without the status, the bloc’s Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen proclaimed earlier this year. He called the scheme a “true EU success story.” The GI system is predominantly used in gastronomic powerhouses like Italy and France, and Hansen hopes to promote uptake in the eastern half of the bloc.  Italy has the most geographical indications in the world, accounting for €20 billion in turnover, the country’s Agriculture Minister Francesco Lollobrigida pointed out, describing the system as an “extraordinary value multiplier.” ‘NOTHING MORE THAN A TRADE BARRIER’ While several trading partners apparently share the enthusiasm of Hansen and Lollobrigida  — the EU’s trade agreements with countries from South Korea to Central America and Canada include protections for selected GIs — others view the protections as, well, protectionist. The U.S. has long been the system’s most vocal critic, with the Trade Representative’s annual report on intellectual property protection calling it out as “highly concerning” and “harmful.” Washington argues that the rules undermine existing trademarks and that product names like “fontina,” “parmesan” and “feta” are common and shouldn’t be reserved for use by certain regions. That reflects the U.S. dairy industry’s resentment towards Europe’s GIs: Krysta Harden, U.S. Dairy Export Council president, argued they are “nothing more than a trade barrier dressed up as intellectual property protection.” Meanwhile, the National Milk Producers’ Federation blames the scheme, at least in part, for the U.S. agri-food trade deficit.  American opposition to the system doesn’t stop at its own trade relationship with the EU. The U.S. Trade Representative’s Office also accused the EU of pressuring trading partners to block certain imports and vowed to combat the bloc’s “aggressive promotion of its exclusionary GI policies.” DOUBLING DOWN Unfazed by the criticism, Hansen continues to tout geographical indications as vital in the EU’s ongoing trade negotiations with other countries.  The EU’s long-awaited trade accord with the Latin American Mercosur bloc is heading toward ratification and includes GI protections for both sides. Speaking in Brazil last month, Hansen went out of his way to praise his hosts for protecting canastra, a highland cheese, and cachaça, a sugarcane liquor, against imitations.  Fifty-eight of the GIs protected under the agreement are Italian, Lollobrigida told POLITICO. This protects Italy’s reputation for high-quality food, he said, and ensures “that Mercosur citizens receive top-quality products.” The EU recently concluded a deal with Indonesia which will protect more than 200 EU products, and a geographical indication agreement is actively being discussed in talks on a free-trade deal with India that both sides hope to wrap up this year. As negotiations with Australia pick up once again, the issue of GI cheeses is expected to return to the spotlight. The U.S. pushback on GIs in other countries has fallen on deaf ears, argued John Clarke, the EU’s former lead agriculture negotiator. He criticized detractors for peddling “specious arguments which bear no relationship to intellectual property rights.” American claims that some terms are universally generic are “illegitimate” and ultimately “very unsuccessful,” in Clarke’s view. “They came too late to the party,” he said, “and their arguments were not very convincing from a legal point of view.” CULTURE AND COMMERCE  The uptake of GIs in other countries demonstrates the additional value the schemes can bring for rural communities and cultural heritage, Clarke posited.  In Valle d’Aosta, the GI system “keeps people and maybe also young farmers linked to this region,” argued Cuaz, adding that young people leaving rural areas in favor of urban centers is a real problem for her region. From tournaments to find the “Queen” of the herd that are a highlight of summer weekends to the “Désarpa” parade marking the end of the season as cows return to the valley from their Alpine pastures, Fontina cheese production keeps traditions alive in the tiny region every year. The dairy industry even plays a role in making use of abandoned copper mines, where thousands of cheese wheels mature annually. Thousands of cheese wheels are matured the Valpelline warehouse, built in the tunnels of a former copper mine. | Lucia Mackenzie/POLITICO. Supporters of the GI scheme also point to the food and wine tourism opportunities it offers. Les Cretes vineyard, winery and tasting room represent one such success story.  The flavors imbued into traditional and native grape varieties by the soil of the Valle d’Aosta’s high-altitude vineyards justify its inclusion as a geographically protected product, explained Monique Salerno, who has worked for the family business for 15 years and is in charge of tastings and events. The premium price on the local wines is vital to keep the producers competitive, given that the steep vines need to be picked by hand, she added. The business expanded in 2017, building a tasting room to draw tourists to Aymavilles, the town with a population of just over 2,000 that houses much of the vineyard. TARIFF TROUBLE While American critics have, in Clarke’s view, “lost the war on terroir,” Europe’s small-time food producers are not immune to the rollercoaster of tit-for-tat tariffs that have dominated recent EU-U.S. trade negotiations.  