COPA-COGECA

Background

COPA–COGECA is the combination of two major European farming lobby groups: COPA (Committee of Professional Agricultural Organisations), which represents farmers, and COGECA (General Confederation of Agricultural Cooperatives in the European Union), which represents European agri-cooperatives.¹ The two groups formed in the late 1950s, and merged in December 1962. COPA–COGECA describes itself as “the united voice of farmers and their cooperatives in the European Union”.² ³

COPA–COGECA describes itself as “the united voice of farmers and their cooperatives in the European Union”.⁴

COPA-COGECA is one of the most active lobby groups in the EU. In 2021, academics analyzed data from the European Commission’s Transparency Register, finding that between 2014-19, COPA-COGECA was the eleventh most active organization of all lobbies in the EU, and the sixth most active between 2008-2010.⁵

COPA states that its objectives include matters relating to the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), representing the agriculture industry among EU institutions and other stakeholders, providing a platform to develop solutions for technical and trade barriers, participating in relevant international platforms and “maintaining a strong presence within the EU public discourse by explaining our positions and showcasing our efforts towards the development of an agricultural and forestry sector that benefits everyone”.⁶

COGECA states that it “represents the general and specific interests of European agri-food, forestry, and fishery cooperatives among the EU Institutions and other socio-economic organisations contributing to European decision making.”⁷

A previous version of COGECA’s website stated that the organization represents the interests of 40,000 farmers’ cooperatives employing 660,000 people, and is “involved in shaping and further developing all Community policies that create important framework conditions for cooperative enterprises.”⁸ ⁹

In September 2020, COPA elected its new president, Christiane Lambert,¹⁰ who is also the president of French farmers’ union Fédération nationale des syndicats d’exploitants agricoles (FNSEA), the largest farmers’ union in France.¹¹. In June 2024, COPA-COGECA appointed its new Secretary General, Elli Tsiforou.¹²

COPA-COGECA has considerable influence in the EU, and NGOs have suggested that it receives privileged access to decision making processes. In 2019, the New York Times suggested that “European leaders have historically treated [COPA-COGECA] not as mere recipients of government money, but as partners in policymaking.” The article revealed that COPA-COGECA was granted private audiences with the Council’s president ahead of important meetings held by European agriculture ministers, despite environmental groups being refused the same opportunities. According to the article, other groups were told that COPA-COGECA’s access was a “matter of tradition”.¹³

In an interview with lobby watchdog Corporate Europe Observatory, Greens MEP Juliette Leroux stated that “a large part” of the European Parliament’s Agriculture Committee “see COPA-COGECA as partners in agricultural policy making, exactly like DG Agriculture [the Commission’s department on farming] does.”¹⁴

COPA-COGECA has been a vocal opponent of binding targets included in the EU’s sustainable food Farm to Fork strategy. In January 2021, the group suggested a number of amendments that MEPs should make to the strategy in Parliament. As well as deleting multiple mentions of the environmental harms caused by the current agricultural system, it deleted commitments to translate progressive targets on agrochemicals into legislation, which would make them legally binding.¹⁵ The strategy’s targets include a 50 percent reduction in use and risk of chemical pesticides, and 20 percent reduction in use of chemical fertilizers.

The group has also lobbied for the reauthorization of the controversial pesticide glyphosate, which critics suggest is a carcinogen and causes widespread harm to the environment.¹⁶ ¹⁷ ¹⁸

Ties to Agribusiness

While COPA-COGECA represents the interests of farmers and agri-cooperatives, critics suggest that it often lobbies for agribusiness interests over those of smaller producers.¹⁹ ²⁰

Corporate Europe Observatory states that, while the agri-cooperatives represented by COPA-COGECA were originally farmer-owned processing and trading companies, they “have now turned into multinationals themselves […] whose interests often clash with those of farmers.” It stated that the group “often sides with pesticide giants […] and with food multinationals.”²¹

According to agricultural policy analyst and writer Gérard Choplin: “By mixing up the interests of producers and cooperatives, the Copa-Cogeca does not defend producers.”²²

Corporate Europe Observatory also notes that some agri-cooperatives are members of COPA, as well as COGECA, “even though they do not represent farmers,” writing: “In this way they have a voice in both organisations, ensuring the maximum chance for their business interests to be represented.”²³

COPA-COGECA has contested CEO’s claims, and stated that the advocacy group had used “clichés” and a “dogmatic approach”.²⁴

