2nd meeting of the Thematic Group on Unlocking the Potential of Cooperation

The discussions built on the outcomes of the 1^st Thematic Group (TG) meeting (25 September 2025).

After a brief introduction and an ice-breaking activity, four TG members shared their insights into unlocking the potential of cooperation.

Rita Szekeresné Köteles, Ministry of Agriculture, Hungary, gave a comprehensive overview of cooperation-related interventions in the Hungarian CAP Strategic Plan. Novel interventions for cooperation include: support for economic transfer and generational renewal to facilitate structured cooperation between older farm holders and younger successors; cooperation support for social enterprises which look to integrate vulnerable groups into agricultural and rural activities; support for ecotourism cooperation connecting farmers or foresters with local tourism providers; and interventions for sustainable water management communities.

Raoul Wilde, German Farmers' Association (DBV), outlined work undertaken in Germany by the MoNaKo project (Modell Naturschutz Kooperativen), which is exploring potential pathways for transitioning from an individual application system for CAP funding to a group application system via nature conservation cooperatives. This pilot initiative across four federal states, inspired by the Dutch model of environmental cooperatives, sees the cooperatives act as an intermediary and establish an Agri-environment-climate measures (AECM) contract directly with the public administration.

Efstratios Sentas, Farmer, Lesvos, Greece, illustrated practical examples of cooperation on the island of Lesvos, where agricultural production is dominated by olive trees, sheep, and goats, and the main products are olive oil (PGI) and two PDO cheeses, feta and ladotiri. Efstratios described two successful cooperatives that have increased their members’ engagement and trust, strengthened their local visibility and credibility, increased margins for farmers, created jobs, and also supported their communities. He also cited the less successful example of a cooperative that failed to upgrade its infrastructure and invest in exports, thus losing the trust of many members, and becoming more vulnerable to external pressures such as ageing, climate change, and land abandonment (declining production).

Lukas Oßberger, LKÖ, Austrian Chamber of Agriculture, highlighted the importance of informal small-scale cooperation, explaining that almost half of Austrian farm households have a second job in order to earn additional household income, meaning farmers need diverse strategies in a very challenging economic environment. Cooperation is key and can include, e.g., the construction of facilities, processing and marketing, or sharing labour and machinery.

Lukas illustrated the example of a specialised dairy farm that successfully engaged in cooperation with a mixed family farm to develop both businesses. He concluded by highlighting the importance of diversification and cooperation strategies and of a common vision and approach.

TG members engaged in five rounds of group discussions across a variety of previously identified topics or ideas centred on unlocking the potential of cooperation, particularly for small farmers. Each group identified new or refined key action(s) which would be relevant when enabling farmers with limited resources to engage in cooperation activities, before sharing their outcomes on the following:

Advice can help enable small farmers access finance and capital for cooperatives, so they can invest in technologies and support labour savings. These advisory services should be coordinated, enabling farmers to know where they can get the knowledge to inform business development. Innovation hubs/support services should enable businesses to come together through brokerage and provide the basis for developing concrete proposals that can form the basis for financing cooperation.

Small farmers may lack funds, time, or capacity to participate in or drive forward cooperation. Certification schemes could offer opportunities to reduce the burden and costs for farmers and enable them to access financing more easily by making their businesses more attractive to investors, particularly through collective actions.

Trust was also deemed essential to effective cooperation, including in terms of how farm businesses utilise data, as data can empower cooperatives and increase their bargaining power with the value chain.

Proposals focused on the need to:

The group discussed how best they could build on examples such as the Herenboeren consumer-owned cooperative model from the Netherlands, where farmers rent land to the cooperative and are also employed by the cooperative. The farmers enjoy job stability and a better quality of life, receiving a salary, a fixed work hours contract, statutory holidays, and a private pension. Interest in this idea centred on the provision of a fixed income for farmers, with the risk shared by the cooperative.

The group were of the view that similar initiatives can potentially attract new entrants into farming, while also giving consumers a direct relationship with the production of their own food, potentially strengthening urban-rural interdependencies. The importance of early-stage support was acknowledged, particularly for identifying customers, land, and farmers.

