Reading Hungary
Manufacturing’s new geography
parallax background

For the EU, agriculture is an afterthought

No candidates have been nominated for chair of the EP’s agriculture committee

July 22, 2024

6 min read

July 22, 2024

6 min read

Of the nearly 400 million eligible voters in the European Union, only about nine million work directly in agriculture. Yet, in a pivotal year marked by widespread farmer protests in 23 of the 27 EU nations, a delay in announcing candidates for the European Parliament’s agriculture committee raises critical questions about representation and policy impact.

Did the voices of these nine million voters truly resonate if their sector’s leadership remains vacant? This anomaly not only highlights systemic challenges within EU governance but also underscores broader concerns about democratic accountability and effective policymaking.

As Europe navigates complex agricultural and environmental issues, ensuring that every vote and every voice counts becomes not just a matter of policy, but a test of democratic integrity and responsiveness.

What are they protesting against?

In 2024, European farmers have staged widespread protests fuelled by both national grievances and shared concerns. In Germany, outrage erupted over plans to phase out tax credits for agricultural diesel, while the Netherlands faced demands to cut nitrogen emissions. These issues, alongside challenges like competing against cheap imports and a subsidy system favouring large enterprises under the EU’s Green Deal, sparked protests across Poland, France, and Belgium.

Meanwhile, German farmers protested equipment taxes, and in Romania and Greece, discontent focused on EU agricultural policy taxes. Rising production costs due to increased energy, fertiliser, and transport prices compounded frustrations exacerbated by measures to suppress food prices amid inflation, making cheap imports more appealing. Strict EU regulations further strain farmers, driving up costs and hindering competition against less-regulated imports.

In Eastern Europe, removal of quotas and taxes on Ukrainian imports created economic disparities, while weather extremes like Spain’s irrigation issues and Greek fires and droughts intensified farmers’ challenges. This crisis has widened the gap between farmers and EU officials, who farmers feel are not adequately addressing their concerns amid climate change impacts.

EU policy problems

Farmers argue that the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), with its 55 billion euros annual subsidy system, favours the establishment of large farms and corporations over supporting individual farmers. They believe this policy has contributed to a significant decline in the number of farmers in the EU, which has dropped by over a third since 2005.

The situation is further exacerbated by the regulations outlined in the EU’s Green Deal, a key initiative of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen aimed at achieving climate neutrality by 2050. The targets include halving pesticide use by 2030, reducing fertiliser use by 20 per cent, repurposing more land for non-agricultural uses, and doubling organic production on 25 per cent of the EU’s agricultural land.

Farmers contend that existing EU regulations, such as those governing irrigation systems and animal welfare, are already interpreted too strictly. They argue that the new green initiatives are unfair and unrealistic, placing an additional burden on their livelihoods.

Solutions are already on the table, such as the Climate and Freedom Accord, a manifesto of policies marrying environmentalism with basic considerations for the wellbeing of farmers and their customers. Sadly, despite farmer protests, these ideas mostly sit untouched on the shelf, ignored by Brussels lawmakers.

Having said that, protests across Europe have already produced some results in forcing policy U-turns from the EU. According to President von der Leyen, the commission will withdraw the initiative on pesticides and work on an alternative project. It has also temporarily suspended the initiative to set aside land to encourage biodiversity.

In response to protests about Ukrainian products, the EU has proposed reducing imports and allowing only limited quantities. Additionally, the European Commission has removed the requirement to reduce greenhouse gases by 30 per cent by 2040, in which the agricultural sector was expected to play a significant role.

Several member states have also taken action. The German government intends to continue subsidising diesel fuel and machinery for farmers, albeit for a certain period. Greece will extend tax relief on agricultural diesel for one year. France’s newly appointed prime minister, Gabriel Atal, has pledged to defend “food sovereignty” and increase controls on food imports to prevent unfair competition.

A hollow promise?

The recent European parliamentary elections, while not directly resolving the immediate concerns of farmers awaiting decisive action on agricultural policies, were closely watched within the farming community.

With a significant shift towards right-wing parties across Europe, including some that have expressed scepticism towards stringent environmental regulations like the Green Deal, many farmers anticipated potential shifts in EU policies affecting their livelihoods. However, the outcome of these elections did not provide immediate clarity on the future direction of agricultural policy, leaving farmers to continue navigating uncertainties surrounding issues such as market access, subsidy reforms, and environmental regulations.

Despite these actions and reassurances, the announcement of candidates to lead the agriculture committee has taken too long, suggesting these issues are too far down the EU’s priorities list. How committed is Brussels to addressing the agricultural sector’s issues? Bureaucratic inertia has taken hold, casting doubts on the EU’s agility and effectiveness in addressing pressing agricultural concerns.