On June 27, 2024, COPA and COGECA appointed Elli Tsiforou as the new Secretary General.²⁵ Tsiforou is the first woman to hold the position since the secretariat’s creation in 1962.²⁶ Since 2020, Tsiforou has been president of Cogeca’s Cooperative Coordination Committee (CCC),²⁷ which is composed of the member organisations and coordinates all Copa and Cogeca policies.²⁸

She is also CEO of Greek agricultural trade association Gaia Epicheirein, where she has worked since 2015.²⁹ Gaia Epicheirein describes itself as an alliance between agricultural cooperatives, and partners in IT and banking, with a “vision for a more sustainable and competitive Greek agriculture”.³⁰ Before working at Gaia Epicheiren, Tsiforou was a political advisor to the European Parliament and in Greece.³¹

Stance on Climate Change

In a 2019 position paper on climate action, COPA-COGECA states, “European farmers, forest owners and their cooperatives are the first to feel the impact of climate change. Therefore there are no climate change deniers in the European farming community.” The group states that it is “committed to the implementation of the Paris Agreement and support it as an essential part of the European and global political agenda,” and that the “agriculture and forestry sectors are indispensable partners” in achieving the pact’s goals.³²

The position paper also states:³³

“Farmers’ voices need to be heard in public debates in order to put a stop to the distorted picture that is being painted of the sector. No other sector in Europe will be able to remove emissions from the atmosphere naturally, while at the same time supporting the development of a bio-based economy and guaranteeing food security.”

Leaked documents show that in January 2021, COPA COGECA sent MEPs suggested amendments for the Farm to Fork strategy which deleted multiple mentions of the impact agriculture has on climate change. Suggestions included that Parliament should delete a sentence acknowledging that “the food system is responsible for a range of impacts on human and animal health and on the environment, the climate and biodiversity.” It suggested that the Strategy should discuss the need to “amend” rather than the need to “transform” the food system.³⁴ ³⁵

The group promotes the use of pesticides in its 2019 position paper on climate action, stating that “integrated pest management (including being able to rely on the use of authorized plant protection products) is a necessary adaptation measure to ensure food security in situations where diseases and pests are spreading, emerging and jeopardising food production. This includes being able to rely on the use of plant protection products that have been deemed safe by authorities.”³⁶

In a March 2020 position paper, COPA–COGECA argues that the “essential positive role” that agriculture and forests can play in climate policy needs more recognition, stating, “Given the long time lag between political decisions and resulting emission reductions action must be taken now.”³⁷

COPA and COGECA say that agriculture can help tackle climate change because “renewable raw materials are produced on farm (i.e. biomass, biofuel) but also animal manure is used as an organic manure as a substitute of high energy fertilizers.” The group also argues that “heat and power units on horticulture sites use CO2 which is spread over plants in greenhouses to increase plant photosynthesis.”³⁸

COPA-COGECA states on its website that its farmers “have a key role to play in the transition from a fossil-based economy towards a bioeconomy,” and that farmers are committed to championing carbon sequestration.³⁹

In April 2020, COPA–COGECA and other big agri-businesses campaigned for further postponement of the European Commission’s Farm to Fork strategy, which the commission had already delayed due to the coronavirus.⁴⁰ COPA-COGECA has argued for further revising the strategy in light of the Ukraine war.⁴¹

COPA–COGECA has created a standalone website called Farmers ClimAct, which outlines 11 ways in which farmers can “act concretely against the effects of climate change,” including through precision agriculture and regenerative agriculture.⁴²

In an information sheet titled “Crops and climate change,” COPA–COGECA states, “Plant protection products are used today in a highly targeted way, through efficient rather than heavy-handed applications. Because of changing climate conditions, new science-based products and practical applications will be required to fight emerging pests and disease threats” — a key aspect of the arguments for precision agriculture strategies.⁴³

In a tweet to media outlet EURACTIV, COPA–COGECA wrote that “precision farming has many benefits” and that “agriculture data is very valuable.”⁴⁴

In a position paper on climate action, COPA-COGECA states, “Research and innovation should focus on the different carbon sequestration techniques as well as on a common methodology as to how to account sequestered or added carbon in soils and biomasses. Farmers’ and forest owners’ efforts to help other sectors to reduce their emissions must be recognised by policy-makers and society as a whole. This needs to be done in order to maximise the full potential of carbon dioxide reduction from the atmosphere and to mitigate GHG emissions” — a key tenet of arguments for regenerative agriculture practices.⁴⁵