Like the vast majority of European products heading to the U.S., cheese is subject to a 15 percent blanket tariff. In the meantime, however, organizational mishaps led to some temporary doubling of tariffs on Italian cheeses, angering major producers.  The whole saga has caused uncertainty, said Ermes Fichet, administrative manager of the Milk and Fontina Producers’ Cooperative.  The Les Cretes vineyard on the slopes surrounding Aymavilles. | Lucia Mackenzie/POLITICO The U.S. is Fontina’s largest overseas market, accounting for around 60 percent of direct exports. However, producers aren’t fearing for their livelihoods, yet, as most Fontina cheese isn’t exported at all: an estimated 95 percent of wheels are sent to distributors in Italy. Rather, the impact of U.S. trade policy is long term. The American market would in theory be able to absorb all of Fontina’s production, Fichet explains, but the sale of similar cheeses at lower prices there makes it difficult to expand market share.  According to figures released by the USDA’s statistics service, over 5.1 million kilos of “fontina” cheese was produced in Wisconsin alone in 2024. That comes out to a higher volume than the 3.1 million kilos of GI-certified Fontina originating in Valle d’Aosta annually.  And looking elsewhere isn’t an easy option for the small-time cheese makers, even if future trade agreements include GI recognition. While markets in countries like Saudi Arabia are growing, they would never close the gap left by U.S. producers if trade ties worsen, said Fichet.  Responding to the foreign detractors, he highlighted the benefits from the scheme at home. Fontina DOP “allows us to maintain the agricultural reality of certain places … it’s an extra reason to try to help those who are committed to carrying on with a product that is, let’s say, the little flower of the Valle d’Aosta.”

BRUSSELS — The Danish farm minister is determined to spend some of his remaining political capital on the plight of millions of piglets rumbling across the continent packed into semitrucks. The European Commission’s 2023 plan to ease the suffering of farm animals on the move started out as the ultimate feel-good proposal. But two years later, the ambition for stricter limits on travel times, more space in trucks and a ban on long journeys in extreme heat is stuck in the slow lane. After years of farmer unrest and mounting pressure to boost Europe’s competitiveness, politicians have grown wary of new costs or constraints on industry. Across the bloc, social and environmental rules are being softened, delayed or quietly dropped. The animal transport reform, which would not only raise costs but upend much of Europe’s livestock trade, is now on a collision course with the deregulatory drive. Few in Brussels believe it can be saved. But Danish Agriculture Minister Jacob Jensen, now chairing capitals’ negotiations for a few more months, is determined to try. OVERDUE UPDATE Every year, around 1.6 billion farm animals, mainly pigs, cows and sheep, are loaded onto trucks and shipped across the EU for fattening or slaughter, in a trade worth some €8.6 billion for the livestock industry. Animal welfare barely registered in EU politics two decades ago, when Brussels last updated its rules for livestock transport. Yet amid recurring reports of animals collapsing from exhaustion or drowning in their own waste, the Commission floated more protections in December 2023. Since then, they’ve been buried under thousands of amendments in the European Parliament. Romanian conservative Daniel Buda, one of the lead negotiators, has made arguments that flatly contradict scientific evidence, claiming that packing animals closer together makes them safer or that giving them more space would undermine the EU’s climate goals. In the Council of the EU, most governments would rather see the file disappear altogether. Member countries have been at odds over how to handle transport in hot weather, the movement of young calves and — most explosively — journey time limits. Animal welfare barely registered in EU politics two decades ago, when Brussels last updated its rules for livestock transport. | Arnaud Finistre/Getty Images Copenhagen, which took over the rotating Council presidency in July, says it’s found a pragmatic way to keep the reform alive. Jensen, the farm minister, told POLITICO he sees “good progress” in technical negotiations, including on how animals are handled, watered and fed during transport, even as the journey time limits debate remains frozen. “It’s not correct to say there’s no progress,” Jensen said in a telephone interview. “If the conditions are good, if animals have ventilation, water and trained handlers, it matters less whether it’s one or two hours longer.” AN UNLIKELY CHAMPION It’s a message that captures Denmark’s paradox. The Nordic country is one of Europe’s largest exporters of live animals, sending some 13 million piglets a year to other EU states. Yet it has also been among the bloc’s loudest voices for tougher welfare rules, even calling for a full ban on live exports to third countries ahead of the Commission’s proposal. Now, isolated on that front, it is trying to salvage the weaker Commission draft by making it workable enough to pass. That instinct for compromise isn’t new. Last year, Denmark became the first country to agree a tax on greenhouse gas emissions from farming — with farmers’ backing. For Jensen, who helped broker that deal, the lesson is that even the most sensitive