The European fruits and vegetables producers and the Commission's proposal for a new CAP

 1. Introduction: the general context of the Commission's proposal 

The European Commission has presented its proposal for a long-term EU budget, the so-called Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), which will run for seven years, starting in 2028. 

The proposal is modest in budgetary terms. It amounts to €1,980 billion (€1,980,060 million in current terms and €1,760 billion in constant terms with a 2% deflator) for the seven years. In relative terms, however, it represents only 1.26% of the EU-27's gross national income (GNI), a slight increase compared to the 2021-2027 period (1.13%), but particularly modest considering that the majority of this increase will be used to repay the funds and interest of the Next Generation EU program, thus reducing the budget, excluding these funds, to 1.15% of GNI.

According to the Commission's own explanations, the announced spending priorities are focused on:

• Defence and security
• Resilience
• Digital transformation
• The ecological transition
• Competitiveness
• Territorial cohesion
• And sustainable development

A thorough overhaul of the budget is proposed: simplification of funds, conditioning of payments on specific objectives and centralization of execution by national capitals. 

As Ignacio Atance points out , the major change proposed by the Commission lies not so much in the size of the budget, nor even in the content of the CAP, but in its governance.

The Commission proposes that a large part of the budget be allocated to "National Plans" (officially called "National and Regional Partnerships"), a pre-allocated national envelope per Member State amounting to €865 billion. CAP measures are integrated into these plans. 

We propose to analyze the foreseeable impact that this proposal, as formulated, should have on the European fruit and vegetable sector. 

To this end, we will address the diagnosis established by:

• The Commission itself in 1995 (part 2)
• The main instrument chosen (part 3)
• The observable results of this policy (part 4)
• The evolution of the specific European budget for the sector (part 5)
• And some provisional conclusions (part 6)

We will then present:

• The Commission's proposal (part 7) to...
• ...analyse to what extent this proposal achieves the objectives pursued (part 8) 

And conclude by presenting an alternative proposal.

2. The 1995 diagnosis

The analysis of the European fruit and vegetable sector, carried out in 1995, which served as the basis for the complete overhaul of the European regulation for the sector, was particularly innovative, as were the proposals formulated. 

Anticipating current debates, the Commission had concluded that producers were facing a particularly unbalanced food chain, especially since these are often trading perishable products. 

To move towards a value-creating food chain, it was necessary to stimulate and strengthen the organization of producers to better adapt supply to demand, both in quantity and quality; to improve product quality; to promote more environmentally friendly agricultural methods and to encourage research and innovation.

Members of fruit and vegetable producer organisations (OPFLs) are required to market their entire production through their organisation (with very few exceptions). This volume of marketed production (VPC) plays an important role, as we will see later, in the European funding of their activities. 

These characteristics distinguish it from other forms of production organisation also recognised by European regulations. In the dairy sector, the Commission has used the term "producer organisation" to refer to other entities that are not necessarily marketing companies. 

This is not a semantic difference since, as the Court of Justice of the European Union stressed in its "Endives judgment ", this distinction is of great importance in defining the scope of the exception to the application of competition law. 

In my 2018 report to the European Parliament, in order to avoid this confusion, I had proposed, without success, to differentiate in the text of the Community regulation for agricultural markets between commercial POs and negotiation POs. 

3. Operational programs and funds 

The essential instrument available to fruit and vegetable producer organisations (FVPO) consists of the operational programs implemented by the operational funds. 

The fundamental objectives, as set out in EU legislation, are as follows: 

• Production planning and improvement: One of the pillars of operational funds rests on the ability of producer organizations to effectively plan their production and adapt it to market needs in terms of quantity, variety, and quality. This objective promotes more regular and stable production, better aligned with demand, by limiting surpluses and improving the organization of fieldwork.
• Quality improvement: Operational funds finance actions aimed at improving the quality of fruits and vegetables, from improving cultivation techniques to investing in sorting, grading, and packaging processes. They also include initiatives to strengthen food safety, traceability, and compliance with national and European quality standards
• Increasing added value and improving marketing: The fruit and vegetable sector is particularly vulnerable to competition and price pressures. Therefore, these funds support investments aimed at adding value to the product – for example, through innovative packaging or minor processing – as well as promotional activities and the opening of new markets. The objective is to strengthen producers' position and improve their bargaining power with intermediaries and distributors.
• Environmental commitment: Sustainability is a central pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy. Therefore, a significant portion of operational funds must be allocated to environmental measures, such as reducing pesticide use, improving water use efficiency, protecting biodiversity, and implementing more sustainable farming techniques. These actions aim to reconcile productivity with environmental protection.
• Crisis prevention and management: The fruit and vegetable sector is exposed to significant price fluctuations and extreme weather events. To address these situations, operational funds include crisis prevention and management mechanisms, such as product withdrawals, green harvesting, crop insurance, and other measures to stabilize the market during periods of disruption.
• Stimulating innovation and knowledge: The future competitiveness of the sector depends on its capacity for innovation. Therefore, operational programs must allocate a portion of their budget to research, development, and innovation, promoting new technologies, precision production systems, digitalization, and agronomic experimentation projects. 