In a May 2021 meeting, COPA-COGECA and other stakeholders — including the Brussels-based trade association CropLife Europe — expressed the view that new genomic techniques for modifying the genetic material of seeds, to make them more resistant to pests and environmental conditions, have the potential to contribute to a more sustainable food system.⁴⁶

COPA-COGECA promoted new genomic techniques as part of EU Farm to Fork in a joint statement with CropLife Europe, Euroseeds, Fertilizers Europe, the Agri-Food Chain Coalition and the European Landowners’ Organization, amongst others. The statement suggested that NGTs could “improve farming resilience naturally through better genetic material.”⁴⁷

According to remarks later tweeted by COPA-COGECA, during a March 2021 webinar on strategies for adaptation to climate change, COPA-COGECA Director of the General Affairs Oana Neagu said: “European agriculture and forestry have significant potential to increase adaptation & mitigation efforts, to reduce emissions, absorb CO2 and boost rural economies in a sustainable manner.”⁴⁸

Role in Pesticides Controversy

Glyphosate

COPA–COGECA regularly teams up with CropLife Europe, formerly the European Crop Protection Association (ECPA), to defend the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and pesticides, according to Corporate Europe Observatory.⁴⁹ In 2014, COPA–COGECA partnered with the CropLife Europe (then the ECPA) and agricultural association Asaja to launch a photo exhibition on the EU’s new Common Agricultural Policy 2014-2020.⁵⁰

COPA–COGECA has lobbied for the reauthorization of glyphosate, the world’s most widely used weed killer.⁵¹ In 2015 the International Agency for Research on Cancer stated glyphosate was “probably carcinogenic to humans.” It is currently authorized for use by the EU through mid-2023, after the period of reassessment was extended beyond December 2022. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), glyphosate is safe when it is used carefully.⁵²

Calling for glyphosate’s reauthorization in 2017, COPA and COGECA Secretary-General Pekka Pesonen said “Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the EU, enabling us to produce safe, affordable, quality food. Its use is also important together with catch crops to prevent soil erosion and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” Pesonen said a ban on glyphosate “could have a negative impact on the environment and climate change.”⁵³

In January 2020, the EPA released a statement that said it had concluded that “there are no risks of concern to human health when glyphosate is used according to the label and that it is not a carcinogen.”⁵⁴

In an April 2021 online event organized via EURACTIV by the Glyphosate Renewal Group,⁵⁵ COPA-COGECA President Pedro Gallardo said: “Farmers are facing pressure regarding the treatment of crops especially with climate change,” adding that the use of glyphosate was “safe, effective and helps implement sustainable practices.”⁵⁶

The organization also shared comments from COPA-COGECA Chair of the Agri-Food Chain Roundtable on Plant Protection Products, Max Schulman, tweeting that Shulman said “I trust the science behind it, Europe takes science based decisions & glyphosate has been valid PPP for years, its been shown there’s no significant harm to neither the consumers nor the soils.”⁵⁷

Lobbying on Farm to Fork

COPA-COGECA has repeatedly lobbied against binding targets in the EU’s Farm to Fork Strategy, which include a 50 percent reduction in the use and risk of chemical pesticides, and a 20 percent reduction in the use of chemical fertilizers by 2050.

The group has called the 2030 targets “over-ambitious and irresponsible.”⁵⁸

In January 2021, COPA-COGECA sent a document of suggested amendments on the Farm to Fork strategy to MEPs, which it proposed that they should make in Parliament.⁵⁹ The leaked document, which was published by Corporate Europe Observatory, showed that the organization deleted suggestions that targets on pesticides, fertilizers and antibiotic use should be translated “into legislation” – i.e., that they should be made legally binding.

Instead, COPA-COGECA suggested that the strategy should acknowledge “that these targets could have significant negative impact on the sustainability of the sector, farmers income and food security and should therefore be subject to an impact assessment prior to setting any targeted reduction.”⁶⁰ ⁶¹

COPA-COGECA has been involved in funding and promoting five industry-funded impact assessments, which have bolstered its claims that Farm to Fork threatens crop yields in the EU.

