Welcome to our monthly insights into all EU agri-food policy news – from legislations and debates to political deals and manoeuvring – directly from Brussels and with a focus on sustainability.
Water Resilience Strategy: A Step Forward, But Missing Power
What? On 4 June, the European Commission unveiled its long-awaited Water Resilience Strategy, to tackle growing water-related challenges across the EU. While the Strategy is a non-binding document, it sets out the objectives of the European Commission in terms of water resilience, including funding possibilities.
The Strategy focuses on three key objectives:
Effective water-use reduction will mostly rely on the implementation of other EU laws such as the Industrial Emissions Directive or the Common Agricultural Policy, on knowledge sharing, and the increased adoption of more sustainable farming practices.
According to the Strategy, the European Investment Bank has earmarked EUR 15 billion for projects “enhancing access to water, pollution control, resilience and competitiveness of the EU water sector, including through large infrastructures and nature-based solutions.”
Why is it important? The Strategy acknowledges the importance of the farming sector in water consumption. While it does not set binding targets or directly introduces a new law, it shows that water is becoming an increasingly important topic, worth attention. It also paves the way for further consultations with stakeholders at European and national level, and could provide impetus even at regional level.
Parliament and Council Call For Additional Simplification
What? The European Commission’s implementation of the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), set to apply from 30 December 2025, is facing mounting political opposition. On 24 June, the European Parliament’s environment committee formally objected to the Commission’s risk classification list, proposing to introduce a “negligible risk” category where companies would be exempted from almost all requirements (an idea also supported by Luxembourg and Austria in the Council of the EU). The Commission has to “consider” the objection but is under no obligation to review its risk classification list.
Why is it important? The Commission’s risk list is criticised on all sides: for some it introduces too much red tape on imports from countries where deforestation is unlikely, for others, it does not recognise the high risk of deforestation in tropical rainforests of Latin America and Africa. The Parliament’s motion is yet another offensive against flagship Green Deal legislation. The EUDR entry into application was already postponed by one year, to late December 2025.
The European Commission Announces Intention To Withdraw Its Green Claims Directive Proposal, Although the Status Remains Unclear
What? On Friday 20 June, the Commission announced that it would withdraw its proposal for a Green Claims Directive, aiming to fight greenwashing, by requiring companies to have environmental claims independently verified. This is highly unusual for a file so advanced in the legislative process, almost at the finish-line of its political negotiations. The decision appeared to result from a letter from the center-right European People’s Party (EPP), the most powerful group in the European Parliament, which declared that the EPP would not support the adoption of this Directive.
The Commission’s decision infuriated the allies of the EPP in the centrist block, making the Commission backtrack a few days later. However, during these few days, Italy withdrew its support to the Directive, making any further progress on the negotiations impossible.
Why is it important? The Green Claims Directive would have introduced significant changes in the way that brands would be allowed to make environmental claims, mandating that specific environmental claims go through a pre-approval procedure. The future of the directive is now very uncertain and it could be indefinitely postponed. The crisis also catalysed frustration in the central and left wing of the Parliament who feel that they are brushed aside by the alliance of the EPP and all far-right parties.
Curious about how the directive connects with other green rules like Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition? Join Ohana’s upcoming webinar for the full picture — and secure your spot now by registering here!
International Carbon Offsetting Very Probable Under Future Climate Law
What? Including international carbon offsetting to reach the bloc’s carbon emissions reduction targets seems more and more certain. The European Union published its long-awaited 2040 climate target on 2 July, confirming that the target will be a 90% reduction in emissions compared to 1990 levels, with a key “flexibility”: the inclusion of international carbon credits, from 2036.
This means that, under certain conditions, the EU could offset some of its domestic emissions by funding verified emission-reduction projects in other countries. The move is generating heated debate: while market players see an opportunity to expand the voluntary carbon market and scale climate finance globally, critics – including the EU’s own scientific advisory board and the Carbon Market Watch NGO – warn that relying on offsets could dilute real climate ambition and delay necessary domestic action.
Other flexibilities introduced by the proposal include integrating permanent carbon removal, and facilitating compensation between the land-use sector which struggles to reduce emissions and the transport sector where emissions can be reduced more easily.
The Commission’s proposal setting a 2040 climate target will now be submitted to the European Parliament and the Council for discussion and adoption under the ordinary legislative procedure. The Commission will propose legislation regulating carbon credits at a later stage, after a thorough impact assessment.
Why is it important? Agriculture is uniquely positioned both as an emissions source and a carbon sink. If international credits gain traction, agrifood stakeholders—particularly in developing countries—could see a surge in demand for high-integrity offset projects like soil carbon sequestration, reforestation, or methane reduction from livestock. These projects, if properly certified, could attract EU financing, delivering both environmental and economic benefits.
However, international credits could be used as a loophole rather than a complement to domestic reductions, undercutting investment in climate-smart farming technologies within the EU itself. Similar worries are being expressed about possible nature credits to reward biodiversity-positive actions.