agricultural reforms can stick if they’re built on pragmatism rather than punishment. That balancing act has turned Denmark into the unlikely custodian of one of Europe’s most moral — and most toxic — legislative files. At home, hauliers call the reform “pure nonsense” and “detached from reality.” Farmers complain their standards already exceed those of many peers. Yet Copenhagen hasn’t flinched, arguing that harmonized EU rules could finally level the playing field. “We need to find the right balance,” Jensen said. “It has to improve animal welfare, but it cannot be so burdensome that cross-border transport becomes impossible.” The Commission’s draft would cap journeys for slaughter animals at nine hours, ban daytime travel during heat waves and tighten space allowances. Welfare advocates say even that falls short of what animal health research shows is needed to prevent suffering. But after years of stalemate, Denmark’s incrementalism may be the only path left. Jensen insists that simply enforcing the bloc’s existing rules, as the reform’s critics propose, wouldn’t be enough to improve conditions for transported animals. “If this negotiation does not improve animal welfare,” he said, “there’s no need to have it at all.” Whether his slow-and-steady strategy works will depend on how much patience Europe has left. The Parliament remains gridlocked and a new round of protests could easily bury the file again. The reform is by no means “home safe,” Jensen admitted. Denmark just wants to “come as far as we can” before handing it off to Cyprus, which takes over the EU presidency in January and hasn’t exactly been among the vocal champions of tougher transport rules. “Hopefully they can do the final job,” he said. Lucia Mackenzie contributed to this report.

ATHENS — Greek authorities made dozens of arrests on Wednesday related to Greece’s spiraling farm fraud case, in an investigation led by European prosecutors. Some 37 people suspected of being members of an organized criminal group involved in large-scale agricultural funding fraud and money laundering activities were arrested, and searches were carried out throughout the country, according to a statement by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. In a snowballing scandal, the EPPO is pursuing dozens of cases in which Greeks allegedly received agricultural funds from the European Union for pastureland they did not own or lease, or for agricultural work they did not perform, depriving legitimate farmers of the funds they deserved. POLITICO first reported on the scheme in February. Several ministers and deputy ministers have resigned over their alleged involvement in the scandal. The EU has already fined Athens €400 million after finding evidence of systemic failings in the handling of farm subsidies from 2016 through to 2023. Greece also risks losing its EU farm subsidies unless it provides an improved action plan on how it will stop funds being siphoned off into corruption. The original deadline was Oct. 2, but this has now been pushed back to Nov. 4. “The Commission is awaiting the submission of the revised action plan and in the meantime, it continues to be in contact with the Greek authorities,” a European Commission spokesperson told POLITICO earlier this month. Wednesday’s operation centered on a criminal network accused of illegally obtaining EU farm subsidies through false declarations submitted to the organization in charge of distributing EU farm funds in Greece, OPEKEPE. According to the EPPO, in the course of the preliminary investigation, 324 individuals were identified as subsidy recipients, causing an estimated cost of more than €19.6 million to the EU budget. Of these, 42 are believed to be involved in this case and are considered current members of the criminal group, says the EPPO. Most of them appear to have no actual connection to farming or producing, according to the Greek and EU authorities. The EPPO said that, at least since 2018, the group “allegedly exploited procedural gaps” in the submission of applications using falsified or misleading documents to claim agricultural subsidies from OPEKEPE. They are suspected of fraudulently declaring pastureland that did not belong to them or did not meet eligibility criteria. They allegedly inflated livestock numbers to increase their subsidy entitlements. To conceal the illicit origin of the proceeds, they are believed to have issued fictitious invoices, routed the funds through multiple bank accounts, and mixed them with legitimate income. Part of the misappropriated money was allegedly spent on luxury goods, travel and vehicles, to disguise the funds as lawful assets. Greece’s anti-money laundering authority is investigating Giorgos Xylouris, a farmer from Crete and until recently member of ruling New Democracy. Xylouris is one of the key characters mentioned in EPPO case files, under the nickname Frappé (“Iced Coffee”), regarding the OPEKEPE scandal. Some €2.5 million was discovered in his bank accounts during a random inspection, the Greek officials said. Authorities found that Xylouris had failed to submit the required financial documentation and could not justify the large sum. Eight vehicles were also identified in his possession, including a Jaguar luxury car. The case file has been sent to the prosecutors to examine possible violations of anti-bribery laws and an investigation is ongoing regarding whether money laundering has occurred.