COPA-COGECA, along with organizations such as Animal Health Europe and the animal breeders’ lobby group EFFAB, funded a study from Wageningen University and Research, initial findings of which were published in October 2021. The study looked at the impact on livestock farmers’ income from Farm to Fork. The assessment found some increases and some decreases in income, depending on the sector, but was never published in full.⁶² One researcher from the University noted that the “results may be more positive than they [Copa-Cogeca] expected.”⁶³

COPA-COGECA promoted the industry studies widely. According to Corporate Europe Observatory, “Copa-Cogeca – in a previously leaked communications strategy – outlined several outreach plans for these impact studies and seemed to have prior knowledge of a ‘package’ of Euractiv articles ‘to explain the common elements between the different impact assessments’.”⁶⁴

During a Euractiv event in October 2021, sponsored by agrochemical giant Corteva, “a Copa-Cogeca lobbyist mentioned the USDA, Kiel, and Wageningen studies with no mention of their industry sponsors, and repeated warnings of drops in production or higher prices,” according to Corporate Europe Observatory.⁶⁵

In September 2021, COPA-COGECA published a press release titled “How many more studies on the impact of Farm to Fork Strategy are needed before a real debate starts in Brussels?” The press release referred to a study funded by The Grain Club, an agribusiness alliance. It stated, “We cannot accept a counterproductive target-oriented approach of F2F.⁶⁶ Media outlet DW pointed out that the press release ignored findings that the changes could lead to significant improvements in farmer income and welfare.⁶⁷ The press release stated that “an official study is still missing,” and that this had “pushed various universities and stakeholders” to assess potential impacts. Corporate Europe Observatory pointed out that “the universities were not “pushed”, they were paid to do these ‘studies’.”⁶⁸ The industry-funded impact assessments have been criticized by scientists and NGOs as “partial and incomplete.”⁶⁹ The studies did not, or only partially, assessed benefits from Farm to Fork targets, and did not look at the impact of taking no action.⁷⁰ Corporate Europe Observatory stated that the studies “were based on assumptions set by their [industry’s] own interests, or even used the opinions of industry as the basis for findings,” and accused industry-groups of using the assessments to “scaremonger.”⁷¹

COPA-COGECA has also lobbied on findings of the long-awaited assessment of the Farm to Fork Strategy released by the EU Commission’s in-house science service in August 2021. Like the industry funded studies, the report predicted significant yield falls as a result of Farm to Fork, but has also been criticized for serious shortcomings. One of the authors of the JCR study themselves claimed that the data did not give a “comprehensive view” of the impacts of Farm to Fork, because it only focused on certain aspects of the strategy.⁷²

In September 2021, in a joint letter with other farming and agribusiness interest groups, COPA-COGECA stated that the Farm to Fork strategy in its current form would “lead to significant drops in production and significant additional costs for producers,” calling the strategy “untenable” for the agri-food and farming sectors.⁷³

In a joint statement released in October 2021, COPA-COGECA and other industry figures said that the assessment showed that Farm to Fork would negatively impact trade, farmers’ incomes and consumer prices.⁷⁴

In an op-ed published in October 2021, representatives from advocacy groups Corporate Europe Observatory, the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC), and the science and policy panel IPES-Food criticized COPA-COGECA and others’ use of the JRC assessment and similar studies to evaluate Farm to Fork, arguing these analyses were “based on models which are ill-suited to evaluating the impacts of transforming our food systems.”⁷⁵

In October 2021, two weeks ahead of the final vote on the European Parliament’s report on the Farm to Fork Strategy, COPA-COGECA, through the Belgian Federation of Agriculture (FWA), sent an email to the entire French-speaking Belgian delegation advocating for radical changes in the report in favor of agri-business, asking the delegation to support the rejection of six out of the 48 amendments being proposed, including the use reduction targets for pesticides and fertilizers.⁷⁶

The documents were leaked by Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO), which also shared COPA-COGECA’s documents and claimed the group was involved in a “coordinated attack” by industrial agri-food lobbies on the EU’s sustainable food policies. Within the document shared by CEO, COPA-COGECA said it believed that reports and studies utilized by the European Commission were not exhaustive, stating: “we believe that it would be interesting to also invite for this hearing researchers from the Wageningen University who are finalising as we speak an impact assessment on the Farm to Fork”.⁷⁷