A PO network would be primarily concerned with building capacity within the POs, providing opportunities to work with each other and with third parties on growing their businesses and those of their memberships. It was suggested that AKIS and National Networks could provide building blocks for an EU-wide PO network, building on existing knowledge and connections. Some of the building blocks could include the development and sharing of an EU-wide list of POs. A PO network may also give POs the capacity to become project partners under Horizon Europe, and so increase collaboration with advisors, researchers, universities, and others. In terms of approach to and structure of a PO network, it was suggested that it could be a non-profit-making entity that could include networks already in place at Member State level, e.g. fruit and vegetable POs.

Much of the discussion concerned the need for recognition for cooperatives or groups of smallholder farmers already operating to high environmental standards. Recognition of the social values provided by small family-owned farms was also mentioned as an essential component for promoting unique local and regional products through cooperation.

The group also recognised the need to ‘work smarter', for example, bringing together a specialised sheep farmer with a specialised olive farmer to see if they could undertake both activities on the same land and thereby support economic and environmental benefits. Participants agreed that such activities rely on support from independent and environmentally aware business advisors and farm advisors. The involvement of such actors was critical in stimulating and supporting effective cooperation. Equally critical was the ability to share data between different supply chain actors, including the CAP. This is essential for ensuring that all the actors involved in any cooperative activity are meeting high environmental standards.

Cooperation is very important to improve logistics, but also for marketing and intellectual property protection, requiring a dedicated cooperative pipeline at the regional and sub-regional level.

Every advisor should understand all aspects of cooperation, including drawing upon the experiences of other MS. Members suggested that actions focus on the development of a training course for advisors on cooperation, with each advisor then being certified, and forming part of a roster of farm advisors at the European level. Artificial Intelligence (AI) was also suggested as a potential tool that could be managed at EU level to effectively shorten the distance between farmers and advisors.

Members recognised that such approaches and tools could be used to help groups of farmers to better understand the challenges and opportunities presented by cooperation.

Discussions focused on the various ways to engage farmers, especially small producers, in discussing cooperation. Examples mentioned included the innovation hub digital platform in Finland, which is connected to the National Network platform and uses digital networking tools. However, in many cases, farmers would prefer to exchange ideas in person with other farmers, and this can be done using methods such as, e.g., lighthouse farms or living labs.

It was suggested that more start-up support for cooperation could happen through the Common Market Organisation (CMO). At the moment, CMOs can be activated, using up to 3% of the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF). However, under current rules, increased investment in CMOs can displace funds available for direct support under EAGF. Members suggested that the CMO could either be placed in a third pillar of the CAP, or separated from the CAP and allocated a separate budget. Members were clear that reform of such funding mechanisms needs to be considered if the policy aim is to mainstream cooperation across the agri-food arena.

The group agreed on the need to increase impact on several levels to transform EIP results into innovations adopted more widely by farms. They also highlighted the need to integrate the added value of OGs at the local AKIS level, for example, by offering new services for farmers, and to make sure new partnerships can continue.

The group proposed setting up a database, observatory, or platform to ‘host’ the information required to help people understand the added value of any given OG and the fundamentals of a good project. This should help inform cooperation beyond the lifetime of the EIP-funded project, and stimulate further collaboration along the value chain, including between farmers, farmers' associations, and research. Collaboration may take different forms, e.g., demonstration farms, follow-up projects, or other knowledge exchange activities.

As the CAP offers the possibility to facilitate access to, and provide support for, risk management tools, it should also support collective approaches to environmental ecosystem services.

The group recognised that being part of a cooperative is hugely beneficial to farmers who cannot access private financing on their own. The cooperative acts as a guarantor with credit institutions by giving information about the expected amount of revenue that farmers should be earning. Farmers then have the possibility to benefit from more favourable bank rates through the cooperative (farmers often do not have their own ratings or pay higher interest rates to get access to farming).

Another consideration for reducing risk for farmers was inspired by the Geographical Indication (GI) Regulation, which enables benefitting farmers to plan the amount of production. This is currently the case with some well-organised cooperatives that can foresee the production in the next year, thus reducing the uncertainty of price and guaranteeing access to the market. The group felt it would be useful to understand how the approach set out in the GI Regulation could inspire cooperatives to plan better.

All the ideas and topics discussed will feed into a member-led output that will set out how the potential of cooperation can be realised across the supporting pipeline.