OPTICS EUROPE’S CLIMATE REFUGEES: THE GREEK COMMUNITIES WIPED OFF THE MAP Villages in the country’s agricultural breadbasket lie half-abandoned two years after catastrophic floods. Text by NEKTARIA STAMOULI Photos by LOUIZA VRADI in Palamas, Greece Above, a house destroyed by Cyclone Daniel two summers ago, in Keramidi. Next, 70-year-old Zoe Papaioannou. Her family left Palamas after the floods and relocated to nearby Metamorfosi. She lives in a two-bedroom apartment with her son Konstantinos Papaioannou, his wife Aglaia and their two children Panayiotis  and Zoe, aged 8 and 4. In a cramped two-bedroom apartment, Konstantinos Papaioannou lives with his wife, two children and his mother. The 51-year-old farmer’s former home in the village of Metamorfosi is an empty shell: mold in the plaster, the flood line marked by a dirty ring above the door. They are not going back. Two years after Cyclone Daniel turned Greece’s farm belt into an inland sea, Metamorfosi is one of the dozens of villages that remain half-abandoned. The families who fled say they are among Europe’s first climate refugees: displaced by extreme weather, priced out of nearby rentals and stuck in bureaucratic limbo as the government studies whether, and where, to rebuild entire communities. “Only the walls and windows remain of our house,” Papaioannou said. “It’s impossible to rebuild from scratch.” The rent for their apartment is state-subsidized, but payments arrive late and the paperwork is heavy. The subsidy is due to expire, and the family is hoping for an extension. The government promised to relocate the village to safer ground; two years on, residents say the relocation studies are still incomplete. 51-year-old farmer Konstantinos Papaioannou and his son Panayiotis. Next, a red graffiti marks a house for demolition. Below, a bar destroyed by Cyclone Daniel in Metamorfosi.  38-year-old plumber and farmer Konstantinos Goutelas, left for Palamas and is slowly doing some renovation work on his own in his house in Vlocho For Papaioannou’s 70-year-old mother, Zoe Papaioannou, leaving her home is a rupture she never wanted. “Families with small children don’t return to the villages. If my husband were alive, we would have returned. I was born there, and I want to die there. But I’ll go wherever my children go.”  The region has long been subject to flooding. The elder Papaioannou remembers being lifted into a boat during a flood when she was 2, but what happened on the night of September 5, 2023, when the water reached the roof tiles, was something different. She grabbed an icon of the Virgin Mary, a blood-pressure monitor and her health booklet before relatives got her out. She regrets not saving the family photos. Back in Metamorfosi, Konstantinos Tsioukas, 60, said he and his wife managed to save only their wedding crowns. “We don’t want to return here. We will always be afraid of flooding. Why should I go through that drama again? Why should I put my children through this?”  Advertisement He estimates that about 40 families have returned to the village, even though no government official has inspected the houses for safety. Those who came back did so because they had trouble with rent. He travels back and forth to Metamorfosi to care for his land, a 2-hour drive, but neither he nor his children want to farm.  “It’s not worth the trouble,” he said. “Do I want to starve my children? No.” At the village café, the only establishment that was undamaged enough to reopen, Fani Ntantou, 55, said business has trickled to just a few dozen people coming for coffee, tsipouro or meze. “If I were 30, we would leave. We would go to Germany and wash dishes,” she said. “This was a lively village with three or four cafés, but now we only have funerals.” A REGION UNDER WATER Cyclone Daniel dumped more than a year’s worth of rain on central Greece in just hours. According to the EU’s Copernicus monitoring service, some 750 square kilometers, roughly the area of New York City, of the Thessalian plain were inundated, much of it farmland. The plain accounts for 25 percent of Greece’s agricultural production, with much of the country’s wheat, barley, chickpeas, lentils and pistachios grown there.  “There was absolutely no planning whatsoever,” said Dimitris Kouretas, Thessaly’s regional governor. He indicated three maps in his office in the city of Larissa that showed where the government has promised to implement flood prevention projects, including modifications to riverbeds and dams in the mountains, none of which have been completed.   “The current system can only handle about 40 percent of the water volume of Cyclone Daniel,” said Kouretas. Above, Fani Ntantou, 55. She owns a local coffee shop and is one of the very few that have returned to Metamorfosi, together her 67-year old husband. Bottom, George Didagelos, seen below in a destroyed breeding unit of his now-abandoned pig farm, in Koskina. To make matters worse, climate change is bringing not just flooding — but drought. Drier summers, combined with the overuse of groundwater, have led to significant shortages. Farmers in the villages are fighting about how the water will be distributed. “In winter, we work to maintain the embankments so that we don’t flood,” said Konstantinos Tasiopoulos, a 77-year-old farmer who left the floodplains for the city of Karditsa after Cyclone Daniel. “In summer, we don’t have enough water for irrigation. Soon, we won’t even have anything to drink. It will become a desert.” The 2023 flood also killed some 100,000 animals, a problem compounded by the culling of tens of thousands of sheep and goats following an outbreak of fast-spreading illnesses.  