COPA-COGECA has also joined other trade lobby groups in calling for further impact assessments of Farm to Fork and its measures. In May 2021, COPA-COGECA signed an open letter with many other trade groups, stating: “Without a comprehensive impact assessment, we will not be celebrating the one-year anniversary of the Farm to Fork strategy.” The statement requested: “to have a policy based on concrete data and scientific evidence that is in line with the better regulation principles, not on ideology and political stances,” implying that the current measures were not data-based.⁷⁸

The October 2021 joint statement also concluded with a call for a “comprehensive and cumulative impact assessment conducted by the European Commission [and] based on better data.”⁷⁹

Corporate Europe Observatory has found that agribusiness lobby groups “flooded” the European Commission with similar calls for cumulative impact assessments.⁸⁰ Politico reported that influencing the Commission to provide more impact assessments was “a key lobbying objective of Farm to Fork skeptics.”⁸¹

According to Corporate Europe Observatory, the impact assessments “tend to favour economic factors over social and environmental ones,” adding that these reports are “only delaying progress towards tackling the climate emergency.”⁸²

Lobby groups have suggested that Farm to Fork is a threat to Europe’s international competitiveness. The October 2021 joint statement from CropLife Europe argued that if production decreased “EU imports of agricultural raw materials and ingredients are bound to increase significantly, thus making the EU dependent on imports to feed its population.” It also argued that Europe could become “a net importer of food.”⁸³

The May 2021 joint statement stated that Europe should have “the same level of ambition in the EU internal market vis-à-vis those international trade partners that don’t share the same ambitions.”⁸⁴

Research published in 2021 by IDDRI, INRAE and French University Sciences Po has found that the EU is already a net-importer of calories. The study also found that if greener farming practices were combined with measures such as dietary changes and cutting food waste, Europe could become a net calorie exporter.⁸⁵

Lobbying on Sustainable Use of Pesticides Regulations (SUR)

COPA-COGECA has in particular lobbied against pesticide reduction in the EU.

Between January and October 2021,⁸⁶ ⁸⁷ COPA-COGECA took part in three stakeholder events held by the EU Commission to consult on the EU’s Sustainable Pesticides Directive and possible future revision.⁸⁸

In a presentation during the second stakeholders meeting on June 25, 2021,⁸⁹ a presentation slide used by COPA-COGECA said the European Commission should clarify how the Farm to Fork’s goal to reduce the use of pesticides and fertilizers could be achievable when there is “no mention of a list of ‘credible and realistic alternatives’.”⁹⁰

In the third stakeholders’ meeting on October 5, 2021,⁹¹ a slide from COPA-COGECA’s presentation stated that the pesticides reduction targets “jeopardise the competitiveness of farmers” and that “without effective pesticides producing the right quantity and quality of products is impossible.”⁹²

In June 2022, Investigate Europe published an interview with Pekka Pesonen, secretary general of COPA-COGECA.⁹³ Pesonen stated:

“We supported the Green Deal in general because we recognize the need to produce food in a more sustainable manner. But in order to go for a 50 percent reduction in pesticides, we need alternatives, and more [EU action] in the area of technologies and authorizing. […] how can we reach this target? Especially now, when we are supposed to produce more? […] you can’t ban product unless you have an alternative solution.”

The interview also referenced concerns about yields and impact studies, with Pesonen stating: “We have been calling for a comprehensive impact assessment on the whole Farm to Fork strategy, what are the consequences for output, how will it affect competitiveness and farming income? The Commission has refused. […] According to [studies from] the USDA [US Department of Agriculture], some academics in Europe and also a study that we supported, the income and output will go down, compared to our competitors. We don’t like it.”⁹⁴

In September 2022, FoodIngredientsFirst quoted COPA-COGECA in an article titled “Reviewing pesticide cuts? EU urged to scrap reduction targets or face exacerbating food crisis.”⁹⁵ COPA-COGECA said:

“EU agriculture will severely decline, prices and farmers’ incomes will be profoundly affected and the environmental gain will be very limited due to third country environmental leakage. In addition, the EU’s dependency on food imports will drastically increase and some studies even foresee the EU turning into a food importer.”

COPA-COGECA also stated that the commission should “devise a robust system that neutralizes the aforementioned negative side effects in order to guarantee the competitiveness and robustness of the EU agricultural sector before setting a legally binding targets which, in any case, many not be realistic and could be very detrimental to the continuity of farming activities in the EU.”

