Even though France is known for championing democracy and human rights through its diplomatic efforts at an international level, French contributions to the EU budget have, to some extent, been used to help finance one of the Gulf’s most oppressive regimes – the Al Nahyan regime in the UAE.
One of the important reports published by DeSmog found that subsidiaries linked to the royal family of Abu Dhabi have received over €71 million in EU farming support from 2019 to 2024, using farming activities in Romania, Spain, and Italy.
These payments were made through the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which is an enormous subsidy scheme that amounts to around €64 billion per year, equivalent to roughly one-third of the EU budget. Although the scheme was designed to aid the European farmers, it has become more and more evident that the beneficiaries have included rich landowners and large companies.
These subsidy payments were tracked to 110 companies associated with ADQ, the sovereign wealth and holding company of Abu Dhabi, and subsidiaries owned by the UAE royal family. It is extremely ethically problematic for both the EU and France, because while their political leaders are condemning the repressive policies of authoritarian regimes abroad, they are actually funding one of the most powerful autocratic governments in the Middle East.
France’s Human Rights Rhetoric Collides with Financial Reality
The French Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs is known for making declarations against arbitrary detention, civil society oppression, and fundamental freedoms’ violations globally. France’s diplomats are involved in discussions in the UN Human Rights Council, while French NGOs are some of the loudest voices against the autocratic regimes.
Ironically, however, the French contributions to the EU budget have contributed to funding a mechanism that provided financial assistance to those organizations closely associated with the UAE authorities. Even worse, all of this is happening despite the country’s known human rights record.
Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have repeatedly documented:
- Arbitrary detention of dissidents and activists
- Torture and ill-treatment in detention centres
- Criminalisation of peaceful political opposition
- Mass surveillance operations targeting critics at home and abroad
- Restrictions on freedom of expression and association
- Prosecution of academics, lawyers, and journalists
Human rights groups have also exposed the UAE’s application of sophisticated cyber surveillance systems on dissidents and critics living abroad. In spite of these findings, EU financial schemes have persistently been channeled towards the distribution of agricultural subsidies to firms associated with that state machinery itself.
UAE Intelligence Chief Chaired Fund Receiving EU Subsidies
One of the most controversial findings in the investigation concerns Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the UAE national security adviser and brother of UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan. Until January 2026, Sheikh Tahnoon chaired ADQ, the Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund connected to companies that received the EU farm subsidies.
Tahnoon is not merely a financial executive. He is widely regarded as one of the most powerful security figures in the Gulf and oversees the UAE’s intelligence and national security operations.
It implies that the same person who was overseeing the creation of the UAE security system (which is being heavily criticized by international human rights organizations), chaired the same fund that benefits from the agricultural subsidies provided by Europe taxpayers.
The consequences are politically explosive. The European governments, especially the French government, cannot criticize any authoritarian repression while enabling their own financial systems to profit from the regime behind the repression.
Romanian Mega-Farm Became Largest Beneficiary
The largest known subsidy recipient uncovered in the investigation was Agricost, a Romanian agricultural company operating the largest farm in the European Union. The farm spans approximately 57,000 hectares — an area roughly five times larger than Paris.
Agricost was acquired in 2018 through UAE agribusiness giant Al Dahra for an estimated €230 million. In 2024 alone, Agricost reportedly received more than $10 million in direct EU payments, making it one of the most heavily subsidised agricultural operations in Europe.
According to the investigation, this amount was more than 1,600 times larger than the average EU farm subsidy. Critics argue that the CAP increasingly functions as a mechanism rewarding industrial agribusiness and foreign investors rather than supporting small European farmers struggling with inflation, energy costs, and climate pressures.
The UAE’s Global Farmland Expansion Strategy
The UAE’s aggressive acquisition of farmland abroad is part of a broader national food security strategy.
Because of extreme desert conditions, water scarcity, and poor agricultural land, the UAE imports nearly 90 percent of its food supply.
To reduce vulnerability, Abu Dhabi has spent more than a decade purchasing farmland and agribusiness infrastructure worldwide.
Today, the UAE reportedly controls around 960,000 hectares of farmland globally, spanning Africa, Europe, and South America.
The strategy focuses heavily on securing animal feed, grains, and food supply chains that can support the Emirates’ rapidly expanding livestock and dairy industries.
In Europe, the investigation identified three primary centres of UAE agricultural expansion, including Romania, Spain, and Italy. These operations mainly produce alfalfa and other animal-feed crops destined for export to Gulf markets.
Spain and Italy Also Funnelled Subsidies to UAE-Linked Firms
Beyond Romania, UAE-linked agricultural companies also secured substantial subsidies in Spain and Italy.
Since 2012, Al Dahra has acquired several Spanish farming companies controlling more than 8,000 hectares of land. These Spanish subsidiaries reportedly received over €5 million in CAP subsidies between 2015 and 2024.
Meanwhile, in 2022, ADQ purchased Unifrutti, a major international fruit producer valued at approximately $830 million. Following the acquisition, Unifrutti’s Italian farms reportedly received at least €186,000 in EU agricultural subsidies over three years.
The majority of crops produced on these European farms are reportedly intended for export outside Europe, particularly to Gulf states. This has intensified criticism that European taxpayers are effectively subsidising foreign food-security strategies rather than strengthening Europe’s own agricultural resilience.
Sudan War Links Intensify Concerns
The controversy surrounding UAE-linked agricultural investments becomes even more serious when viewed alongside Abu Dhabi’s role in Sudan.
It has been claimed by international observers, human rights organizations, and investigative reports that the UAE has been involved in aiding the Rapid Support Forces in Sudan’s bloody civil war. The RSF has reportedly committed mass killings on an ethnic basis, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and in some cases “genocidal acts.” On the other hand, the UAE’s business interests have rapidly grown within Sudan.
Among them:
- UAE conglomerate International Holding Company (IHC) and Jenaan Investment reportedly farm more than 50,000 hectares in Sudan.
- The massive Abu Hamad agricultural project reportedly covers another 162,000 hectares.
- The project is linked to the planned Abu Amama port on the Red Sea, developed through Abu Dhabi-based AD Ports Group.
Critics argue that the UAE’s strategic investments in farmland, logistics corridors, and ports form part of a wider geopolitical effort to secure influence over food supply chains and trade routes across Africa and the Middle East.
EU Subsidy System Faces Growing Scrutiny
The discoveries have prompted new scrutiny into the workings of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy, which has long been criticized for being secretive and favoring rich corporate landholders. While the CAP was initially created to safeguard European farmers and guarantee their food security following World War II, its current incarnation is accused of being advantageous to large agribusinesses, billionaires, investment firms, and foreign governments.
Transparency proponents state that the EU has failed to put in place measures that would ensure that those linked to authoritarian regimes do not benefit from EU taxpayers’ money. It will be difficult for any European politicians to explain why companies owned by a family that boasts of being among the wealthiest, with a net worth of over $320 billion, have been receiving EU grants when farmers within Europe are suffering financially.
Europe’s Double Standards Are Becoming Harder to Ignore
The controversy exposes a widening gap between Europe’s public commitment to human rights and the financial realities of its economic systems. France and the EU frequently criticise authoritarian governments for suppressing dissent and violating international law. Yet European institutions continue enabling financial flows that benefit the same ruling elites accused of overseeing repression.
The issue is not merely legal — it is deeply political and moral. European taxpayers are entitled to ask why public agricultural subsidies intended to support rural Europe are flowing to companies connected to a Gulf monarchy accused by international organisations of torture, surveillance abuses, and political repression.