Advertisement “This place was bustling with life, there were always thousands of pigs,” said George Didagelos, a pig farmer in the village of Koskina and the president of the Greek livestock association who lost 6,600 pigs to the cyclone. “I still get nightmares of that night.”  It was so difficult to find help to remove the carcasses that the remains of the drowned pigs can still be seen in Didagelos’ now-abandoned breeding farm. REBUILD OR RELOCATE Even as villagers remain scattered across the region, some are debating whether it’s better to rebuild or to relocate. Before the flood, the village of Vlochos had about 400 residents. Today, fewer than a third have returned. A recent referendum on whether to relocate divided the community, leaving some residents refusing to speak to one another. While 65 percent of the population said they wanted to leave, authorities have answered that this is not enough. “They tell us that if we want relocation, we all have to agree. But this is impossible,” said Vassilis Kalogiannis, the head of the village.  Konstantinos Tsioukas, a 60-year old farmer, and his wife moved from Metamorfosi to Palamas following the floods. Vassilis Kalogiannis, president of Vlochos: “We asked for reinforcement of the embankments. The pumping station was not functioning properly. The rivers had not been properly cleaned; dams should have been built up in the mountains.” “It’s like a family, they rarely agree unanimously. The parents decide. A decision should be made by the state,” Ioannis Koukas, 52, Kalogiannis’ predecessor. Vasilis Galanis, a 54-year-old craftsman and painter, now lives in Karditsa with his wife and three children. He said that if the relocation doesn’t go ahead, he is considering leaving the country. “I’m not going to spend a fortune here and lose it again. My children aren’t going to stay anyway.” Advertisement

PARIS — Even from his seaside holiday retreat at the Fort de Brégançon, President Emmanuel Macron will be closely watching a key court ruling on a controversial pesticide on Thursday. The question of whether French farmers will be allowed to protect their crops with a chemical called acetamiprid is far from being an obscure technical matter. In fact, it lays bare a major fault line in French politics between the powerful agricultural sector and more ecologically minded citizens worried about pesticides harming pollinators and human health. Macron’s challenge is that he is being squeezed politically between green-minded voters — often concentrated in metropolitan areas — and influential farmers from rural heartlands, while his liberal centrists falter and Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally eyes the presidency in 2027. France’s top constitutional court is set to decide Thursday whether a bill that includes the reauthorization of acetamiprid — under scrutiny for its effects on the nervous systems of both bees and humans — is constitutionally sound. This is a routine review for every piece of legislation, but it is drawing unusual attention in this case after an online petition calling for the law’s repeal went viral. As of Tuesday, more than 2 million French citizens had signed a petition launched by a 23-year-old student in Bordeaux, Eléonore Pattery, calling for the “immediate repeal” of the so-called Loi Duplomb, named after the conservative senator who introduced the legislation. The petition, hosted on a government portal, can spur parliamentary debate but doesn’t bind lawmakers to act. The Loi Duplomb reflects that shift toward siding with farmers’ demands. | Jerome Gilles/NurPhoto via Getty Images The debate around acetamiprid has put France — and Macron — in a bind. In 2018, the European Union banned three neonicotinoids, a group of insecticides that includes acetamiprid, over the threat they pose to pollinators such as bees. It did not, however, ban acetamiprid itself, which is considered less toxic to bees and breaks down faster in soil. Paris, seeking environmental leadership of the EU, went further than its neighbors and banned acetamiprid anyway. Then the political calculus changed. Like many other countries in Europe, France has faced surging dissent from farmers across the country. They decry what they see as excessive taxation and regulation, and argue that bans like the one on acetamiprid left them at a competitive disadvantage. With a European election looming last year, the French government sought to appear sympathetic to the farmers’ cause. “The goal of reducing pesticide use should not leave our farmers helpless and without solutions. In the end, no one would benefit — not the environment, not health and not agriculture,” then-Prime Minister Gabriel Attal, now head of Macron’s