Rethinking Agricultural Markets: Insights from the International Conference of Researchers and Farmers
As the European Union moves toward the next phase of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for 2027-2034, questions about market regulation, food sovereignty, and sustainability have never been more urgent. The International Conference of Researchers and Farmers, held on March 3-4, 2025, in Brussels, brought together key actors from across the international food system—farmers, researchers, and policymakers—to tackle these pressing issues.
Against the backdrop of climate change, rising social inequalities, and increasing corporate control over agriculture, the conference was not just a space for discussion but a crucial moment to rethink in which direction European agricultural policies should evolve. The need for fair prices, resilient food systems, and sustainable farming was at the heart of every debate, as participants sought to develop concrete proposals to shape the debate around the CAP reform in the coming months.
Key Plenary Discussions: Core Takeaways
The Future of CAP: Between Reform and Status Quo
Debates centred on whether the CAP should prioritize price regulation over subsidies, with Christophe Hansen, European Commissioner for Agriculture, opening the plenary by urging dialogue between institutions and farmers, signalling institutional unease after the heated 2024 protests. On the other end, he set the tone by emphasizing the growing role of private insurance and capital in the future of European farming, due to climate change and geopolitical instability. His core message was clear: public resources for risk management are likely to shrink, and farmers must prepare for a shift toward private-sector solutions. Paola Laini, a prominent advocate for small farmers in ECVC, countered Hansen’s argument by insisting that fair farm prices must be ensured before subsidies—or private insurance—are even discussed. She argued that without robust price regulation, farmers would remain vulnerable to market volatility, regardless of the risk management tools available. Laini’s response underscored a fundamental divide in the debate: while Hansen’s vision leaned on market-driven solutions, she called for structural reforms that prioritize fairness and stability over privatization. Her stance resonated strongly with small-scale farmers, who see price regulation as a lifeline in an increasingly precarious agricultural landscape. Aurélie Catallo, who leads the France “Agricultural and Food Policies” program at the IDDRI (Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations), painted a vivid picture of the tension at the heart of CAP reform: the push for maintaining the status quo by large-scale agribusiness and agricultural ministries versus the clear need for structural change to address the dual challenges of competitiveness and sustainability. She described the situation as inherently contradictory, warning that not all stakeholders can be satisfied in the next CAP. Choices will have to be made, and some will inevitably be disappointed. Catallo argued that risk management and crisis management should form the core of the next CAP, as these areas could serve as common ground among diverging interests. She also highlighted the EU’s dependence on imports, noting that 7% of the EU’s calories are imported, particularly nitrogen, underscoring the need to strengthen circularity and diversity at both farm and territorial levels. Market regulation, she stressed, is crucial to achieving these goals. However, she cautioned that any meaningful reform would require building a majority in the EU Council to prioritize resilience and sustainability over short-term economic gains. Ibrahim Sidibé, farmer and executive director of the Centre for Agriculture and Rural Development in Mali (CARD), brought a critical global perspective to the discussion, emphasizing the far-reaching effects of EU policies on West African agricultural sectors. He agreed with Commissioner Hansen on the pressure exerted by external forces but pointed out that, for West African producers, the primary pressure comes not from China or the USA but from the EU itself. Sidibé highlighted how small-scale producers in Mali and neighbouring countries, who grow traditional crops like cotton, peanuts, and sesame, face significant barriers to accessing EU markets due to stringent standards and regulations. These barriers, he argued, perpetuate a colonial dynamic, where African farmers are locked into producing raw materials but are excluded from the value chains that could bring them economic stability and independence. His remarks underscored the need for the EU to consider the global implications of its agricultural policies and to ensure that its pursuit of sustainability does not come at the expense of farmers in the Global South. The opening plenary also tackled fair prices and market regulation, revealing deep challenges in agricultural price formation. It has been stressed how financial speculation and geopolitical instability distort farm prices, The discussion underscored that farmers must reclaim power in value chains to secure fairer prices, with participants emphasizing the need for stronger market regulation and collective bargaining strategies.
Workshops: Expanding the Debate
The workshops at the conference provided a unique space for farmers, researchers, and activists to exchange ideas, share experiences, and collectively explore policy solutions. Unlike the broad discussions in the plenary sessions, these smaller, interactive gatherings allowed participants to focus on specific challenges and opportunities within agricultural markets and food systems.
