Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babiš is facing new accusations that he never fully severed ties with his agricultural empire, after publicly promising to do so in order to avoid major conflicts of interest in both Prague and Brussels. On taking up the Czech premiership in December, Babiš pledged to cut all links with his company Agrofert, one of Central Europe’s largest agri-food and chemicals groups. President Petr Pavel required him to take that step before approving his government, and Babiš insisted his children would only take Agrofert stakes after his death. The commitment was meant to address long-standing conflict-of-interest concerns. During Babiš’s previous term, EU and national auditors found the company had improperly received at least €208 million in EU and national agricultural subsidies, triggering payment suspensions and repayment demands. At the EU level, the stakes are heightened by the fact that as prime minister, Babiš is now helping to negotiate the bloc’s next long-term budget, including farm spending from which Agrofert has previously benefited. Babiš’s pledges of a total rupture with Agrofert are now coming into question, even though the prime minister insists he has done much more than the law required. A leaked legal document that purports to map out his new relationship with the company describes a trust structure that removes him from day-to-day decision-making only while he remains in office, and that transfers decision-making powers to a family-run governance mechanism once his political career ends. The 18-page document, dated Dec. 17, was first reported by Czech outlet Seznam Zprávy. POLITICO has seen a copy. The document says the trust is meant to ensure “independent administration during the period in which the [establisher of the trust] holds the office of a member of the Government.” Once that period ends — whether through Babiš’s departure from office or, eventually, his death — the business would automatically transition to “family administration” Opposition lawmakers seized on the document as evidence that Babiš would still have strong personal and family interests tied to Agrofert during his lifetime, potentially motivating his decisions on both the domestic and EU levels. “The news about Andrej Babiš’s unresolved conflict of interest is really just the proverbial cherry on top,” Pirate party parliamentary leader Olga Richterová said in a legislative debate in Prague on Tuesday. “It is becoming clear that you can’t teach an old dog new tricks. The old practices used when Agrofert was previously parked in trust funds appear set to be applied again in a very similar way.” Danuše Nerudová, a European Parliament lawmaker from the Mayors and Independents party, told POLITICO the arrangement preserves a personal incentive to protect family business interests. “His companies benefited improperly from EU agricultural subsidies in the past,” she said. “That incentive does not disappear simply because the structure is renamed.” Given the implications for the EU budget, the European Commission said it was monitoring developments and underlined its rule that “anybody nominated in a member state to be involved in budget implementation … shall not take any action which may bring their own interests into conflict with those of the union.” POLITICO requested comment from Babiš’s office, but did not receive a response before publication. Danuše Nerudová told POLITICO the arrangement preserves a personal incentive to protect family business interests. | Martin Divisek/EPA Babiš responded to the Seznam Zprávy story in another newspaper. He did not deny the authenticity of the document and its reference to a continued family interest, but claimed he was doing nothing wrong. “What I said earlier clearly applies. I did much more than the law required of me. The shares of the company that I built for almost 30 years will never be returned to me,” he told the Deník N newspaper. POLITICAL DEBATE IN PRAGUE When Babiš made his pledge to keep out of Agrofert last year, his language was definitive. “I have decided to irrevocably give up the Agrofert company,” Babiš said in December. “I will never own it, I will not have any economic relations with it, and I will not be in any contact with it.” He added: “My children will only get Agrofert after my death.” Babiš reiterated his defense this week, telling Czech news agency ČTK that the Agrofert shares would never return to him and that he would not benefit from them for the rest of his life. He said the arrangement complied with both Czech and European law, and accused critics of trying to deprive him of his property. The prime minister has previously insisted any conflict would be resolved once the trust takes effect. He missed a self-imposed early-January deadline to complete the share transfer, saying he was still awaiting approval from financial authorities in two EU countries. David Kotora, executive director of Transparency International Czech Republic, said the trust “is currently an inactive shell” because the share transfer has not taken place. Once activated, he said, it would still fail EU standards. “This structure clearly cannot withstand European regulations concerning conflicts of interest in the redistribution of public funds,” Kotora said. During the parliamentary session on Tuesday, Babiš dismissed the renewed scrutiny as a “festival of hypocrisy.” “This is not a spontaneous defense of democracy. It’s political theater,” he said, stressing that Agrofert is not receiving any subsidies until the trust is in effect. “You invented the conflict of interest because you’re incapable of beating me.” Lawmakers from Babiš’s ANO party have rallied behind him, rejecting assessments of unresolved conflicts of interest. In a joint statement to POLITICO, MEPs Ondřej Knotek and Klára Dostálová said the prime minister had taken steps “well beyond what is required by Czech and European law.” He has relinquished ownership and control of Agrofert permanently, they said, and would not benefit from the company for the rest of his life. “If someone finds this insufficient,” they added, “it is no longer about the essence of the matter, but about an effort to constantly question it.” Economist Petr Bartoň, a regulatory and public policy expert, noted Czech conflict-of-interest rules were never designed for politicians with business empires on the scale of Agrofert. “The law does not aim to permanently separate politicians from their assets,” Bartoň said. “It aims to manage conflicts while they are in office.” Promises to go further, he added, may have political value but “no legal force.” Ketrin Jochecová contributed to this report.

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.” 

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

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

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

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.

The EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is grounded in the recognition that people, land, and society are deeply interlinked. But today, that connection is under strain. Farmers face mounting pressure from extreme weather, rising input costs and increasing regulatory complexity. Against this backdrop, the upcoming CAP reform is a pivotal moment, one that must deliver real outcomes to future-proof European agriculture.   To do that, policymakers should focus on three clear priorities: enabling co-investment between the public and private sectors; ensuring payments are simpler and rewarding farmers for what really matters; and equipping farmers with tailored support beyond payments. This is the foundation for a CAP that truly supports food security, climate action, and farmer livelihoods, while keeping food affordable for consumers.   By aligning around these priorities, the CAP can move beyond being just a rulebook for farmers and become a framework that brings together everyone involved in sustaining and shaping our food future, balancing agricultural progress with care for the environment and our communities. At PepsiCo, we see the impact of these policies up close, starting from the very first step of our value chain. Across the EU, we work with over 800 farmers to source key agricultural crops and ingredients, including potatoes, corn and oats. These ingredients are the backbone of iconic brands like Lay’s, Doritos, and Quaker, which rely on thriving farming communities and sustainable agricultural practices. Their success is our success. And so is their sustainability.  But I can also see that today’s farmers face an uncertain future. With the EU standing at a crossroads, we have to rethink how to support food security, respond to climate impacts and deliver more equitable outcomes for farmers, while keeping food affordable and accessible for consumers.   That’s why CAP reform matters now. Done right, the CAP can become a global model for a public-private partnership that drives meaningful and measurable progress across the full agri-food value chain.  On PepsiCo’s part, we remain committed to being a constructive partner in support of a more competitive, resilient and sustainable food system — based on regenerative agriculture.  This approach uses science-based farming practices that aim to restore ecosystems by improving soil health and fertility, reducing emissions, enhancing water quality and protecting biodiversity while also supporting farmer livelihoods. For example, in Jaén, southern Spain, we recently launched ‘Viva Oliva’ to support local olive growers, many of whom have been working in this historic trade for generations. Through this project, we’re providing hands-on training from agronomy experts so that farmers can protect the ecosystem more efficiently and conserve vital resources.   Crucially, these practices also create new opportunities, ensuring that farming can continue to be a viable option for the next generation. In 2024 we sourced 100 percent of the olive oil for our Alvalle gazpacho brand from Jaén, securing a high-quality local supply for Alvalle while strengthening the role of farmers in our supply shed.  > We’re investing in innovative techniques that bring life back to the land > because it is the right thing to do for our business, for the farmers we work > with and for the planet. Viva Oliva is just one of the many projects that’s helped us spread regenerative agriculture across a total of 3.5 million acres (approximately 1.4 million hectares) of farmland. Recently, we extended our target and are now aiming to reach 10 million acres (around 4 million hectares) globally by 2030.   We’re also taking action further upstream through partnerships with fertilizer companies like Yara, equipping farmers with precision tools to improve nutrient efficiency, increase yields and lower the carbon footprint of their crops. This collaboration supports approximately 1,000 farms across the EU and the UK that supply key ingredients for Lay’s and Walkers, covering around 128,000 hectares. By 2030 the partnership aims to reduce fertilizer production emissions by up to 80 percent and in-field fertilizer emissions by up to 20 percent, helping scale regenerative practices while supporting farmer productivity.  > Recently, we extended our regenerative agriculture target and are now aiming > to spread these practices across 10 million acres of farmland globally by > 2030. I know that we have the expertise and ambition to meet these goals, but we can’t do it alone. To make this a reality, we need EU policymakers to deliver a coherent and enabling regulatory framework that’s fit for purpose, based on three guiding principles.  Firstly, policymakers must match ambition with investment. Strong public funding is essential, but the CAP should be reimagined to enable co-investment through blended finance models, where public and private capital work together to accelerate impact. Private investment should be results driven, allowing trusted private-sector partners, who operate at size and scale, to co-design solutions with farmers.  Secondly, payments should be simpler and pay farmers for what really matters. This requires rewarding farmers not just for compliance but also for delivering real, measurable environmental benefits such as healthier soils, lower emissions, cleaner water, and richer biodiversity. Farming is unlike most other businesses, with income around 40 percent lower than non-agricultural income,1, which is why CAP incentives must reflect the true costs farmers face, including machinery upgrades and land-use shifts. And the system should incentivize progress over perfection — farmers who are already taking action should be compensated accordingly.  Thirdly, the CAP must recognize that farmers need support beyond payments. Investing in climate information systems, knowledge sharing networks, rural infrastructure and novel technologies will help accelerate and scale the implementation of new techniques — while ensuring profitability. Travelling across Europe to meet our teams on the ground, I see firsthand how local needs differ, so farmers should also be free to choose the solutions that are best suited to their region and crops to ensure policies are impactful.    > “Done right, the CAP can become a global model for a public-private > partnership that drives meaningful and measurable progress across the full > agrifood value chain. Archana Jagannathan And PepsiCo is committed to being part of that solution. Together with like-minded partners, we’re fully committed to growing food in a way that revitalizes the earth, supports farmer livelihoods, and feeds a growing population.  