Analysing the current state of EU agrifood policies reveals persistent gaps between policy intentions and practical outcomes. Recent protests from farmers across Europe underscore deep-seated concerns over the impact of EU policies, including the Green Deal, on agricultural practices. Issues such as competition from cheaper imports, bureaucratic complexities within the CAP, and rising production costs continue to challenge farmers.

While there have been adjustments, such as revisiting pesticide regulations and addressing market imbalances, farmers remain sceptical about the EU’s ability to deliver substantial change. Christiane Lambert, president of COPA, Europe’s largest farmers’ association, emphasises the pivotal role that food and farming now play on the political agenda, especially following recent crises like the pandemic and the Ukrainian conflict.

Looking ahead, the EU’s ability to fulfil its promises hinges on bridging these divides between policy aspirations and practical realities. The upcoming mandate offers an opportunity to recalibrate agrifood policies, ensuring they not only meet environmental goals but also support the economic viability and resilience of European farmers. This requires cohesive strategies that align regulatory frameworks with the practical needs of farmers, while fostering fair and competitive market environments.

As the EU grapples with these challenges, addressing concerns raised by Lambert and others will be pivotal in securing a sustainable and equitable future for European agriculture. The absence of decisive action on key agricultural issues, exemplified by the delay in announcing candidates for agriculture committee chair, underscores the urgency for effective policy implementation and responsive governance in the EU’s agricultural sector.

Lika Kobeshavidze

Lika Kobeshavidze

Georgian political writer and fellow with Young Voices Europe, specialising in EU policy and regional security in Europe.

Share

Case study: Global technology company

1. The Client

A global technology company operating across EMEA, with a regional HQ in Istanbul. The company manages 20+ markets, handling everything from brand campaigns to strategic partnerships.

Role we worked with: The EMEA Head of Marketing (supported by two regional managers).

2. The Challenge

Despite strong products and a respected global brand, the regional team was struggling with:

  • Misaligned strategy across markets → campaigns executed with inconsistent narratives.
  • Slowed growth → lead generation plateaued despite increasing spend.
  • Internal friction → marketing, sales, and product teams disagreed on KPIs and priorities.

Traditional fixes (more meetings, more reporting) only created more noise.

3. The Sprint

We ran a 10-day Remote Reinvention Sprint with the regional HQ team.

  • Day 1–3: Intake → Reviewed decks, campaign data, and plans.
  • Day 4: Sprint Session (90 mins) → Breakthroughs:
    • Sales and marketing had different definitions of “qualified lead.”
    • 40% of spend was going into low-potential markets.
    • The team assumed the problem was lack of budget, but it was actually lack of alignment.
  • Day 5–10: Synthesis → Insights distilled into a Clarity Brief + Insight Canvas.
4. The Breakthrough

The Sprint uncovered that the issue wasn’t budget, but fragmentation.
Three sharp insights unlocked a way forward:

  1. Unified KPIs bridging marketing + sales.
  2. Market prioritisation → shifting budget to 5 high-potential markets.
  3. Simplified narrative → one EMEA core story, locally adaptable.
By just realigning resources and focus, the client could unlock an estimated £250,000 in efficiency gains within the next 12 months — far exceeding the Sprint’s value guarantee. The path to higher returns was already inside the business, hidden by misalignment.
5. From Sprint to Action (4 Pillars Applied)

With clarity secured, Reinvantage didn’t suggest “more projects.”

Instead, we used the Sprint findings to create laser-focused next steps — drawing only from the areas that would deliver the most impact:

  • Readiness → Alignment workshops for sales + marketing teams. New playbooks clarified “qualified lead” definitions and reduced internal disputes.
  • Foresight → A market-opportunity scan identified which 5 countries would deliver the highest ROI, removing the guesswork from allocation.
  • Growth → Guided the reallocation of €2M budget and designed a phased rollout strategy that protected risk while maximising return.
  • Positioning → Built a messaging framework balancing global consistency with local nuance, ensuring campaigns spoke with one clear voice.

Because the Sprint had stripped away noise, these actions weren’t generic consulting ideas — they were directly tied to the breakthroughs.

6. The Results
  • +28% increase in qualified leads across the region.
  • 30% faster campaign rollout due to streamlined approvals.
  • Budget efficiency gains → €2M redirected from low-return to high-potential markets.
  • Internal cohesion → marketing + sales now use a single shared dashboard.
The client came in believing they needed more budget.
The Sprint revealed that what they really needed was clarity and alignment.