Council Reaches an Agreement
What? The EU Member States approved a general approach on 23 June. This will be the Council’s negotiating position for the inter-institutional negotiations (trilogue). This text brings the Council position closer to the draft JURI report put forward by MEP Jörgen Warborn (EPP, SE), while the previous Council position kept more elements as proposed by the Commission or even suggested to go back to the elements of the original text of the CSDDD. The general expectations around the final outcome of CSDDD and CSRD is that these laws will have considerably decreased scope and lighter requirements.
The Council’s position notably raises the application threshold of CSDDD to companies with more than 5,000 employees and EUR 1.5 billion turnover. It is estimated that less than 1,000 companies in the EU would remain in scope. The Council goes beyond the Commission’s proposal on limiting risk-based due diligence to tier one suppliers only.
Why is it important? The final version of the Omnibus is expected at the end of 2025 or beginning of 2026, depending on the negotiations between the Parliament and the Council. At time of writing, the Parliament has not approved its common position yet, but it would also substantially decrease the scope and obligations of due diligence requirements. All companies will be affected by the changes, from the bigger players who will have to comply differently, to medium- and small-size corporations which will be further protected from trickle-down effects.
Do you work in agri-food and you’re feeling lost in the EU’s latest wave of simplification proposals? You’re not alone — but Ohana Public Affairs got you covered!
Join our webinar where we will unpack the Commission’s simplification agenda and what it means for the agri-food sector – from the Omnibus I Package to EUDR and upcoming agriculture simplification.
Danish Presidency Started On 1 July, With An Ambitious Green Agenda
What? Denmark assumed the Presidency of the Council of the EU on 1 July, putting green policies and climate action at the core of its agenda. Its priorities are shaped by a dual focus: boosting competitiveness through simplification, and driving it through the green transition.
This translates into continued efforts to streamline sustainability reporting, push for an agreement on the EU’s 2040 climate targets and the new Bioeconomy Strategy, and forge a common EU position on water resilience.
On agriculture, Danish Minister for Green Transition Jeppe Bruus has pitched the Presidency as a chance to showcase how collaboration with farmers can drive real climate results, pointing to Denmark’s domestic Tripartite Agreement as a rare example of political and sectoral consensus. That deal, which includes a phased-in tax on livestock emissions starting in 2030, was brokered with buy-in from farmers, industry, and environmental groups, showing what could be possible at EU level.
Why is it important? Denmark’s turn at the wheel comes at a delicate moment: farmer protests, a rightward shift in the European Parliament, and the retreat from Ursula von der Leyen’s first-term Green Deal have created a more skeptical, risk-averse atmosphere in Brussels. With legislative files on animal transport, genomic techniques, and the future of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) landing during its presidency, Denmark faces a tightrope walk between ambition and political reality.
Latest Reassurances on the Mercosur Trade Deal Fail to Ease Concerns
What? The EU is inching closer to finalising its long-delayed trade agreement with the Mercosur bloc, with a formal proposal expected in the coming weeks and potential approval “before summer.” But the reaction from Europe’s agri-food sector has been swift and unequivocal: “No thanks,” said Copa-Cogeca, the EU’s largest farm lobby. The group, which represents millions of European farmers and agri-cooperatives, has never been so united in its opposition to a trade deal. Their central concern is the lack of reciprocity – fears that European farmers will be undercut by imports from South America that don’t meet the EU’s stringent animal welfare, environmental, and food safety standards.
Efforts to soften the backlash include France pushing for an additional protocol with enforceable safeguards on agricultural imports, and the European Commission considering a side letter with political reassurances. However, these are likely to be non-binding and thus insufficient to calm farmer anger. Greenpeace and other environmental groups are also warning that the deal would benefit meat giants like Brazil’s JBS — linked to massive deforestation and emissions — potentially undermining the EU’s climate and sustainability ambitions.
Why is it important? For sectors like livestock and poultry, where imports from Latin America are expected to rise sharply following the agreement, this would not just result in a trade imbalance but in a systemic threat. For many farmers, the agreement crystallises a growing fear: that while they are being asked to meet increasingly strict EU standards on sustainability, animal welfare, and emissions, trade policy is moving in the opposite direction. Allowing imports from countries with lower environmental and production standards risks creating an uneven playing field, undermining the viability of European farming and eroding trust in the EU’s policy coherence.
No Deal Yet on GSP Reform: Rice Safeguards Stall Progress
What? The Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP) is the EU’s main tool for granting tariff reductions to low- and middle-income countries, aiming to support sustainable development through trade. But the scheme has direct implications for Europe’s agri-food producers, especially when it comes to sensitive products like rice, sugar, or poultry.
EU negotiators failed to reach an agreement on the revision of the Generalised Scheme of Preferences, despite hopes of sealing a deal before the summer break. Talks broke down over automatic safeguard clauses for rice, a sticking point that continues to divide the European Parliament and the Council. While the center-right European People’s Party (EPP) defended the inclusion of automatic safeguards as a necessary protection for EU rice producers, the Renew group accused them of inflexibility, delaying a long-overdue reform.