According to the article, COPA-COGECA called the 2030 targets “‘over-ambitious and irresponsible’ in the current socio-economic and political context.”⁹⁶

In November 2022, COPA-COGECA signed a letter addressed to Wolfgang Burtscher, Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development in the European Commission regarding SUR. The letter argued: “policy measures need to take into consideration the consequences and downsides of PPPs reduction targets for all actors in the food chain, especially in light of the aftermath of COVID-19, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the effects of climate change.” The letter also argued for: “a comprehensive impact assessment,” “adequate targets that are based on science and feasible for producers,” and “alternatives [to be provided] before withdrawing chemical solutions.”⁹⁷

In December 2022, Member States demanded a reassessment of SUR, in line with industry demands.⁹⁸

In February 2024, President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen announced the withdrawal of the EU-wide pesticides framework (SUR).⁹⁹ Copa-Cogeca congratulated this outcome, saying, on X, that the EU Commission was “finally acknowledging that the approach was not the right one”.¹⁰⁰

Lobbying on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)

Between 2021-23, the EU is revising its Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) – the legislation through which subsidy support is provided to farmers.

The Commission aimed to align the CAP with the Green Deal and Farm to Fork strategies, but NGOs suggest it failed to do so. An analysis by the European Environmental Bureau and BirdLife Europe found that national plans made by member states under CAP “will fail to deliver on European Green Deal environmental and climate objectives.” It assessed 18 out of the 23 plans submitted as of February 2022 as “as either poor or very poor” across a number of environmental indicators, such as space for nature and financial support for climate action.¹⁰¹

Regarding COPA-COGECA’s influence on the CAP, Corporate Europe Observatory wrote in 2020: “For decades, COPA-COGECA and its members have been the unofficial, self-appointed, co-managers of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), together with the European Commission’s DG Agriculture and national agriculture ministries.”¹⁰²

Analysis by Corporate Europe Observatory found that COPA-COGECA and its allies “dominated” DG Agriculture’s Civil Dialogue Groups, which “assist the European Commission and help to hold a regular dialogue on all matters relating to the common agricultural policy (CAP),” according to the Commission.¹⁰³Its delegation held 28 out of 72 seats in one of the groups, and chaired eight out of thirteen of the groups in 2019.¹⁰⁴

As of November 2021, COPA-COGECA was part of multiple European Commission Agriculture civil dialogue groups, where stakeholders meet regularly to discuss how to better implement and design policies within the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).¹⁰⁵ ¹⁰⁶ ¹⁰⁷

In meetings within these expert groups, COPA-COGECA has pointed out the importance of nutrients for plant growth and the importance of sustainable use of fertilizers.¹⁰⁸

COPA-COGECA also pushed for green provisions within CAP to be watered down in light of the war in Ukraine.

In its April 2022 meeting with Europe’s Commissioner for Agriculture Janusz Wojciechowski, it argued that “Certain rules regarding green payments have to be relaxed. Food has to be secured for EU”.¹⁰⁹

During the meeting, members also welcomed the Commission’s decision to relax rules on the use of fallow land for crop production. In March 2022, the EU voted to suspend biodiversity requirements in CAP which specify that all farmers receiving subsidies must dedicate 4 percent of land to non-productive areas such as fallows and hedgerows. BirdLife Europe said that it followed “an assault” by COPA-COGECA and its French member FNSEA against Farm to Fork.¹¹⁰

Lobbying on Ukraine war and food security

COPA-COGECA has repeatedly called for delays and amendments to EU Farm to Fork in light of the war in Ukraine.

In April 2022, COPA-COGECA met with Europe’s Commissioner for Agriculture Janusz Wojciechowski. According to minutes from the meeting, the group expressed “discontent” over the Agriculture Commission’s “insistence on the Green Deal” – Europe’s flagship initiative to reduce emissions within the union. COPA-COGECA told the Commissioner that “the F2F strategy needs to be revised and farmers should be subjected to fewer conditions” as a result of the war. The organization also argued that “certain rules regarding green payments have to be relaxed. Food has to be secured for EU.”¹¹¹

In his June 2022 interview with Investigate Europe, Pekka Pesonen stated regarding the target for 50 percent pesticide reduction: “With the recent crisis [blocked wheat exports from Ukraine due to Russia’s war] we have to secure European food supplies.”¹¹² He referenced the fact that the “bigger impact will be in third countries,” but also mentioned “political consequences” of this for Europe. “The last time this happened, we had the Arab Spring. Remember 2015, we had 1.5 million refugees coming [to Europe] from mainly northern Africa and Syria, and it became a major existential crisis for the union,” he said.