YELLOW HAT REVOLT: INSIDE FRANCE’S RURAL RISING With rural discontent growing, Marine Le Pen’s far-right party sees an opportunity ahead of the 2027 presidential election. By MARION SOLLETY in AUCH, France Photo-illustration by Andrei Cojocaru for POLITICO Standing on the stage, Serge Bousquet-Cassagne looked down solemnly at his protégé, pointing his arm at him for all the farmers and their families to see. “I make you general of the army of the serfs,” the 65-year-old leader said in a makeshift ceremony organized to honor regional leader Lionel Candelon, who stood before him in a large concrete hall on the outskirts of Auch, southwestern France. Hundreds had gathered to celebrate a landmark victory for their movement: the Coordination rurale union, known for its signature yellow hats, had made unprecedented gains in February’s farming union elections, breaking the hegemony of the establishment FNSEA in representing farmers in France and Brussels. Bousquet-Cassagne’s grand gesture — elevating Candelon to general — was both a nod to his military background and suited the farming union’s muscular style. Advertisement The movement has been at the forefront of recent farmers’ protests in France, outflanking the FNSEA with hard-hitting action, ranging from confrontations with President Emmanuel Macron to setting manure on fire in front of government buildings, drawing criticism for what rivals say are intimidation tactics. That evening however, the crowd was in a cheery mood, celebrating past coups d’éclat and triumphs yet to come at long banquet tables decked out with yellow paper napkins and soon laid with roasted duck breast and red wine. DEEP SOUTH The movement was born 40 kilometers from Auch, in the heart of Gascony, a land of soft hills and green pastures just to the north of the Spanish border that is famed for its foie gras, Armagnac brandy — and strong headed people. Bousquet-Cassagne has made a trademark of his bullish manners and disregard for the law, boasting 17 court appearances over the years for actions ranging from vandalizing supermarkets to illegally constructing water basins used for irrigation. Serge Bousquet-Cassagne is one of the union’s figures most closely associated with the French political far right. | Christophe Archambault/AFP via Getty Images “In this country if you don’t burn cars you don’t get acknowledged,” he said at the rally. “And you get fucked.” Bousquet-Cassagne is also one of the union’s figures most closely associated with the French political far right, having called National Rally President Jordan Bardella “their last hope.” His outspoken support for the party, along with that of other Coordination rurale figures, has fueled speculation about the union’s symbiotic relationship with Marine Le Pen’s party as large chunks of the French countryside have swung to the far right over the last couple of years. France’s rural heartlands have been a big reservoir for growth for the National Rally over the past couple of years. After winning over disaffected industrial areas, the party has sought to capitalize on rural discontent and hardship, blaming mainstream parties for failed farming policies and accusing Brussels of exposing EU markets to cheaper and inferior foreign produce. Support for nationalist parties is especially high among the ranks of the yellow hats: Sixty-two percent of them expressed support for the National Rally or the more extreme Reconquête in a poll conducted ahead of last June’s European election by research institutes Cevipof and INP Ensat. That compared with 31 percent of supporters of the FNSEA — the National Federation of Agricultural Holders’ Unions — slightly below the far right’s actual vote share of the voting public. While not everyone in the movement approves of Bousquet-Cassagne’s style and outspoken support for the far right, most see him as a strong leader and a role model. As he sipped his drink and greeted union members in Auch, Bousquet-Cassagne constantly interrupted himself to greet supporters, calling them “thugs!” and “terrorists!” in jest. Many approached for advice, especially on building water basins for irrigation, as access to water has become a huge point of contention with environmentalists and local authorities as the weather grows drier and hotter in the region due to climate change. Advertisement “When you’ll have built one the rest will follow,” he told one of them, “even if jail time is what it takes.” Other yellow hat leaders have been at pains to soften its image in recent months and push back against the idea that the union has ties to the far right. “They are using us, and we are maybe using them too, that’s part of the game” said Coordination rurale Vice-President Sophie Lenaerts. “If we can push our values and our positions… We will do that with everyone. Some are just taking in more than others.” Le Pen has gained support among farmers, a traditionally moderate constituency, and more broadly in rural areas where farming and food issues carry political weight way beyond farmers themselves. Even as the far right struggles to build support in urban areas, the French countryside is shaping up to be a battleground ahead of the 2027 presidential election. The French countryside is shaping up to be a battleground ahead of the 2027 presidential election. | Christophe Archambault/AFP via Getty Images As she crisscrossed Paris’ annual Salon International de L’Agriculture in February, lending a sympathetic ear to farmer’s economic struggles and vowing to support them, visitors greeted Le Pen with cheers, asking for selfies and shouting “Marine Présidente!” as she walked between cow pens to pet the salon’s other star, Oupette, a one-ton brown Limousine heifer. Days before, Bardella also made sure to pay a visit to the Coordination rurale stand in the corner of one of the seven giant halls, a must for politicians this year. ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT PUSH The movement was born in the early 1990s to protest a landmark reform of the EU’s flagship Common Agricultural Policy that introduced direct subsidies for farmers in lieu of guaranteed prices, tying them to environmental protection measures. Long in the shadow of the dominant FNSEA, Coordination rurale seized the initiative during last year’s large-scale farmers’ protests, with tractor convoys rolling into cities to protest against environmental rules, as well as a hike in fuel prices and cheap agricultural imports coming from other European countries, including Ukraine. The union came out on top in 14 of the country’s 101 agricultural chambers in February’s farming elections, up from just three in the last election in 2019, giving it a much more prominent voice in discussions with the government over farming policy, where FNSEA used to be the dominant player. Agriculture chambers also have wide-ranging prerogatives at the local level, ranging from administrative support to farmers to supporting the implementation of farming and environmental policies. While aligned with the FNSEA on some issues, including opposing free trade