The Latvian Agricultural Cooperatives Association (LLKA) warns that the Cyprus Presidency’s approach to the next EU Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) neglects essential food security and climate transition needs. LLKA President Rolands Feldmanis claims current funding levels fail to account for rising risks in Eastern Europe, signaling a potential shift toward more localized, security-focused agricultural policy.
Why is the EU’s nominal agricultural budget misleading?
While the European Commission’s proposal suggests maintaining the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) with a nominal budget of approximately €293.7 billion, industry leaders argue this figure is deceptive. According to LLKA, this nominal stability masks a real-term reduction in available funding. When inflation and rising operational costs are factored in, the actual purchasing power for agricultural support decreases.
European farming organizations Copa and Cogeca have expressed similar disappointment. They state that the current financial vision does not reflect the escalating costs associated with climate adaptation and the green transition. This discrepancy suggests a future trend where agricultural organizations will increasingly challenge “paper stability” in favor of inflation-adjusted funding models.
The LLKA represents 53 members and approximately 5,000 farms. Their collective turnover exceeds €500 million, driven primarily by the sale of raw agricultural products across Latvia and international markets.
How will security risks reshape Eastern European farming?
Geopolitical instability is becoming a primary driver of agricultural economic policy. Rolands Feldmanis, LLKA President, noted that the Finland–Baltic cooperation group is currently highlighting insufficient support for countries bordering Russia. For these nations, the agricultural sector faces a unique set of challenges that Western European models may not address.
High investment risks in border regions limit the ability of farmers to develop high-value-added products. This creates a “capital access gap,” where Baltic farmers struggle to achieve the same development convergence seen in central Europe. Experts suggest that future EU funding may need to move away from uniform distribution toward a risk-based model that accounts for direct proximity to conflict zones and heightened security concerns.
The Climate and Security Intersection
The intersection of climate volatility and regional security is creating a complex environment for Baltic producers. LLKA emphasizes that these states face more complicated climatic conditions alongside the direct impact of the security situation on the investment landscape. This dual pressure makes traditional CAP stability mechanisms insufficient for long-term regional resilience.
What role will regional alliances play in future EU food policy?
To influence Brussels, agricultural producers are moving toward strategic regionalism. LLKA is currently collaborating with partners in Lithuania and Poland to form what is described as a “Visegrad axis.” This group aims to ensure that the specific needs of Eastern European member states are integrated into EU policy-making processes.
In Latvia, this coordination involves major organizations such as Zemnieku saeima and LOSP. By building a unified position, these groups intend to strengthen the Latvian voice on the international stage. This trend toward bloc-based advocacy suggests that future EU agricultural debates will be decided by organized regional coalitions rather than individual member state lobbying.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the EU Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF)?
The MFF is the long-term budget of the European Union, which sets the financial priorities and spending limits for the bloc over several years.
Why does the LLKA oppose the current Cyprus Presidency approach?
The association argues that the proposed funding levels do not adequately address the rising costs of food security, climate change, and the specific economic risks faced by Eastern European farmers.
How does the “nominal budget” differ from “real-term funding”?
A nominal budget is the total amount of money stated in euros. Real-term funding accounts for inflation and the actual purchasing power of that money, which can decrease even if the nominal number stays the same.
How do you think shifts in EU agricultural funding will impact local food prices? Share your thoughts in the comments below or subscribe to our newsletter for more industry updates.