With diverging views between the institutions on safeguards, and internal tensions simmering between Parliament factions, the planned update to the EU’s trade preference system for developing countries remains in limbo. Parliament rapporteur Bernd Lange and other negotiators are still hoping to finalise the file before summer.
Why is it important? The revision of the GSP would maintain the structure of the current GSP but would make the regime stricter in terms of respect of human rights, environmental damages, involvement of civil society, and quantity of goods which can be exported duty-free.
Parliament Releases Own-Initiative Report on Accelerating the Authorisation of Biocontrol
What? On 12 June, the European Parliament officially adopted its own-initiative report on biocontrol, calling for faster access to biological alternatives to synthetic pesticides. While the report is non-legislative and does not change EU law, it reflects the Parliament’s political priorities and aims to inspire the upcoming Commission’s proposal. MEPs stressed that biocontrol—such as beneficial insects, bacteria, or plant extracts—should become a central tool in the EU’s sustainable farming strategy.
Why is it important? The initiative follows the controversial collapse of the Sustainable Use Regulation (SUR) last year, which left a legislative vacuum around pesticide reduction targets. With no binding targets currently on the table, the Parliament’s report seeks to refocus efforts on enabling farmers to transition away from chemical inputs by streamlining approval processes for biocontrol products and increasing funding for research and innovation.
What? The European Commission is preparing an Omnibus Regulation on chemicals, expected to land on 8 July, aimed at streamlining and modernising the EU’s Fertilising Products Regulation (FPR). Changes will likely target overlaps with REACH, regulatory barriers for safe animal by-products, and red tape affecting manufacturers.
Among the key tweaks: the Commission wants to eliminate a duplicative REACH registration requirement currently imposed under the FPR, instead applying standard REACH rules to fertilising substances. The draft will also introduce new powers for the Commission to define how microorganisms in fertilisers are assessed, and to add safe, previously excluded animal by-products to the EU fertiliser rulebook — a move expected to benefit the circular bioeconomy.
The Omnibus would also scrap the so-called “unbundling clause” (Article 43), which currently forces the Commission to adopt separate delegated acts for each fertiliser material category — a notoriously slow and bureaucratic process. Finally, it would advance the digitalisation of the FPR, aligning it with broader EU efforts to simplify compliance through digital tools and harmonised technical documentation.
Why is it important? This Chemicals Omnibus could unlock long-standing bottlenecks in the EU’s fertiliser policy and better align it with the bloc’s simplification goals. By aligning fertiliser substances more closely with standard REACH procedures, the proposal addresses industry complaints over unnecessary double regulation, especially for smaller companies. Removing the unbundling clause would speed up the approval of new fertiliser ingredients, and the push for digital documentation could reduce compliance burdens and improve enforcement.
8 July 2025
Ohana Public Affairs will kick off its EU policymaking webinars by unpacking the EU anti-greenwashing laws and what they mean for brands. This session will explore the implications of the new rules on environmental marketing, provide concrete examples of misleading claims to avoid under the forthcoming legislation, and offer insights into what companies need to do to comply. It will also bring more clarity on the recent withdrawal of the Green Claims Directive (GCD).
10 July 2025
The European Commission is continuing to organise webinars on the EUDR Information System. The primary audience for these training sessions consists of companies obligated under the EUDR to submit due diligence statements into the Information System – specifically operators, traders, their authorised representatives, and relevant associations representing them
10 July 2025
Join Ohana Public Affairs’ second webinar in a new series on EU policymaking. This session will unpack the Commission’s simplification agenda and what it means for the agri-food sector — from the Omnibus I Package to EUDR and upcoming agriculture simplification.
Closing on 14 July 2025
The European Commission opened a call for evidence on a strategy to address demographic challenges facing the EU’s agricultural sector by attracting and supporting young & entrepreneurial farmers.
To ensure a sustainable, competitive, innovative and diversified sector, it sets out to tackle barriers such as limited access to land, credit and rural services, and to improve how society perceives farming.
Closing on 16 July 2025
The European Commission opened a call for evidence on the proposal for a Regulation modernising on-farm animal welfare for certain animals. It will notably target the use of cages.
Closing on 17 July 2025
The European Commission opened a call for evidence on science-based methods for monitoring pollinator diversity and pollinator populations, in the framework of the Nature Restoration Regulation’s objectives.
Closing on 25 July 2025
The Commission has published a call for applications for the selection of members and the setting up of a reserve list for the Expert Group for Technical Advice on Organic Production (EGTOP) for the 2026-29 period.
EGTOP provides advice to European Institutions. It draws on outside experience to make sure that the EU rules on organics are effective, proportionate, and keep up to date with any technical advances in the field.
Closing on 11 September 2025
The European Commission opened a call for evidence on the revision of the Fertilising Products Regulation which has applied since July 2022. It lays down common rules on safety, quality and labelling requirements for CE-marked fertilising products.
If you have questions regarding anything in the Ohana Agri-Food Monthly Insights,
please reach out to Natalia Yerashevich at natalia@ohanapublicaffairs.eu, Francesca Fina at francesca@ohanapublicaffairs.eu, or Arthur Faure at arthur@ohanapublicaffairs.eu