Iceland’s young farmers have unanimously opposed the EU referendum scheduled for 29 August, arguing that reopening accession negotiations could threaten domestic agriculture, food security and the country’s current system of farm support. Their intervention brings rural interests into a campaign that will decide whether Reykjavík should return to talks suspended more than a decade ago.
The association Young Farmers (Ungir bændur) adopted the position at a meeting on 15 July. It opposes not only Icelandic membership of the European Union, but also the referendum itself and any resumption of negotiations.
According to the organisation, the EU’s agricultural model is poorly suited to Iceland’s geography, climate and small-scale production. Young farmers also fear greater competition from imported food and restrictions on Iceland’s ability to support domestic producers.
Young farmers challenge the Iceland EU referendum
The association argues that Icelandic agriculture depends on arrangements specifically designed for an isolated country with limited arable land and high production costs.
These include import tariffs, production agreements and direct public support. The organisation fears that joining the Common Agricultural Policy, or CAP, would replace this model with rules primarily designed for the much larger agricultural markets of the EU.
Young Farmers also links agricultural production to food security. Iceland imports a significant share of the food consumed in the country, while domestic farms provide most locally produced meat and dairy products.
The association therefore argues that reducing trade protection could make Iceland more dependent on imports and weaken farming communities outside the capital region.
These concerns are politically relevant. Agriculture, together with fisheries, remained among the most difficult areas during Iceland’s previous accession process. While 27 of the EU’s 35 negotiating chapters were opened between 2010 and 2012, the agricultural chapter was never formally opened.
The vote would not decide EU membership
However, several parts of the association’s argument concern the possible outcome of negotiations rather than the question Icelanders will answer in August.
The referendum is not a vote on joining the European Union. It will ask whether the government should resume talks to establish the terms under which membership might be possible.
Any final agreement would have to be submitted to Icelandic voters in a second referendum. Iceland could also leave the process if the negotiated conditions failed to protect its essential interests.
This distinction weakens the argument that reopening negotiations would automatically place Icelandic agriculture under unsuitable EU rules. Without negotiations, voters cannot know what transitional arrangements, financial support or country-specific adaptations Iceland could obtain.
Agriculture Minister Hanna Katrín Friðriksson has made a similar point, saying that the referendum would allow Iceland to explore the available options rather than commit the country to membership.
EU agricultural policy offers more than market liberalisation
The EU’s agricultural system would undoubtedly require substantial changes. Iceland currently remains outside both the Common Agricultural Policy and the EU customs union because agriculture and fisheries are largely excluded from the European Economic Area agreement.
Membership would expose Icelandic producers to greater competition within the European market. Some existing tariffs and national subsidies would have to be reconsidered.
Yet the CAP is not limited to opening agricultural markets. It also provides direct income support, rural development funding and programmes for environmental protection, generational renewal and farming in areas facing natural constraints.
These instruments could be relevant to Iceland, where farms contend with a short growing season, difficult terrain and long distances from major markets. The EU already recognises that agricultural conditions vary widely between member states and allows parts of its support system to be adapted to regional circumstances.
This does not guarantee that Iceland would receive the exemptions or funding demanded by its farmers. It does mean, however, that the loss of domestic support would not necessarily occur without replacement.
Food standards are already partly European
Young Farmers has also warned that EU membership could weaken Iceland’s ability to determine its own food-production rules.
The actual change may be less extensive than this argument suggests. Through the EEA, Iceland already implements a large part of the EU legislation governing the single market, including many rules concerning food safety, veterinary controls and consumer protection.
Agricultural policy itself remains outside the agreement, but the Icelandic food sector is not currently isolated from European regulation. Membership would instead change how Iceland participates in drafting those rules.
As an EEA country, Iceland can contribute technical expertise during the preparatory phase but has no representatives with voting rights in the Council of the European Union or the European Parliament. Membership would give Iceland formal participation in decisions that already influence large parts of its economy.
Rural concerns will shape the EU campaign
The young farmers’ position highlights one of the referendum campaign’s central questions: whether Iceland can protect vulnerable domestic sectors while gaining greater influence over European decisions.
Their concerns about imports, production costs and rural livelihoods are substantial. Icelandic agriculture operates under conditions that differ markedly from those of most EU countries, and any accession agreement would need to recognise those differences.
At the same time, rejecting negotiations before the possible terms are known would prevent farmers from assessing a concrete agreement. It would also turn a referendum on gathering information and negotiating conditions into an early decision on membership itself.
The agricultural debate is therefore likely to focus less on whether the sector would change, which it would, and more on whether Iceland could negotiate sufficient safeguards, transition periods and EU support. The answer would only become clear through negotiations and, ultimately, a second vote on the final agreement.