The current CAP (2023-2027) has further strengthened the environmental obligations that operational funds must meet to receive EU support, a reinforced eco-conditionality in line with the European Green Deal. These obligations must represent 15% of the fund's total expenditure, plus an additional 2% for research. 

4. The result of the policy 

According to the latest data available on the Commission's website , in 2020 the EU-27 had 1.573 producer organisations (POs) and 31 transnational producer organisations (58 in 2024). 

Their numbers have been declining since 2017. The number of farmers who are members of these organisations is also decreasing, as shown in the most recent annual report on this subject, corresponding to the year 2022, which I found on the Commission's website. 

Does this mean that the instrument is losing its importance? The answer to this legitimate question is no.

Indeed, the value of the production marketed by these organisations continued to increase year after year, reaching 31,444 million euros in 2022. 

The distribution of measures 

It is essential to understand the importance of the various measures that make up the activities of the operational funds. Information relating to 2022 is available on the Commission's website, as previously mentioned. 

The four main areas are:

1. Production planning
2. Product quality improvement
3. Marketing improvement
4. And agri-environmental measures

Far behind is crisis management (less than 5%); promotional activities and a symbolic percentage for research funding. 

Distribution by Member States 

The Commission's website also presents the breakdown of the number of producer organisations by Member State, for the year 2024.

It can be observed that the distribution of the number of organisations among the Member States is very uneven. However, I have not found any recent information on the percentage of fruit and vegetable production marketed by producer organisations in each Member State.

The only data found is in the synthesis of Member States’ evaluation reports on their national strategies for sustainable operational programmes in the fruit and vegetable sector (2013-2018), commissioned by the Commission.

 It is confirmed that this distribution is very uneven between Member States. These differences cannot be explained solely by the relative importance of the fruit and vegetable sector in their agricultural production.

Major producing countries, such as the Netherlands, Poland, and Portugal, fall below the European average, while other lower-producing countries, like Denmark, exceed it. Historical and cultural traditions, among other factors, obviously play a role.

Transnational PDOs and PGIs 

Farmers and producer organisations from different EU countries can join together to form transnational producer organisations and associations. 

In these cases, recognition is granted by the Member State where the producer organisation has its registered office. This registered office must be located in a Member State where the organisation has a significant number of members or member organisations, or produces a substantial volume of marketable goods. 

In 2024, the European Union had 58 recognised multinational producer organisations (including their associations). 

5. The specific budget for fruits and vegetables 

There is currently no budget ceiling for community support to operational funds in the fruit and vegetable sector. This does not mean that these expenses are unlimited and completely uncontrolled. The two general rules that apply are as follows: 

• A ceiling is set based on the value of marketed production (VPC). As a general rule, the aid cannot exceed 4.1% of the organisation's VPC value.
• Community funding is also limited to the direct contribution that the FVPO invests in its Operational Fund, according to the principle of "one public euro for every private euro". 

According to a study by the European Commission , total spending on operational programs by producer organisations increased by 20% between 2013 and 2018, reaching €1.574 billion that year. 

In my urgent search, I have not found any recent public data providing a total annual budget for the whole of the European Union concerning investments in the operational programs of fruit and vegetable producer organisations. 

In the case of Spain, its financing needs in 2022 were €327 million. In 2023, they reached €347 million; in 2024, they were €350.7 million and in 2025, they reached €391 million. 

These requests amounts correspond to the sum of the budgetary needs of each OP, once their multi-year operational programs have been approved and the contribution of their members has been secured. 