agreements, the Coordination rurale has taken a more radical stance on others, clashing with environmentalists on water use or reducing the use of pesticides, and slamming what they say is overregulation from the EU and the central government. The union’s leaders have repeatedly framed the FNSEA as part of the establishment, working hand in hand with politicians in Paris and Brussels. Yellow hat candidates have made huge gains in farmlands facing intense economic hardship, including the Bordeaux region, where winemakers who produce for export face another hit from Donald Trump’s trade war. The American president threatened to hike duties on EU exports of wines and spirits to 200 percent if Brussels retaliated against his own duties by hitting U.S. whiskey. Brussels backed down. Advertisement Trump’s trade aggression and competition from countries such as Ukraine were major talking points at the agri fair, with the union’s leaders calling for more protectionist measures. “It’s a dream to hear a head of state saying he wants to protect producers and his citizens,” said Lenaerts, speaking of Trump’s protectionist push ahead of his wine tariffs announcement. “The character in itself doesn’t make me dream … but I like his attitude towards his country.” SURGE IN THE POLLS Support for both the yellow hats union and Marine Le Pen’s party has surged in many parts of rural France, including in Gers, the administrative district to which Auch belongs. The National Rally got 35 percent of the vote in last June’s snap parliamentary election, called by Macron after his liberals were wiped out in the European vote. That was up 15 percentage points from two years ago in a region that used to be a stronghold of the Social Democrats. Beyond the scenic view over limestone farmhouses and villages, there is one extra perk to driving around the countryside here: you won’t get a speeding ticket. The movement was born in the early 1990s to protest a landmark reform of the EU’s flagship Common Agricultural Policy. | Arnaud Finistre/AFP via Getty Images Local yellow hat protesters covered all of the area’s speed cameras with tractor tires and fertilizer bags, a signature move that Candelon boasted about on stage at the union’s gathering, saying he and his supporters had disabled 179 of them. Candelon, a former soldier turned duck farmer and father of three, rose to local fame in 2017 when he mounted protests against what he said was unfair competition from Central European countries, protesting against Bulgarian duck meat imports on local supermarket shelves in front of TV cameras. He quickly rose through the ranks after joining the local Coordination rurale section, and was elected as president of the local agriculture chamber under the union’s banner in February’s farming election. The 38-year-old has also had his share of legal troubles. In 2023, he was fined over online death threats made against local veterinary officials — which Candelon called a one-time slip-up linked to intense pressure after repeated cullings linked to bird flu outbreaks at his farm. He was also questioned by police last year after he and several union members sealed the entrance of the local French Biodiversity Office’s building. The environment agency, in charge of upholding rules on pesticides use and water protection, has been among the union’s recurring targets. The agency denounced the attacks on its agents as “unacceptable” after a member of the Coordination rurale reportedly threatened to torch its vehicles if they set foot on a farm. Sylvie Colas, a spokesperson for the left-leaning union Confederation paysanne and local opponent of Candelon who filed a complaint against him over alleged verbal threats — which he denies — says the union leaders’ “intimidation” tactics have had a chilling effect on locals and public agents alike. “I can’t imagine an agent [from the French Biodiversity Office] making an inspection visit to a farmer in Gers these days,” she said. “It’s Trumpism. There is a constant escalation, to the point where you get the impression that the administration just lies down, says nothing and lets it happen,” she added. Advertisement Candelon says he rejects physical violence, but that punchy actions are necessary to make farmers’ voices heard, standing by the targeting of speeding cameras and other stunts aiming at “emmerder l’État” (pissing off the government). “We know that when we piss off the government, things start moving. So we are going to keep it up.” ‘LEAVE US THE HELL ALONE’ Local farmers praise Candelon’s leadership and visibility, saying it contrasts with the FNSEA’s inability to improve their working conditions over the years. David Palacin, a 47-year-old cattle farmer from the village of Dému, near Auch, says he was never unionized before seeing Candelon in action. A blockade on a local road during last year’s protests was the rallying moment for him and several of his neighbors. Local farmers praise Lionel Candelon’s leadership and visibility. | Valentine Chapuis/AFP via Getty Images “We stayed for 15 days, day and night,” he recalls, with neighbors and family members taking over during the day when farmers had to get some work done in the fields. Palacin says he was unaware of connections with the far right at the top of the movement, which he doesn’t endorse, but that exasperation over the status quo led many to turn to the communication-savvy activists of Coordination rurale. “We’re not being heard,” said Palacin in his office, a stone’s throw away from his farm’s large open air stalls that house some 200 brown Limousine cows. Unlike some of his struggling neighbours, Palacin has built a diversified business employing 15 people, breeding cattle, selling their meat in his two local butcher shops and shipping young males to Spain and Italy. He is acutely aware of upcoming challenges for local farmers, who face competition from neighbouring countries as well as the EU’s trade partners. “Soy from Brazil is getting in, [while] we’ll soon be banned from even using glyphosate,” Palacin said. “At some point you have to be coherent,” pointing at the deal reached between the EU and the Latin American Mercosur trade bloc which French farmers say will open the floodgates to cheaper products that don’t meet the environmental standards that they have to meet. Palacin says French farmers should also be encouraged to compete for mass agricultural markets. Advertisement “Everyone going organic is not going to feed the planet,” he adds, pointing at local opposition to a large-scale poultry farm project in the village of Lannepax. “If we don’t produce it, other countries will, and it will get in.” A short drive down the hill, Grégory Julien, a fellow Coordination rurale member and cereal producer, says top-down environmental rules play a big part in the local farmers’ revolt. “Rules are being imposed on us that make no sense on the ground,” he says, citing periodic bans on hedge trimming meant to protect bird nesting. Opposition to environmentalists and what they say is a government overreach is a regular theme in the union’s