This year’s sugar beet campaign is shaping up to be another disappointment for many European growers, except in a few regions. Yet another spring, summer, and autumn have brought challenging and unpredictable weather conditions for many of us. These adverse climatic factors have exacerbated ongoing difficulties in adequately protecting crops from pests and diseases, challenges which are increasingly structural.
Phytosanitary status remains a priority issue as weed, pest and disease pressure continue to rise[1]. Foliar diseases, mildew, and particularly cercospora have been especially severe in many European regions with excessive rainfall. The result? Extremely poor sugar content in numerous countries, with some recording historic lows, leading to significantly reduced sugar yields per hectare. Increasing variability in beet quality, sugar yields, and regional outcomes across the EU is becoming a persistent trend.
Since 2018, EU growers have lost over 30 active substances (AS) to protect their sugar beet. Unfortunately, no effective alternatives—whether low-risk chemical AS, biocontrol solutions, or innovative practices—have emerged to replace these critical tools, despite extensive R&D efforts. The first outcomes from research into alternative tools/combined strategies have not been successful[2]. These crop protection challenges continue to affect crops throughout the growing season, increasing risks right up to harvest and beyond. Alarmingly, this issue is likely to worsen, with over 40 active substances up for renewal by the end of 2027.At least 13 are unlikely to be renewed. This means that by 2027, EU growers may have access to only a handful of herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides.
As with other agricultural sectors, reversing the productivity decline will require significant financial support for R&D and new effective tools, such as New Breeding Techniques (NBTs), which remain unauthorised in the EU. Without such measures, our productivity will continue to drop.
We cannot accept restrictions without solutions. Declining productivity and quality, combined with rising input costs, mean lower income for growers and reduced profitability for beet processors. Record prices on the EU domestic market in 2023 had hidden this bigger picture but not the growers’ mixed mood as prices are collapsing again[3], production costs remain high and announcements by sugar companies to reduce beet acreage in 2025 have dampened expectations. The risk of another market crisis, similar in nature to 2017–2020 when both growers and processors incurred losses, looms large. The last crisis revealed a glaring absence of safety nets or risk management tools. This must be corrected, and we need appropriate revised safety net and risk management tools in the CMO regulation.
Moreover, the EU Commission appears oblivious to our sector’s declining productivity and competitiveness. Since 2018, the 1.5% annual gain in sugar yield per hectare achieved over the past two decades has stagnated. Given these conditions, the constant opening of the EU market to imports is no longer sustainable. After losing significant access to the UK market, further concessions to third countries are increasing, even as EU sugar consumption stagnates. Yet the Commission continues to treat the sector as if it can absorb endless volumes of third-country sugar without consequences[4]! Since 2001, duty-free and quota-free sugar imports have been granted to ACP/LDC countries, and further trade quotas (TRQs) have been included in every new FTA—without enforceable commitments on sustainability[5]! All this without strong and enforceable commitments in terms of sustainability by these partners. This approach is both reckless and disrespectful to EU growers. Our sector needs the introduction of mirror clauses/measures in trade agreements. Against this backdrop, the Mercosur agreement is simply unacceptable.
Adding to the challenges, exceptional autonomous trade measures (ATMs) for Ukraine have further destabilized the market. In 2024/25, Ukrainian sugar imports surged to 25 times the original TRQ—much of it undocumented or informal—flooding the EU market and causing severe disruptions, particularly in neighboring countries. While the safeguard clause in the ATM regulation helped avert disaster, it failed to prevent significant price impacts, forcing EU growers to reduce beet acreage for next year. This must be stopped; EU beet growers cannot bear the costs of this war. The EU Institutions should revise the EU-Ukraine DCFTA with caution. The structural differences between EU family farms and Ukraine’s agro holdings, coupled with disparities in production standards, create an unequal playing field. A very cautious approach, maintaining the sugar import TRQ of the current EU-Ukraine DCFTA is necessary to avoid further penalizing EU beet growers before the accession of Ukraine into the EU.
It is therefore clear to me that the recent EU decisions have weakened the competitiveness and sustainability of the EU sugar beet sector. Since 2017, 15 beet sugar factories have closed and around 27,000 growers in the EU have ceased cultivating sugar beet. Since the 2006 reform, the figures are even more alarming: 104 factories have closed, and 200,000 growers have left the sector.
Without a change in EU policies, including those reflected in the next Vision for EU Agriculture, this trend will undoubtedly continue. Our messages must be taken on board, or the consequences will be devastating for the EU sugar beet sector.
Guillaume Gandon, Chair of the CIBE Economic and General Affairs Committee (EGAC)/Copa-Cogeca Working Party on Sugar beet
Fonte: Copa Cogeca