The workshops were organized around four main topics: Fair Incomes for Farmers: Market Regulation vs. Subsidies; Food Affordability and Market Power; Revitalizing Rural Areas and Generational Renewal; Agroecology and Food Sovereignty: Scaling Local Initiatives.
The first major topic explored was the issue of fair incomes for farmers. During the workshops discussions revolved around the ongoing debate between market price support and direct subsidies. Participants examined case studies from Norway and Canada, highlighting how supply management systems can help stabilize prices and prevent overproduction. The dairy sector was particularly scrutinized, with farmers and researchers reflecting on how past EU policy reforms have affected milk producers and what lessons could be drawn for future regulations. New economic models were also debated, including the possibility of linking farm payments to sustainability practices, ensuring that farmers who adopt environmentally friendly approaches are adequately compensated.
The second key focus was food affordability and market power. Here participants tackled the growing influence of large retailers and corporate interests in shaping food prices. The role of unfair trading practices was a major concern, with discussions emphasizing the need for stronger regulation of supermarket supply chains. Organic and sustainable food pricing also emerged as a crucial issue, with conversations on how to make such products more accessible to a wider public while still ensuring that farmers receive fair compensation. Solidarity-based food security models were presented as potential alternatives, with examples of local procurement programs and food voucher systems that aim to support both small-scale farmers and low-income consumers.
The third challenge of revitalizing rural areas and ensuring generational renewal was another critical topic. With an ageing farming population and increasing barriers to land access, the workshops explored possible policy interventions to encourage young people to enter the sector. Participants discussed cooperative land ownership models and public land policies designed to make farmland more accessible. Digital agriculture and technological innovations were critically debated, particularly in terms of their real potential to attract younger generations while safeguarding traditional knowledge. Gender disparities in agriculture were also brought to light, with conversations on how to better support women farmers and ensure their equal participation in decision-making processes.
Lastly, the workshops addressed agroecology and food sovereignty, focusing on how to scale up successful local initiatives and integrate them into broader policymaking. Case studies from Southern Europe and Latin America demonstrated how farmer-led movements are advancing agroecological practices despite political and economic obstacles. The potential for community-supported agriculture (CSA) models to expand beyond niche markets was explored, alongside discussions on the role of municipal food policies in supporting local food sovereignty and reducing dependence on global supply chains.
Throughout these discussions, one theme remained constant: the need for policies that reflect the realities of those working the land. The workshops reinforced the idea that agricultural policy cannot be dictated solely by market forces or top-down decision-making. Instead, it must rise from the people working in the sector and be shaped through inclusive dialogue, with farmers and local food system actors at the forefront of decision-making processes.
Final plenaries
International Trade and Food Sovereignty
The final plenary session on International Trade and Food Sovereignty brought together a diverse panel of experts to explore the complex relationship between global trade policies and the pursuit of food sovereignty. Moderated by Roos Saat, a farmer and member of ECVC and Toekomstboeren in the Netherlands, the discussion highlighted the tensions between international trade agreements and farmers’ rights to control their food systems. Françoise Gérard, economist from CIRAD in France, emphasized the negative impact of international trade on small-scale farmers, particularly in the Global South, where market liberalization often undermines local food systems. Natalia Mamonova, senior researcher at the RURALIS Institute in Norway, pointed to the protests by Central and Eastern European farmers against the influx of Ukrainian grain, illustrating how trade policies can destabilize local markets and provoke social unrest. Sophia Murphy, executive director of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy in the USA, questioned the role of international trade in achieving food sovereignty, arguing that current trade frameworks prioritize corporate interests over the needs of farmers and their communities. Finally, Morgan Ody, global coordinator of La Via Campesina, called for an alternative trade framework rooted in food sovereignty, emphasizing the importance of local production, fair prices, and the rights of small-scale farmers. The session underscored the urgent need to rethink global trade policies to ensure they support, rather than undermine, the transition to sustainable and equitable food systems.
Public Stockholding and Market Stability
The most compelling plenary sessions focused on the role of public food reserves in stabilizing markets and ensuring food security and fair prices.
A striking example came from India, where the COVID-19 pandemic exposed the dangers of agricultural liberalization. Chukki Nanjundaswamy, farmer and president of the farmer organisation Amrita Bhoomi School in Panjub stated that without sufficient public stockholding, prices fluctuated wildly, leaving farmers vulnerable and triggering massive protests. Although India has a Minimum Support Price (MSP) system, it remains largely ineffective because there are too few procurement centres to make it a reality for all farmers. Interestingly, Indian farmer organizations, as she said, view Spain’s price regulation laws as a potential model, demonstrating how policy lessons can travel across continents.