Asked about the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Regulation (the EU’s strategy for implementing more sustainable pesticide use), he stated, “the Commission may seem out of touch with normal citizens if it pushes a progressive agenda at a time of crisis.”¹¹³

COPA-COGECA’s arguments appeared to gain traction amongst policymakers. In October 2022, the Chair of the EU’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development wrote to the Commissioner for Health and Food Safety, requesting that she re-assess the impact of the revision of the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive, in light of the Ukraine war. The Sustainable Use Revision will translate the Farm to Fork targets on pesticides into legislation.

The letter stated: “The profound changes thereto brought about by the COVID 19 pandemic, the resurgent inflation and the war in Ukraine are ignored, as are the effects of drought and climate change on agricultural productions.”¹¹⁴

In July 2022, EUObserver reported that COPA-COGECA had “actively promoted” demands from the center-right party in the European Parliament, the EPP, demanding a “regulatory moratorium” to support business in the wake of the Ukraine invasion.¹¹⁵

In July 2022, COPA COGECA welcomed a decision by the European Commission’s DG Trade to suspend conventional tariffs for certain fertilizers, including urea and anhydrous ammonia. According to an article by Euractiv, COPA-COGECA “called on the Commission to “follow its logic to the end” by also suspending conventional duties on key fertilisers used directly by farmers and anti-dumping measures on UAN imports from Trinidad and Tobago and USA. “Only such an ambitious measure could make those markets more dynamic and bring down the prices paid by farmers in the long term,” the association said in a statement.”¹¹⁶

In November 2022, the Commission announced its plans to address the fertilizer crisis, which did not include an end to anti-dumping measures. COPA-COGECA denounced the plan, saying that it “simply does not address the short-term challenges” and puts the “viability of many farms at risk.”¹¹⁷

European Environmental Bureau (EEB), an environmental campaign group, criticized the plans for prioritizing “short-term benefits of the increased use of harmful synthetic fertilisers,” and accused the Commission of “support[ing] the interests of industry rather than focusing on the urgently needed cuts to the EU’s excessive use of nutrients.”¹¹⁸

Funding

The annual cost of COGECA’s lobbying activities disclosed on the EU transparency register was between €700,000 – 799,999 in 2021. COPA has not provided an updated figure for 2021. Its costs were €800,000 – 899,999 in 2020. Neither organization received funding from the EU institutions in 2020-21.¹¹⁹ ¹²⁰

The annual cost of COPA and COGECA’s lobbying activities in 2019 was between €1,500,000 and €1,749,999 for each organization.¹²¹

The annual cost of COPA’s lobbying activities disclosed on the EU transparency register was between €1,000,000 – €1,249,999 in 2018. COGECA’s lobbying costs were listed as between €1,000,000 – €1,249,999 in 2018. Neither organization received funding from the EU institutions during the 2019 – 2020 financial year.¹²² ¹²³

Lobbying

COPA-COGECA advises the European Commission through membership of multiple expert and advisory groups. COPA is a member or observer of 39 groups, and COGECA is a member or observer of 35, according to the European Transparency Register. The organization advises on everything from food security to biodiversity and zero pollution.¹²⁴ ¹²⁵

A report published by InfluenceMap in October 2022 rated a number of associations on the intensity of their lobbying engagement and the extent to which they opposed biodiversity legislation. COPA-COGECA was one of two groups “found to be the most highly engaged across a range of biodiversity-related policy.” It was also found to largely oppose measures to protect biodiversity, receiving a score of 27 percent, where scores below 50 indicated increasing opposition toward biodiversity-related policy.¹²⁶

A New York Times article in 2019 described COPA–COGECA’s relationship with European leaders as a “special access that would make others swoon”. The article went on to state: “Before meetings of European farm ministers, for example, the council president grants a private audience to COPA–COGECA. That lets farm lobbyists — and only farm lobbyists — make their views heard before key decisions are made.” The European Commission has formed a group with staff members from COPA–COGECA and Bayer called the Young Food Policy Network, which hosts social events for government and business officials to network, the New York Times reported.¹²⁷

According to European lobbying records COPA contributed to the public consultation of the 2030 Climate Target Plan between 31 March 2020 – 23 June 2020. It also contributed to the consultation on the European Climate Pact.¹²⁸ ¹²⁹ ¹³⁰

In its official position paper from 2000, COPA–COGECA said it wished to be consulted by the Commission in the forthcoming EU-activities (European Climate Change Programme) as it understands “the need of in-depth papers for both sectors, forestry and agriculture, to illustrate the positive role they can play in the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol”.¹³¹

It urged the European Union to consider “forest and agricultural products” as long-term carbon sinks when preparing the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, agreed by nations in 1997 to tackle climate change, as well as the use of wood and farm products as environmental materials and renewable energy sources.