slogans, with many of its members standing opposite to green activists in local conflicts around water management. Standing on the stage, Serge Bousquet-Cassagne looked down solemnly at his protégé, pointing his arm at him for all the farmers and their families to see. “I make you general of the army of the serfs,” the 65-year-old leader said in a makeshift ceremony organized to honor regional leader Lionel Candelon, who stood before him in a large concrete hall on the outskirts of Auch, southwestern France. Hundreds had gathered to celebrate a landmark victory for their movement: the Coordination rurale union, known for its signature yellow hats, had made unprecedented gains in February’s farming union elections, breaking the hegemony of the establishment FNSEA in representing farmers in France and Brussels. Bousquet-Cassagne’s grand gesture — elevating Candelon to general — was both a nod to his military background and suited the farming union’s muscular style. The movement has been at the forefront of recent farmers’ protests in France, outflanking the FNSEA with hard-hitting action, ranging from confrontations with President Emmanuel Macron to setting manure on fire in front of government buildings, drawing criticism for what rivals say are intimidation tactics. That evening however, the crowd was in a cheery mood, celebrating past coups d’éclat and triumphs yet to come at long banquet tables decked out with yellow paper napkins and soon laid with roasted duck breast and red wine. DEEP SOUTH The movement was born 40 kilometers from Auch, in the heart of Gascony, a land of soft hills and green pastures just to the north of the Spanish border that is famed for its foie gras, Armagnac brandy — and strong headed people. Advertisement Bousquet-Cassagne has made a trademark of his bullish manners and disregard for the law, boasting 17 court appearances over the years for actions ranging from vandalizing supermarkets to illegally constructing water basins used for irrigation. “In this country if you don’t burn cars you don’t get acknowledged,” he said at the rally. “And you get fucked.” Bousquet-Cassagne is also one of the union’s figures most closely associated with the French political far right, having called National Rally President Jordan Bardella “their last hope.” His outspoken support for the party, along with that of other Coordination rurale figures, has fueled speculation about the union’s symbiotic relationship with Marine Le Pen’s party as large chunks of the French countryside have swung to the far right over the last couple of years. Yellow hat candidates have made huge gains in farmlands facing intense economic hardship. | Miguel Medina/AFP via Getty Images France’s rural heartlands have been a big reservoir for growth for the National Rally over the past couple of years. After winning over disaffected industrial areas, the party has sought to capitalize on rural discontent and hardship, blaming mainstream parties for failed farming policies and accusing Brussels of exposing EU markets to cheaper and inferior foreign produce. Support for nationalist parties is especially high among the ranks of the yellow hats: Sixty-two percent of them expressed support for the National Rally or the more extreme Reconquête in a poll conducted ahead of last June’s European election by research institutes Cevipof and INP Ensat. That compared with 31 percent of supporters of the FNSEA — the National Federation of Agricultural Holders’ Unions — slightly below the far right’s actual vote share of the voting public. While not everyone in the movement approves of Bousquet-Cassagne’s style and outspoken support for the far right, most see him as a strong leader and a role model. As he sipped his drink and greeted union members in Auch, Bousquet-Cassagne constantly interrupted himself to greet supporters, calling them “thugs!” and “terrorists!” in jest. Many approached for advice, especially on building water basins for irrigation, as access to water has become a huge point of contention with environmentalists and local authorities as the weather grows drier and hotter in the region due to climate change. “When you’ll have built one the rest will follow,” he told one of them, “even if jail time is what it takes.” Other yellow hat leaders have been at pains to soften its image in recent months and push back against the idea that the union has ties to the far right. “They are using us, and we are maybe using them too, that’s part of the game” said Coordination rurale Vice-President Sophie Lenaerts. “If we can push our values and our positions… We will do that with everyone. Some are just taking in more than others.” Advertisement Le Pen has gained support among farmers, a traditionally moderate constituency, and more broadly in rural areas where farming and food issues carry political weight way beyond farmers themselves. Even as the far right struggles to build support in urban areas, the French countryside is shaping up to be a battleground ahead of the 2027 presidential election. As she crisscrossed Paris’ annual Salon International de L’Agriculture in February, lending a sympathetic ear to farmer’s economic struggles and vowing to support them, visitors greeted Le Pen with cheers, asking for selfies and shouting “Marine Présidente!” as she walked between cow pens to pet the salon’s other star, Oupette, a one-ton brown Limousine heifer. Days before, Bardella also made sure to pay a visit to the Coordination rurale stand in the corner of one of the seven giant halls, a must for politicians this year. ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT PUSH The movement was born in the early 1990s to protest a landmark reform of the EU’s flagship Common Agricultural Policy that introduced direct subsidies for farmers in lieu of guaranteed prices, tying them to environmental protection measures. Long in the shadow of the dominant FNSEA, Coordination rurale seized the initiative during last year’s large-scale farmers’ protests, with tractor convoys rolling into cities to protest against environmental rules, as well as a hike in fuel prices and cheap agricultural imports coming from other European countries, including Ukraine. The union came out on top in 14 of the country’s 101 agricultural chambers in February’s farming elections, up from just three in the last election in 2019, giving it a much more prominent voice in discussions with the government over farming policy, where FNSEA used to be the dominant player. Agriculture chambers also have wide-ranging prerogatives at the local level, ranging from administrative support to farmers to supporting the implementation of farming and environmental policies. The union came out on top in 14 of the country’s 101 agricultural chambers in February’s farming elections. | Christophe Archambault/AFP via Getty Images While aligned with the FNSEA on some issues, including opposing free trade agreements, the Coordination rurale has taken a more radical stance on others, clashing with environmentalists on water use or reducing the use of pesticides, and slamming what