Thomas Patriota, head of international affairs of the Ministry of agrarian development in Brazil, presented case examples on public stockholding in Brazil, showing how government programs purchase surplus maize at controlled prices and redistribute it at lower rates to small-scale livestock farmers. He also highlighted food procurement programs that purchase directly from family farmers to supply schools and social initiatives, strengthening both price stability and food security. However, there is an ongoing debate within BRICS states over whether stockholding policies could lead to long-term food price inflation.
Olivier De Schutter, UN Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty, provided a historical overview of price volatility in agricultural markets. He explained how market liberalization in the 1980s dismantled public stockholding mechanisms, only for governments to reconsider interventionist policies after the 2007-2008 food crisis. He outlined different stockholding models, from emergency reserves to price stabilization buffers, and presented the West African regional food storage strategy (ECOWAS) as a promising case study. However, he warned that such models are under strain due to political fragmentation and emphasized that food cannot be treated purely as a commodity—it must be protected as a public good.
Merle Schulken, part of the Degrowth & Strategy Editorial Team at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, built on this by arguing that the liberalized agricultural market model is in crisis. She connected this to China’s economic shift, the 2008 financial crash, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Ukraine war, all of which have exposed vulnerabilities in global food supply chains. She proposed a multi-layered buffer stock mechanism to stabilize markets, but warned that transparency alone is insufficient—without regulation, data disclosure has historically been used to dismantle market interventions rather than strengthen them.
This session sparked significant interest as it tackled one of the most pressing issues of our time: food pricing, a topic that has become increasingly urgent across Europe. Unlike during the 2009 food crisis, the current challenges of rising food prices are now affecting broader segments of the population, including middle- and lower-income households, who are feeling the strain of inflation and market volatility. The discussion highlighted how geopolitical instability, climate change, and corporate control over supply chains have exacerbated the situation, making food affordability a critical concern for both consumers and producers. The session underscored the need for structural reforms to ensure fair pricing mechanisms that protect farmers’ livelihoods while making food accessible to all, reflecting the growing recognition that food security is no longer just a problem for the Global South but a pressing issue within Europe itself.
A Call to Action: The Future of European Agriculture
As CAP reform discussions intensify in spring 2025, it is clear that Europe stands at a crossroads. The International Conference of Researchers and Farmers in Brussels marked a pivotal moment in rethinking the future of European agriculture, as the EU prepares for the 2027-2034 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform. Against the backdrop of climate change, social inequalities, and corporate dominance, the conference underscored the urgent need for structural reforms that prioritize fair prices, food sovereignty, and sustainability. Key debates revealed a stark divide between market-driven solutions and calls for robust price regulation and public intervention, highlighting the tension between maintaining the status quo and embracing transformative change. The workshops and plenaries emphasized the importance of inclusive policymaking, with farmers and local actors at the forefront, and explored innovative models such as agroecology, public stockholding, and solidarity-based food systems. The conference also shed light on the global implications of EU policies, particularly their impact on small-scale farmers in the Global South, urging a more equitable and just approach to international trade.
What emerged from this conference was not just a policy debate, but a broader conflict over the future of food system in Europe. The event reaffirmed that agriculture cannot be left to capital profit. If Europe is to build a truly sustainable food system, it must empower farmers, regulate and direct markets, and place social and ecological priorities above corporate interests.
This fight for a different agricultural model is not only about sustainability and fairness—it is also a crucial front in the broader struggle against the rise of the far right in more rural areas. Across Europe, far-right movements have sought to exploit farmers’ frustrations.
The issue of agriculture and rural areas in Europe has always been a crucial point in defining the capitalist accumulation regime in Europe and has played a significant role in building social pacification. Today, in light of the imbalances between capital and labor, the relationship between urban centers and rural areas is also marked by strong tensions, as is the entire agricultural system and its sustainability. We can say that, at an increasing pace, the knots are coming to a head. A great merit of this conference has certainly been the attempt to foster a direct discussion between agricultural producers and academic researchers, contributing to a shared analysis immersed in the reality of agricultural production. Furthermore, it has allowed for the outlining of a common and alternative horizon to the unsustainable status quo.
Federico Tomasone is Project Manager for Social Rights and Labour Policies and all activities related to Italy at the RLS Brussels Office.