With four years now marking Russia’s full‑scale invasion of Ukraine, and as political momentum builds around a potential fast‑track or staged EU accession pathway for Ukraine, European farm input suppliers are growing increasingly vocal about the risks of integrating a vast, highly competitive agricultural powerhouse into the Single Market before longstanding internal regulatory fractures are resolved.
Among the most concerned is the European Crop Care Association (ECCA), which represents Europe’s off‑patent crop protection manufacturers and distributors. Speaking to AgTechNavigator, general manager Paolo Marchesini warned that accelerating Ukraine’s entry into the EU could deepen farmer frustration, widen competitiveness gaps, and ultimately destabilise parts of the agricultural sector; especially while the bloc’s own regulatory inefficiencies remain unresolved.
A single market under stress
For Marchesini, the core issue is not Ukraine itself, but the fragility of competition within the existing EU Single Market.
“Competitiveness inside an enlarged Single Market is the central issue,” he said. “European farmers are entrepreneurs who must remain profitable. Yet today’s barriers within the Single Market limit access to post‑patent plant protection products (PPPs) that play an essential role in bringing down farmers’ production costs.”
ECCA argues that Ukraine’s rapid entry – without first repairing these internal bottlenecks – would immediately expose a widening imbalance. Ukraine’s highly fertile soils, larger consolidated farms and lower production costs already give it significant cost and scale advantages over many EU producers.
Marchesini believes accession today would make existing structural gaps more visible. “Without addressing current internal barriers within the EU,” he said, “this imbalance risks deepening farmers’ frustration and adding to broader social and economic instability in an already uncertain environment.”
What Ukraine’s entry could mean for EU input markets
Asked how EU farmers might experience change if Ukraine joined the bloc sooner than expected, Marchesini emphasised that the issue is as much about input volatility as crop competition.
“Farmers could face sharper competition while still dealing with uneven access to affordable post‑patent tools across Member States,” he said. “With a fit‑for‑purpose regulatory framework, farmers should benefit from better availability of post‑patent PPPs, stronger price competition and improved cost‑efficiency.”
While Ukraine is working to align its PPP laws with EU standards (including a 2024 draft law mirroring EU Regulations 2019/1009 and 1107/2009), ECCA stresses that the biggest regulatory gaps lie within the EU itself, not Kyiv.
Internal EU regulations: The real bottleneck?
Marchesini is explicit: Regulation 1107/2009, the core law governing PPP authorisation in the EU, remains the primary barrier to competitive access for post‑patent crop protection products.
So while ECCA welcomes Ukraine’s willingness for regulatory harmonisation, Marchesini said “European regulators must first reform existing regulations to ensure proper compliance in the future.”
He added that strong governance and effective enforcement will be essential. Without it, even well‑aligned rules “risk remaining theoretical in practice.”
Trade flows would rise – so would the need for coherence
A closer EU–Ukraine alignment would inevitably expand trade in crop protection inputs, Marchesini said, but doing so under today’s fragmented regulatory environment risks inconsistent access, delays in product approvals, and uneven competition.
“A more harmonised framework would support fair and safe cross-border trade in plant protection products,” he added.
ECCA’s position: “High environmental and safety standards must be maintained, but farmers must also have access to an adequate and affordable toolbox of safe and effective PPPs.”

Risk of sectoral contraction if accession outpaces internal reform
If Ukraine’s accession is accelerated without fixing internal barriers, ECCA believes the consequences could be severe.
“Farmers could face stronger competition while lacking equal access to cost‑effective tools,” Marchesini said. “Such a scenario would weaken farmers’ cost‑efficiency and potentially lead to sectoral contraction, significantly increasing Europe’s import reliance.”
He warned this would limit capacity to invest in sustainable crop‑protection solutions, climate‑adaptation measures, and digital tools such as AI for more precise PPP use.
“These pressures already exist today,” he noted. Accession would amplify them.
Which EU regions and sectors are most exposed?
According to ECCA, the sectors most at risk are those with tight margins and intense exposure to global commodity markets, such as cereals, oilseeds and industrial crops.
Regions already facing regulatory fragmentation, limited access to PPPs, or higher production costs could see competitiveness erode rapidly.
Beyond economics, Marchesini warns of social consequences: rural depopulation, declining local purchasing power, and destabilisation of already‑fragile regions.
A call for smarter policy sequencing
To avoid destabilisation, ECCA argues the EU must adopt a fit‑for‑purpose Food and Feed Safety Simplification Omnibus to remove internal barriers to post‑patent PPPs.
The sequencing of integration will be decisive, Marchesini said, and “must place competitiveness and productivity at the centre of decision-making.”
Policymakers must choose between ensuring full and effective application of EU rules from day one or designing transitional arrangements that prevent sudden shocks while maintaining high standards.
“Clarity, enforceability and fairness are essential,” he stressed.
ECCA is also frustrated that geopolitical considerations often overshadow competitive realities. Marchesini pointed to the EU-Mercosur debate as an example of trade policy moving faster than internal competitiveness reforms.
Accession both risk and an opportunity
Ultimately, Marchesini insists ECCA is not opposed to Ukrainian accession, but to premature accession without internal EU reforms.
“Accession can strengthen European agriculture, but only if integration is based on full compliance, effective enforcement and a reinforced competitiveness base,” he said.
A coherent, competitive European market is possible, he argues, but only if the EU removes internal barriers to affordable post‑patent PPPs; maintains high environmental standards; ensures regulatory consistency; and strengthens farmers’ ability to invest in productivity and sustainability.
Without that, enlargement risks outpacing the reforms needed to make it a success.