they say is overregulation from the EU and the central government. The union’s leaders have repeatedly framed the FNSEA as part of the establishment, working hand in hand with politicians in Paris and Brussels. Yellow hat candidates have made huge gains in farmlands facing intense economic hardship, including the Bordeaux region, where winemakers who produce for export face another hit from Donald Trump’s trade war. The American president threatened to hike duties on EU exports of wines and spirits to 200 percent if Brussels retaliated against his own duties by hitting U.S. whiskey. Brussels backed down. Trump’s trade aggression and competition from countries such as Ukraine were major talking points at the agri fair, with the union’s leaders calling for more protectionist measures. “It’s a dream to hear a head of state saying he wants to protect producers and his citizens,” said Lenaerts, speaking of Trump’s protectionist push ahead of his wine tariffs announcement. “The character in itself doesn’t make me dream … but I like his attitude towards his country.” SURGE IN THE POLLS Support for both the yellow hats union and Marine Le Pen’s party has surged in many parts of rural France, including in Gers, the administrative district to which Auch belongs. The National Rally got 35 percent of the vote in last June’s snap parliamentary election, called by Macron after his liberals were wiped out in the European vote. That was up 15 percentage points from two years ago in a region that used to be a stronghold of the Social Democrats. Advertisement Beyond the scenic view over limestone farmhouses and villages, there is one extra perk to driving around the countryside here: you won’t get a speeding ticket. Local yellow hat protesters covered all of the area’s speed cameras with tractor tires and fertilizer bags, a signature move that Candelon boasted about on stage at the union’s gathering, saying he and his supporters had disabled 179 of them. Candelon, a former soldier turned duck farmer and father of three, rose to local fame in 2017 when he mounted protests against what he said was unfair competition from Central European countries, protesting against Bulgarian duck meat imports on local supermarket shelves in front of TV cameras. He quickly rose through the ranks after joining the local Coordination rurale section, and was elected as president of the local agriculture chamber under the union’s banner in February’s farming election. Candelon says he rejects physical violence, but that punchy actions are necessary to make farmers’ voices heard. | Olivier Chassignlole/AFP via Getty Images The 38-year-old has also had his share of legal troubles. In 2023, he was fined over online death threats made against local veterinary officials — which Candelon called a one-time slip-up linked to intense pressure after repeated cullings linked to bird flu outbreaks at his farm. He was also questioned by police last year after he and several union members sealed the entrance of the local French Biodiversity Office’s building. The environment agency, in charge of upholding rules on pesticides use and water protection, has been among the union’s recurring targets. The agency denounced the attacks on its agents as “unacceptable” after a member of the Coordination rurale reportedly threatened to torch its vehicles if they set foot on a farm. Sylvie Colas, a spokesperson for the left-leaning union Confederation paysanne and local opponent of Candelon who filed a complaint against him over alleged verbal threats — which he denies — says the union leaders’ “intimidation” tactics have had a chilling effect on locals and public agents alike. “I can’t imagine an agent [from the French Biodiversity Office] making an inspection visit to a farmer in Gers these days,” she said. “It’s Trumpism. There is a constant escalation, to the point where you get the impression that the administration just lies down, says nothing and lets it happen,” she added. Candelon says he rejects physical violence, but that punchy actions are necessary to make farmers’ voices heard, standing by the targeting of speeding cameras and other stunts aiming at “emmerder l’État” (pissing off the government). “We know that when we piss off the government, things start moving. So we are going to keep it up.” ‘LEAVE US THE HELL ALONE’ Local farmers praise Candelon’s leadership and visibility, saying it contrasts with the FNSEA’s inability to improve their working conditions over the years. David Palacin, a 47-year-old cattle farmer from the village of Dému, near Auch, says he was never unionized before seeing Candelon in action. A blockade on a local road during last year’s protests was the rallying moment for him and several of his neighbors. “We stayed for 15 days, day and night,” he recalls, with neighbors and family members taking over during the day when farmers had to get some work done in the fields. Palacin says he was unaware of connections with the far right at the top of the movement, which he doesn’t endorse, but that exasperation over the status quo led many to turn to the communication-savvy activists of Coordination rurale. “We’re not being heard,” said Palacin in his office, a stone’s throw away from his farm’s large open air stalls that house some 200 brown Limousine cows. Unlike some of his struggling neighbours, Palacin has built a diversified business employing 15 people, breeding cattle, selling their meat in his two local butcher shops and shipping young males to Spain and Italy. He is acutely aware of upcoming challenges for local farmers, who face competition from neighbouring countries as well as the EU’s trade partners. “Soy from Brazil is getting in, [while] we’ll soon be banned from even using glyphosate,” Palacin said. “At some point you have to be coherent,” pointing at the deal reached between the EU and the Latin American Mercosur trade bloc which French farmers say will open the floodgates to cheaper products that don’t meet the environmental standards that they have to meet. Palacin says French farmers should also be encouraged to compete for mass agricultural markets. “Everyone going organic is not going to feed the planet,” he adds, pointing at local opposition to a large-scale poultry farm project in the village of Lannepax. “If we don’t produce it, other countries will, and it will get in.” A short drive down the hill, Grégory Julien, a fellow Coordination rurale member and cereal producer, says top-down environmental rules play a big part in the local farmers’ revolt. “Rules are being imposed on us that make no sense on the ground,” he says, citing periodic bans on hedge trimming meant to protect bird nesting. Opposition to environmentalists and what they say is a government overreach is a regular theme in the union’s slogans, with many of its members standing opposite to green activists in local conflicts around water management. At the Auch gathering, Bousquet-Cassagne repeated one of his favorite mantras as he greeted supporters and harangued the crowd : “We are the best peasants in the world. Leave us the hell alone.”

