Counts here are a floor, never a total: they cover the 665 consultation files tracked so far (57,800 submissions, mostly 2021–26), so an organization's real filing history is larger, not smaller.
As an agricultural organisation, we support trade within the EU and with third countries. Trade must be based on balanced, fair and transparent rules in order to avoid distortions of competition. In principle, imports into the EU must comply with the Union’s requirements for its own farmers. As an agricultural organisation, we therefore welcome the equal treatment of undertakings from third countries.
Filed in Dutch · English published by the European Commission
For the agricultural sector, it is important to have a European certification mechanism translated into Member States, so that the private carbon market has confidence in the system of carbon storage in soil, thus investing from the private market in carbon storage in agricultural soils (Carbon Farming).
Filed in Dutch · English published by the European Commission
For us as farmers organisation, the proposed CBAM seems inadequate. Because fertilisers can expect a carbon border tax, they wil probably become more expensive in Europe. However, fertilisers are already more expensive in Europe due to anti-dumping measures.
As farmers organisation, we believe that an exception should continue to be possible for fuels used in the agricultural sector. The margins in the agricultural and horticultural sector are so low that any increase in cost weighs on the income of an individual farmer.
Best, plant genetics and plant breeding are extremely important. Over time, plants adapt to new circumstances. Genetic plant material is constantly evolving. In Europe, we were also at the forefront of the development of new safe plant breeding, but the overly strict European legislation shows that knowledge developed here is being used elsewhere in all continents. This creates unfair competition.
Filed in Dutch · English published by the European Commission
The revised LULUCF-regulation annouces major change in European climate policy by the foreseen merger of agricultural non-CO2 emissions with LULULCF emission beyond 2030. Therefore a thorough impact assessment is necessary, which also investigates the impact for the individual farmer (administration, cost of efforts, additional income, …).
The present initiative seems to be useful. In addition to absolute figures, it is desirable to publish relative figures as they also provide important information. The new figures to be asked may relate to: • Energy use • Water consumption • Plant protection products • Animal manure • acidifying emissions (NH3, NOx and SO2) • greenhouse gas emissions • Ammonia emission • Primary particulate matter (total, PM10 and…
Filed in Dutch · English published by the European Commission
Looking for an argument rather than an organization? Search every submission for a phrase and see everyone who used it.
Put Boerenbond vzw next to another organization. Same files, same register facts, side by side. Compare →
Turns up on the same files
Organizations that also filed on at least two of the same consultations. A shared interest in the same dossiers, not evidence of coordination, and we do not suggest any.
Everything on this page comes from Boerenbond vzw’s own submissions to the European Commission. We have added nothing and interpreted nothing. If something is wrong or out of date, email info@policyspeak.com and we will correct it. If you are an individual named in a record, our privacy policy sets out your rights to correction, objection and removal.
Quotes are verbatim from submissions published by the European Commission, trimmed to their opening passage and never summarized by a model. Organizations only, never individuals. Reused under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU; the European Commission is not liable for this reuse.