In other words, year after year, the Spanish fruit and vegetable sector manages to mobilize and use its own funds and European funds to improve the intrinsic quality of its products, its marketing and its cultivation practices, thus making them more environmentally friendly. 

6. Initial findings 

The European fruit and vegetable sector has had a specific instrument since the 1990s, the generalisation of which (optional for Member States) is possible within the framework of the current CAP. 

A quick analysis of the record of implementation of the 28 CAP strategic plans underway in 2023-2024 leads to the conclusion that this optional provision has been little used. 

This instrument has developed year after year in the fruit and vegetable sector, despite notable differences between Member States, even between major producing States 

7. The Commission's proposal 

As we have already pointed out previously, the Commission's proposal integrates CAP measures into "national and regional plans", including "sectoral interventions" which include support for FVPO operational funds. 

Since it is not logically included in the list of measures aimed at "supporting farmers' income", support for OPFLs is not among the measures that have at least a guaranteed budget, even if it can be assumed that this support will be less than the current allocated budget. 

Everything will therefore depend on the decisions and the political and budgetary balances established by each Member state. 

8. The ex ante analysis of the proposal for fruits and vegetables 

With the information we have, we can already draw some interesting conclusions. 

• This sectoral measure will be subject to a budgetary limit, since it is integrated into the National and Regional Plans.
• The FVPO no longer has the guarantee of having the necessary budget to implement the programs approved by the supervisory authorities.
• If the total amount requested by the POs exceeds the amount initially reserved, the Member State will have no choice but to reduce other measures or reduce the requests submitted.
• This adds an element of uncertainty to a development, approval, application and justification process already deemed excessive by many producer organization managers and many farmers.
• This makes joining the FVPO less attractive and weakens the cohesion and strength of fruit and vegetable producers in the food chain.
• Year after year, until now, the budget requested by European FVPO increases. If this trend continues and the proposal is approved as is, the additional budget needed to meet these future demands will have to be financed either by budget cuts in other measures and policies, or by increased national co-financing.
• The level of organization of fruit and vegetable producers, although it is gradually improving, is still not sufficient to achieve a truly value-creating food chain and an adequate distribution of that value among its actors.
• In some main producing Member States, the development of producer organisations is only in its early stages. This is all the more striking in the case of the "new Member States," which joined Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
• Historical reasons fully justify the strong resistance of many farmers in these Member States to any collective action that might recall past collectivist experiences.
• But in an increasingly unique market, for perishable products like fruits and vegetables and a commercial dynamic where the Central European market is essential to community market balances, a large and disorganised player is capable of sinking the entire community market.
• Examples include Poland with its apples, Italy with its table grapes and, in some years, Spain with its peaches, nectarines or oranges.
• This market fragility is exacerbated by the increasing presence of fruits and vegetables from third countries on the European market. Examples include tomatoes from Morocco or Turkey or oranges from Egypt or South Africa.
• This predictable impasse, or even this setback, in the organisation of producers is in total contradiction with the speeches and good intentions displayed by the community authorities concerning the value chain.
• This proposal spells the end for transnational producer organisations. Which country will now agree to finance, from its national envelop, investments and activities carried out in another member state?
• It is true that the development of these transnational initiatives remains limited, although it is progressing. A recent example (2025) is a new transnational partnership between Belgian and Dutch producers.
• Until now, the Commission had considered the development of transnational collaboration as positive, important and even strategic.
• The objective was to build a Europe of farmers on the ground, a further step on the path to building a Europe of citizens.
• The issue is particularly important in border regions located in different Member States, notably in Flanders, where farmers from neighboring France, the Netherlands and Belgium meet; in Catalonia and the French and Spanish Basque Country and in Spanish and Portuguese regions…
• But the problem is broader. While distributors are forging alliances and creating joint purchasing groups between several chains for several countries, the Commission is announcing on the one hand its intention to improve the balance of the food supply chain and promoting European rules in this area and, on the other hand, is undermining the main European experience of collaboration between farmers. 

9. Conclusion

We can therefore conclude that this proposal does not meet the needs of European fruit and vegetable producers, nor the declarations and objectives announced by the Commission. 

However, there is a simple legal solution to remedy this inconsistency. The Commission always has a specific budget for European initiatives, such as the promotion of European agricultural products or ad hoc crisis management measures. It is perfectly technically possible to integrate the financing of fruit and vegetable operational funds, as is currently the case. It is perfectly possible, if there is the political will to do it.