LONDON — The fifteenth time’s a charm, it would seem. After a series of false starts, missed Diwali deadlines and changes of government, the U.K. and India have finally put their differences aside to strike a free trade agreement. But the final pact — with some details set out Tuesday — is far from what negotiators imagined when they launched the talks back in 2022, with compromises made on both sides. From tariffs to visas and services, we talk through the key concessions in the long-awaited agreement, and what they could mean for U.K. businesses, as well as the big unanswered questions. WHAT WE KNOW Tariffs will be cut across the board The agreement will cut Indian tariffs on 90 percent of product lines, with 85 percent of those becoming fully tariff-free within a decade, according to basic details published by the U.K.’s Department for Business and Trade (DBT) on Tuesday. British alcoholic drink exporters look set to be big winners. Whisky and gin tariffs, currently set at 150 percent, will be halved to 75 percent before falling to 40 percent after 10 years. Mark Kent, chief executive of the Scotch Whisky Association, said the change would be “transformational” and create 1,200 jobs across the U.K..  There also appears to be positive news for another key sector: car manufacturing. DBT says automotive tariffs will be cut from over 100 percent to 10 percent — but crucially, subject to a quota. Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds told reporters on Tuesday that the U.K. would get access to a quota to sell 22,000 higher-value electric vehicles to India at the lower 10 percent tariff rate. India would meanwhile get a quota to sell low- and mid-range electric vehicles to the U.K. The government says this quota will be phased in over time in discussion with industry in order to align with their production plans. Industry group the SMMT welcomed the deal but said the details “will likely feature compromises, and might not offer unfettered market access to all UK automotive goods.” Other Indian tariffs cut under the FTA include those on imported British cosmetics, aerospace, lamb, medical devices, salmon, electrical machinery, soft drinks, chocolate, and biscuits. The U.K. has in turn cut tariffs on clothes, footwear, and some food products — including, the government is keen to note, frozen prawns. On the flipside, tariffs remain in areas like dairy and milled rice where both sides wanted to protect domestic industries from competition. Together with the other changes in the agreement, the government expects a steep 59.4 percent increase in U.K. exports to India — worth £15.7 billion. This is matched by a smaller 25 percent increase in Indian exports to Britain, worth £9.8 billion.  This all adds up to a 38.8 percent increase in trade worth £25.5 billion — or 0.1 percent of GDP by 2040. The number is tiny when compared to the much larger expected 4 percent hit from leaving the EU single market, but looks a bit more impressive when compared to the 0.08 percent expected benefit from, for example, the FTA the last government signed with Australia.  India scores concessions on social security payments Visas have become the most headline-grabbing issue in the negotiations. After the Indian side talked up an “unprecedented” win on its workers being exempt from employee tax contributions in Britain, Starmer’s political opponents hit back at the deal. Conservative Leader Kemi Badenoch said she refused to sign a deal on similar terms back when she was trade secretary, arguing: “When Labour negotiates Britain loses.” In the end, it’s a mixed bag when it comes to mobility concessions. Jonathan Reynolds said on Tuesday that an existing visa route for some temporary workers that’s not currently available to India — and capped at 1,800 people — will now be open to Indian employees. That list of professions includes musicians, yoga teachers and chefs. Indian applicants will still need to meet the usual visa requirements on salary and skills and the cap won’t be lifted. The U.K.’s visa concession is a long way from New Delhi’s first requests, with India originally proposing larger quotas for professionals, particularly in sectors like IT and healthcare. But there are already political fireworks over one big Indian demand in the talks — an easing of social security payments for Indian workers in the U.K. The U.K. and India have agreed to a Double Contributions Convention, which means that neither Indian nor British workers will be required to pay national insurance contributions in both their home country and the one they are working in — they will only pay it in one for the first three years of a placement.  The deal also covers employers, who do not have to pay social security contributions in the U.K. for three years.  This concession means “Starmer has hiked National Insurance on Brits while giving an exemption to Indian migrants,” Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick wrote as Tory MPs criticised the move in parliament Tuesday afternoon. There will be greater access to Indian government contracts “For the very first time British businesses will have guaranteed access to India’s vast procurement market covering good services and construction,” Trade Policy Minister Douglas Alexander told parliament on Tuesday. More than a decade ago, Indian PM Narendra Modi launched the country’s Make in India program, which prevents foreign competitors from accessing the government’s procurement market. India has since been pouring government stimulus into large infrastructure projects throughout the country. But in a major win for the U.K., Delhi has agreed a carve out allowing British firms to access some areas of the country’s procurement market and compete for tenders. British firms will now “be able to bid for approximately 40,000 tenders worth at least £38 billion a year,” Alexander said.  WHAT WE DON’T KNOW How will the UK and India resolve their differences over carbon taxes? India has been vocal about its distaste for the U.K.’s proposed carbon border tax. Wrangling over CBAM has at times seemed likely to sink talks.  In the end, the solution was to dodge the question entirely. The FTA won’t address the question of CBAM directly. Draft U.K. legislation for its CBAM anticipates that the levy will apply to imported goods from 1 January 2027, covering carbon-intensive industries like steelmaking, cement, aluminum and fertilizer. Some Indian sectors are expected to be hit hard. Dialogue is expected to continue on the issue, but not at the expense of doing this FTA.  Will the two sides sign a bilateral investment treaty? A key win for the City of London would have been a bilateral investment treaty, which appeared alongside the FTA text. But both sides weren’t able to get this over the finish line.  The proposed pact, controversial in India, would have given firms the right to sue governments over policy changes they claim would harm their investments, through a mechanism known as the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS).  In 2016, India scrapped a number of its older treaties with other countries, after facing a wave of arbitration claims, which now total at 29 cases against its domestic regulations and policy measures.  Although talks on the investment treaty continue, there’s still no clear timeline for when — or if — a deal will ever be agreed. How much will services firms really benefit? The British government insisted Tuesday that the pact includes India’s most ambitious services commitments to date, but details were hard to come by and some sectors are less than impressed. Trade Policy Minister Douglas Alexander said it will ensure U.K. banks and finance companies are placed on an equal footing with Indian suppliers. “It also encourages the recognition of professional qualifications, so that U.K. and Indian firms can access the right talent at the right time, whether they are in Mumbai or indeed in Manchester.” Yet a trade body for Britain’s legal services sector — the second largest in the world — called it a “failure” and a “a missed opportunity” that the deal doesn’t give them more market access. The sector is “disappointed to see that the U.K.-India FTA has been agreed without reference to legal services,” said Law Society president Richard Atkinson. Changes to India’s regulations that would allow foreign firms to practice without a domestic partner were unveiled by the Bar Council of India in March 2023, but they remain in limbo following pushback from local legal firms. The digital trade provisions in the deal also “don’t go as far as we’d have liked to see,” said Julian David, CEO of techUK which advocates for tech giants. David said business groups in both countries are looking forward to working with the U.K. and Indian governments “to turn this deal into real momentum for the sector.” How long will it take to ratify?  Opposition parties are already calling for parliament to be given a vote on the new free trade agreement.  Ed Davey, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, was quick out the gate on Tuesday warning that not consulting MPs would set a “dangerous precedent for future deals” — particularly one with the United States.  Under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRAG), parliament only has the power to delay ratification of a treaty and to force the government to formally explain its rationale. But even this can only happen if the government actively chooses to set aside time for a debate and vote on the agreement, which it is under no obligation to do. The last government was criticised by a parliamentary committee for not giving MPs time to debate its post-Brexit FTA with Australia.  The Labour government has only said in relation to the U.S. trade deal that it is committed to the CRAG process.  Douglas Alexander on Tuesday said the House would “need time to scrutinize this deal before the ratification process” but notably did not commit to a vote. “My department will follow the process set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010,” he said, which requires the government to lay the treaty in parliament for 21 days. “The house will, of course, have the opportunity to scrutinize any legislation associated with its implementation.” Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds told reporters that the ratification process would take “broadly” around 12 months. That gives the government’s critics plenty of time to find more they don’t like.