With that clarity, the four pillars became not theory, but practical tools to deliver measurable impact.

The Sprint guaranteed at least £20,000 in value — but in this case, it helped unlock more than 10x that within six months.

Case study: Regional VC fund & accelerator

1. The Client

A regional venture capital fund and accelerator focused on early-stage tech start-ups in the Baltics and Central Europe.

The fund had raised a new round and was under pressure to deliver stronger returns while also building its reputation as the go-to platform for founders.

Role we worked with: Managing Partner, supported by the Head of Portfolio Development.

2. The Challenge

Despite a promising portfolio, results were uneven.

Key issues:

  • Scattered portfolio support → no consistent playbook for start-ups, every partner did things differently.
  • Weak differentiation → founders and co-investors saw the fund as “one of many” in the region.
  • Stretched team → too many small bets, not enough clarity on which companies to double down on.

The leadership team knew something was off, but disagreed on whether the issue was pipeline quality, market conditions, or internal capacity.

3. The Sprint

We ran a 10-day Remote Reinvention Sprint with the partners and portfolio team.

  • Day 1–3: Intake → Reviewed pitch decks, pipeline funnel data, and start-up performance reports.
  • Day 4: Sprint Session (90 mins) → Breakthroughs:
    • No shared definition of a “high-potential founder.”
    • Support resources were spread too thin across the portfolio.
    • The fund’s positioning was more reactive than proactive — it didn’t own a distinctive narrative in the market.
  • Day 5–10: Synthesis → Insights consolidated into a Clarity Brief + Insight Canvas.
4. The Breakthrough

The Sprint revealed that the challenge wasn’t pipeline quality — it was lack of focus and positioning.

Three core insights provided the turning point:

  1. Portfolio Prioritisation Framework → defined clear criteria for where to double down.
  2. Founder Success Playbook → standardised support model for portfolio companies.
  3. Differentiated Narrative → repositioned the fund as “the accelerator of reinvention-ready founders.”
These shifts alone gave the fund a path to add an estimated £2M+ in portfolio value over the following 18 months, by concentrating capital and resources where they could move the needle most.
5. From Sprint to Action (4 Pillars Applied)

With clarity from the Sprint, Reinvantage created a tailored support plan:

  • Readiness → Coached partners on using the new prioritisation framework and trained the team on deploying the Founder Success Playbook.
  • Foresight → Ran scenario analysis on regional tech trends, helping the fund anticipate where capital would flow next.
  • Growth → Guided resource reallocation across the portfolio and supported new co-investor pitches for top-performing start-ups.
  • Positioning → Crafted a sharper brand story for the fund, positioning it as the reinvention partner for globally minded founders.
6. The Results
  • 10 portfolio companies onboarded to the new Playbook → greater consistency of support.
  • Raised follow-on capital for 3 top start-ups with the new prioritisation framework.
  • +26% increase in inbound deal flow from founders citing the fund’s new positioning.
  • Stronger internal cohesion → partners aligned on where to focus resources.
The client thought the problem was pipeline quality.
The Sprint showed it was actually lack of clarity and focus inside the firm.

By applying the four pillars, Reinvantage helped turn scattered effort into concentrated value creation.

The Sprint guaranteed at least £20,000 in value; here it set the stage for multi-million-pound upside in portfolio growth.

Case study: International impact Organisation

1. The Client

A large international impact organisation focused on entrepreneurship and economic empowerment.
The organisation runs multi-country programmes across Eastern Europe and Central Asia, often in partnership with global donors and corporate sponsors.

Role we worked with: Senior Programme Director, responsible for regional coordination.

2. The Challenge

The organisation had launched a flagship regional initiative supporting women entrepreneurs, but the programme was underperforming.

Key issues:

  • Fragmented delivery → each country office interpreted the programme differently.
  • Donor frustration → reporting lacked consistency and clear impact metrics.
  • Lost momentum → staff energy was spent on administration rather than scaling success stories.

Traditional programme reviews had produced long reports, but no real alignment or action.

3. The Sprint

We ran a 10-day Remote Reinvention Sprint with the regional leadership team and representatives from two country offices.

  • Day 1–3: Intake → Reviewed donor reports, programme KPIs, and field feedback.
  • Day 4: Sprint Session (90 mins) → Breakthroughs:
    • Donors cared about quantifiable outcomes, but reporting focused on stories.
    • Staff were duplicating efforts across countries, wasting time and resources.
    • The initiative lacked a clear theory of change — everyone described its purpose differently.
  • Day 5–10: Synthesis → Insights distilled into a Clarity Brief + Insight Canvas.
4. The Breakthrough

The Sprint revealed that the issue wasn’t donor pressure or programme design — it was a lack of shared framework and alignment.