In January 2021, Corporate Observatory Europe leaked documents that included suggested amendments from COPA-COGECA for the EU’s Farm to Fork Strategy, which the group sent to MEPs. This included a document extract suggesting that COPA-COGECA had proposed to remove a reference to introduce binding legislation to reduce the use of pesticides and fertilizers.¹³²

In response to CEO’s report, COPA-COGECA shared an open letter that rejected CEO’s claims and accused the advocacy group of using “clichés” and a “dogmatic approach.”¹³³

In June 2021, EURACTIV reported that a decision by the Portuguese rotating EU presidency to exclusively invite COPA-COGECA to an informal gathering of EU agriculture ministers had raised concern among other agricultural stakeholders and civil society groups, with one calling the decision to only invite industry representatives to the informal talks “indefensible”.

Responding to the article in EURACTIV, the secretary-general of COPA-COGECA, Pekka Pesonen, told EURACTIV he believed it was “well justified” to invite the group, alongside the young farmer’s association CEJA, to discussions about major EU policy decisions that have an impact on farmers’ livelihoods.¹³⁴

In January 2022, DeSmog revealed that both COPA and COGECA marked their status as “non-commercial” when asked in September 2021 to re-enter details for the EU’s new transparency register, meaning they are no longer required to publish the budget used to lobby policymakers, despite collectively spending at least €8.5 million lobbying EU policy-makers between 2011 and 2019. Along with other “non-commercial” organizations, COPA and COGECA now only declare their overall annual budget, with no breakdown of spending. The EU decided to investigate after campaigners at transparency advocacy group Corporate Europe Observatory filed a formal complaint in December 2021.¹³⁵

In June 2022, Reuters reported that lawmakers had been flooded with emails and requests from lobby groups in carbon-intensive industries before the vote on EU’s climate change policies in the European Parliament, including from COPA-COGECA. The group said the Fit for 55 proposal was “too ambitious,” and would create an “additional burden” on agriculture. Furthermore, COPA-COGECA was concerned with losing free CO2 permits too soon, fearing increased costs for goods such as fertilizers, which were becoming more expensive due to the current geopolitical situation, according to Reuters.¹³⁶

Affiliations

In 2021, COPA stated on its website that it had 60 full members from the EU Member States, as well as 36 partner organizations.¹³⁷ COGECA said that it had 35 full members from the EU Member States, four affiliated members and 36 partner organizations.¹³⁸

The UK’s National Farmers Union is a partner organization of COPA,¹³⁹ but was formerly classified as a “member.”¹⁴⁰

Bayer formed the Young Food Policy Network with farmers associations COPA–COGECA.¹⁴¹

COPA-COGECA is a member of the Agri-food Chain Coalition (AFCC), a joint initiative including 12 leading industry associations working in agribusiness and food, including CropLife Europe and Fertilizers Europe.¹⁴²

Corteva links

In 2019, COPA–COGECA defended the interests of agricultural and chemical company Corteva after the EU’s ban on two disputed pesticides — chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos-methyl — asking for a “sufficient grace period” for producers, like Corteva, to make a transition away from the usage of the pesticides.¹⁴³

In October 2019, Corteva took part in an event organized by COPA–COGECA that aimed to celebrate and discuss issues related to women in agriculture.¹⁴⁴ The union also worked with Corteva to produce a short film that promoted the event and the two organizations’ work.¹⁴⁵

In 2019, COPA–COGECA and the Danish Agriculture and Food Council held the 39th edition of the North America-EU agriculture conference in Copenhagen. The event was supported by Corteva and was held to discuss the future of the transatlantic agriculture sector.¹⁴⁶

In October 2021, a representative of COPA-COGECA took part in an event organized by Corteva and hosted by EURACTIV regarding the “challenge of food security.”¹⁴⁷