BRUSSELS — The Netherlands is rolling back its nitrogen reduction targets, setting the stage for a showdown with its own judges and Brussels over one of Europe’s most contentious environmental issues. The Dutch government on Friday confirmed it will push back its deadline to halve nitrogen emissions from 2030 to 2035, defying a recent court order and putting its green commitments at risk. The move, spearheaded by Agriculture Minister Femke Wiersma of the Farmer-Citizen Movement (BBB), is meant to give farmers more time to adapt, but could instead entrench a years-long standoff over how to cut pollution from intensive livestock farming. The decision comes despite a Dutch court ruling in January that ordered the government to meet its existing 2030 deadline to protect sensitive nature areas from nitrogen pollution, most of it from manure, with fertilizer use also contributing. Brussels may also weigh in, as the delay risks breaching the EU’s Habitats Directive, which obliges member states to prevent the deterioration of protected ecosystems and to restore them “within a short period.” The Netherlands has long been ground zero for Europe’s nitrogen crisis, with its high-density farming blamed for dumping excessive nitrogen into Natura 2000 conservation areas. The country ranks among the worst in the EU for nitrogen pollution per hectare, at around four times the European average — far more than its landscapes and protected habitats can absorb. Successive governments have struggled to square environmental obligations with farmer pushback, a conflict that helped topple the last coalition and fueled the rise of Wiersma’s BBB, which became the largest party in the Dutch Senate in 2023 and joined the national coalition government last year. FIVE MORE YEARS The new plan includes a €2.2 billion “starter package” to encourage farmers near vulnerable nature sites to downsize, relocate or invest in cleaner technologies. The package covers voluntary buyouts for livestock farmers, including €750 million for those who choose to shut down and €627 million for dairy producers who scale back. Another €100 million is set aside for nature restoration. The government is also preparing to overhaul how nitrogen is regulated. Up until now, Dutch policy has been based on how much nitrogen pollution settles in protected areas — the so-called critical deposition value (KDW). Wiersma’s plan signals a move away from that system toward setting emission limits directly at the source, on individual farms and factories. How those caps will be calculated remains unclear. “This plan offers perspective for farmers and space for innovation while we keep working toward nature recovery,” Wiersma told reporters ahead of the adoption. Environmental groups, legal experts and the Dutch state attorney had already warned in recent days that the plan could fail to meet judicial requirements, after details of the proposal began circulating in the Dutch press on Wednesday and Thursday. COURT RULING LOOMS In January, a Dutch court sided with Greenpeace in a case challenging the government’s slow progress on nitrogen reduction. The ruling ordered the state to cut pollution fast enough to bring at least half of all nitrogen-sensitive conservation areas below harmful thresholds by 2030. The judge cited the Netherlands’ obligations under the Habitats Directive, which prioritizes the health of protected ecosystems over economic flexibility. The government has appealed the decision but must comply with the ruling while that process is ongoing. By unilaterally shifting the target to 2035, Wiersma’s plan risks being seen as non-compliant with both the Dutch court and EU law, potentially exposing The Hague to further lawsuits and financial penalties. Environmental groups, including Greenpeace and Mobilization for the Environment (MOB), have already signaled they will take the government back to court if the delay goes ahead. Greenpeace called the adopted plan “an insult to the rule of law,” accusing it of lacking binding measures for agriculture, proper calculations or sufficient funding. BRUSSELS WATCHING The European Commission has so far held back from saying whether the Dutch delay is compatible with EU law, though officials in the environment department have repeatedly stressed that the Habitats Directive leaves little room to put off required action. “The Netherlands must put in place and implement effective measures to reduce nitrates and nitrogen pollution in order to meet the EU requirements on nature and water quality,” Commission spokesperson Maciej Berestecki told POLITICO. “It is up to the Dutch authorities to decide on effective measures to ensure compliance and reach agreed targets.” Commission lawyers are expected to review the Dutch plan following the government’s adoption of the package on Friday. Any failure to comply with EU law could eventually trigger infringement proceedings from Brussels.  The delay hands Wiersma’s BBB a political win with its rural base, at least for now, but risks locking the Netherlands into another round of courtroom battles at home and in Brussels. This story has been updated to include reaction from Greenpeace and the European Commission.