Three critical insights reshaped the path forward:

  1. One Unified Theory of Change → agreed narrative for why the programme exists.
  2. Core Impact Metrics → clear, comparable KPIs across all countries.
  3. Smart Resource Sharing → digital hub to stop duplication and accelerate knowledge flow.
By eliminating duplicated reporting and clarifying what success looks like, the client saw they could save the equivalent of £100,000 in staff time annually — while also unlocking stronger donor confidence and follow-on funding opportunities.
5. From Sprint to Action (4 Pillars Applied)

Armed with Sprint clarity, Reinvantage proposed a laser-focused support plan:

  • Readiness → Trained programme leads on using the new metrics and integrated them into existing workflows.
  • Foresight → Analysed donor trends and expectations, aligning the initiative with the next funding cycle.
  • Growth → Developed a funding case based on the new unified theory of change, securing higher renewal chances.
  • Positioning → Crafted a regional success narrative and storytelling toolkit, helping them showcase results consistently across markets.
6. The Results
  • 30% less time spent on reporting → freed capacity for programme delivery.
  • Donor satisfaction improved → positive feedback on the clarity of impact evidence.
  • Secured new funding commitment → one major donor increased their contribution by 20%.
  • Stronger internal morale → staff felt they were working with clarity, not chaos.
The client thought it needed better donor management.
The Sprint revealed it needed a shared foundation across its teams.

By anchoring on the four pillars, Reinvantage turned alignment into efficiency gains and fresh funding opportunities.

The Sprint guaranteed at least £20,000 in value; here it unlocked both six-figure savings and future-proofed funding.

Case study: National digital development agency

1. The Client

A national digital development agency tasked with driving the government’s digital transformation agenda, including e-services, citizen portals, and smart city pilots.

Role we worked with: Director of Digital Transformation, supported by IT and service delivery leads from three ministries.

2. The Challenge

The agency had strong political backing but faced hurdles in implementation.

Key issues:

  • Siloed projects → each ministry developed digital tools independently, leading to duplication.
  • Citizen frustration → services were digital in name, but still required multiple logins and offline steps.
  • Funding pressure → international partners demanded clearer impact in the short term.

The agency wanted to accelerate momentum but struggled to get alignment across ministries.

3. The Sprint

We ran a 14-day Immersive Reinvention Sprint with the agency’s leadership and digital focal points from three ministries.

  • Day 1–3: Intake → Reviewed strategy docs, donor reports, and citizen feedback data.
  • Day 4: Immersive Sprint Session (half-day) → Breakthroughs:
    • Each ministry had different definitions of “digital service.”
    • 20% of budget was going into overlapping pilot projects.
    • Citizens’ top frustrations were known — but not prioritised.
  • Day 5–14: Synthesis → Insights consolidated into a Clarity Brief + Insight Canvas.
4. The Breakthrough

The Sprint revealed that the biggest blocker wasn’t lack of funding, but lack of shared priorities.

Three practical insights stood out:

  1. One Definition of Digital Service → agreed across ministries.
  2. Quick-Win Prioritisation → focus on top 3 citizen pain points (ID renewal, business registration, healthcare booking).
  3. Shared Resource Map → pool budgets to eliminate duplication.
These changes alone allowed the agency to unlock £75,000 in immediate savings and deliver 2–3 visible improvements in the next quarter — meeting donor expectations and building citizen trust.
5. From Sprint to Action (4 Pillars Applied)

Based on the Sprint clarity, Reinvantage proposed a modest, targeted package of support:

  • Readiness → Facilitated inter-ministerial workshops to embed the “one digital service” definition.
  • Foresight → Analysed citizen feedback trends to shape the quick-win roadmap.
  • Growth → Supported the reallocation of funds to joint projects, reducing overlap.
  • Positioning → Crafted a communication plan highlighting early digital wins to donors and citizens.
6. The Results
  • 2 pilot services integrated into the central portal (ID renewal + healthcare booking).
  • Budget savings of £75,000 from eliminating overlapping projects.
  • Citizen satisfaction up modestly → call centre complaints on digital services dropped by 12%.
  • Donor confidence improved → short-term impact report received positive feedback.
The client thought it needed more funding and bigger projects.
The Sprint revealed it first needed clarity and alignment.

By applying the four pillars to a targeted scope, Reinvantage helped deliver visible results within a single quarter — proving progress to citizens and donors and laying the groundwork for deeper transformation.