Renaissance party, said at the time. Farmers from the Coordination Rurale offload manure outside the Europe Ecologie Les Verts (EELV) ecology party headquarters as they protest in reaction to opposition to the Duplomb law. | Ed Jones/AFP via Getty Images The Loi Duplomb reflects that shift toward siding with farmers’ demands. The bill aims to ease their burden not only by reintroducing acetamiprid but also by loosening rules on the construction and expansion of large livestock buildings. It is backed by the government and by major French farming lobbies FNSEA and Jeunes Agriculteurs, who played an important role in shaping the legislation. During the protests, farmers were widely expected to receive public support — they are often viewed as crucial to France’s core interests and one of the last holdouts of rural life in an urbanized country. POPULAR BACKLASH This time, however, public opinion appears to have shifted. The historic success of the petition against the Loi Duplomb was fueled by high-profile opposition from celebrities, movie stars and influencers. Signatories must log in through a secure government platform used for taxes or health services, ensuring each person signs only once. A poll released last month by French polling institute Cluster17 showed 61 percent of respondents opposed the bill — 41 percent strongly. Just 33 percent said they were either “somewhat in favor” or “strongly in favor.” The science behind acetamiprid’s toxicity is contested. In 2024, the European Food Safety Authority proposed drastically lowering recommended daily intake doses, citing “major uncertainties” about the substance’s effect on the nervous system’s development — while stopping short of calling for a ban. France’s National Order of Physicians has come out against the Loi Duplomb, writing in a statement that “doubt is not reasonable when it comes to substances that may expose the population to major risks: neurodevelopmental disorders, pediatric cancers, chronic diseases.” The historic success of the petition against the Loi Duplomb was fueled by high-profile opposition from celebrities, movie stars and influencers. | Jerome Gilles/NurPhoto via Getty Images Some lab and animal studies suggest acetamiprid may cause DNA damage or act as a hormone disruptor — both potential cancer pathways — but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has concluded it’s “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” Macron has delayed responding to the viral petition until after the Constitutional Council issues its ruling. Two constitutional challenges were filed against the law — one citing environmental rights, the other criticizing the fast-tracked process used to bypass a debate in the National Assembly. If the court green-lights the Loi Duplomb, Macron will be left with few options. Because the petition passed the 500,000-signature threshold, it may trigger a parliamentary debate — though there’s no obligation to hold a new vote, since the law has already passed. Macron could also choose not to enact the bill — an extremely rare move that could open him up to accusations of defying the legislature’s authority. Whatever happens, the controversy is likely to continue dogging the French president. Even within his own ranks, divisions are clear: During the final vote last month, 26 of the 176 MPs in the three-party coalition backing Macron voted against the bill, while 15 abstained.

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.

BRUSSELS — French President Emmanuel Macron says a new law may be required to allow more wild wolves to be shot in France, taking advantage of looser EU protections of the predators. “We’re not going to let the wolf develop and go into [areas] where it competes with our activities,” Macron said during a trip to Aveyron on Thursday, referring to wolf attacks on farmers’ livestock. “And so that means that we must, as we say modestly, cull more of them.” He said that people “who invent rules and who don’t live with their animals in places where there are bears or wolves should go and spend two nights there.” Reports of wolf attacks on livestock in France have risen over the past decade and a half, with more than 10,000 reported annual deaths in recent years. European lawmakers in May greenlit a proposal amending the European Union Habitats Directive, moving the wolf from the list of “strictly protected” to “protected” species. That makes it easier for farmers in the EU to shoot wolves that threaten their herds. The directive will enter into force on July 14, giving countries until January 2027 to implement the change in national law. The highly-political push was led by the conservative European People’s Party as part of a campaign to endear themselves to farmers ahead of last year’s European elections. It became a personal project of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, whose pet pony Dolly was killed by a wolf in 2022. Green groups say relaxing protection rules is the wrong response. Macron “is engaging in a rare level of populism by asserting completely false things,” Jean-David Abel, head of the biodiversity network at France Nature Environnement, told Franceinfo on Friday.