Time For Bifocals?
Bringing the EU’s Food & Farm Plan into Focus
** UPDATE: The EU’s Vision document is no longer online. Not sure why but the Wayback Machine version still works so I’ve adjusted the links throughout. **
This week, Rome successfully hosted version 2.0 of COP16 - better known as the Biodiversity COP - after version 1.0 in Cali, Colombia, ended in disarray last year.
Another key meeting happening this week is the IPCC’s 62nd Plenary Session, which will work on the next crucial climate change assessment. American government scientists who normally participate have apparently been issued a stop-work order so they won’t be attending, according to Reuters and CNN.
Clearly, the right way to deal with an existential crisis as big as climate change is to ignore it and focus instead on personal liberties and free markets: topics that apparently will be the key pillars of a once-storied newspaper now owned by a warehouse mogul. And to cut back on aid (the Brits) and programmes on gender equality and climate action (the Dutch).
So there’s a lot of anxiety and uncertainty everywhere, including on this side of the pond, after the new EU Commissioner for Agriculture and Food last week released a document outlining his vision.
I know what it’s like to have anxiety as a constant backdrop in your life, thanks to a combination of owning an incredibly crappy passport and doing the kind of work I do. My advice? After work hours, stick to comfort foods, romantic comedies and funny chat shows.
Six months ago, which now feels like multiple lifetimes ago, I wrote about the report from the “Strategic Dialogue on the future of EU Agriculture”.
It was a culmination of a seven-month long process that brought together 29 major stakeholders from the European agri-food sectors, civil society, rural communities and academia.
The “unanimously adopted” report was pleasantly surprising in its lucidity on what needs to be done to achieve a green, thriving European agriculture.
It tackled some big elephants like reforming the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the largest budget item in the EU, and the need for a protein transition. Although it shied away from really scrutinising the systematic inequalities and power imbalances within the EU food systems, it was still a big, bold step.
Then came the demagogues and the broligarchs and the aid cuts. So the idea that we should care about each other and our environment suddenly seems very quaint.
Perhaps we should see the document from Christophe Hansen, the Luxembourgish politician who’s the new EU Commissioner for Agriculture and Food, in the same vein. Because his vision could then be considered bold.
As someone who used to chair the Committee on Environment, Climate and Biodiversity in his native parliament, though? Not so much. Let’s dig into the report, so you see what I mean.
What is it?
“A Vision for Agriculture and Food: Shaping together an attractive farming and agri-food sector for future generations”, published on Feb 19, is “an ambitious roadmap on the future of farming and food in Europe”, the Commission said. It’s a masterplan that will shape EU’s food systems through 2040.
What’s Good?
Good Foundations
You can’t argue with the four priority areas Hansen has outlined. He talks about establishing an agri-food sector that (is):
Attractive and predictable and where incomes enable farmers to thrive.
Competitive and resilient in the face of rising global competition and shocks.
Future proofed and functioning within planetary boundaries.
Values food, fosters fair working and living conditions and vibrant and well-connected rural and coastal areas.
Fairer Prices, Conditions & Subsidy Distribution
“Practices where farmers are systematically forced to sell below costs will not be tolerated,” it said.
The Commission will revise the Unfair Trading Practices (UTPs) Directive to better protect farmers and workers, and provide more transparency along the food chain, including through the new EU Agrifood Chain Observatory.
Precarious living and working conditions of farm workers “needs to be, more than before, proactively addressed and considered in public policies”.
The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which accounts for 30% of the EU budget, will also be more targeted “towards farmers that actively engage in food production, towards the economic vitality of farms and the preservation of our environment”. Priority goes to farmers who need it most, especially in areas with natural constraints, young and new farmers, and mixed farms.
Commitment to Generational Renewal
Given that only about 12% of EU farmers are under the age of 40, it is urgent that we attract younger people to enter this profession, and the Commission wants to tackle “the key barriers to generational renewal, in particular access to land, investments, skills, and more”.
It said transparency in land planning and buying is crucial and plans to deliver the Generational Renewal Strategy this year.
I’m happy to see the emphasis on land because that issue repeatedly came up in my interviews with young European farmers, especially those who want to embark on more sustainable farming but have struggled because land sales are controlled by those partial to industrial-scale monoculture.
Reducing Import Dependencies
Did you know that 88% of urea (fertiliser) imports to Europe come from just four countries: Egypt, Russia, Belarus, and Algeria?
Europe is also highly dependent on other inputs such as animal feed and energy, making the continent’s food systems vulnerable to global market fluctuations and geopolitical tensions. Of course, these inputs also cause major air and water pollution problems.
So a pledge to reduce these dependencies has been broadly welcomed.
Improving public procurement
A focus on “best value” to reward quality and sustainability efforts and provide incentives to “promote the consumption of local, seasonal products, and food produced with high environmental and social standards, including organic products and food originating from shorter supply chains”.
A legal proposal is forthcoming and I hope it reflects the above sentiments.
Better animal welfare
“The Commission will closely exchange with farmers, the food chain and civil society and on that basis present proposals on the revision of the existing animal welfare legislation, including its commitment to phase out cages.”
Will the Commission finally honour the promises made in the aftermath of the popular European petition to ‘End the Cage Age’? Asking for a friend, since our investigation in Oct 2023 exposed how an increasingly assertive meat industry helped derail this democratic demand.
What’s Not So Good?
Possibility of Throwing the Baby Out with the Bathwater
Over the report’s 27 pages, “simplification” appeared 11 times, “bureaucracy/bureaucratic” three times, and “red tape” twice.
The Commission has promised “a comprehensive simplification package for the current agricultural legislative framework” (the bold emphasis is theirs, not mine!).
Many farmers I’ve spoken to have also complained of complicated processes so this is definitely needed, but it’s equally important not to use this as a ruse to trample on much-needed environmental and social guardrails.
That’s what worrying many in the civil society, because “comprehensive simplification” sounds like a call to dismantle any remaining environmental rules. They have cause for worry: “bureaucracy” and “administrative burden” were used to dilute and derail environmental ambitions on nature restoration and under the CAP.
Also see: Politico’s latest newsletter, aptly titled: “Christmas for Lobbyists, Halloween for NGOs”.
Seeing Technology as Saviour
In the Press Release for the Vision, the Commission said “increasing the uptake of innovation and digitalisation”, together with simplification, are pre-requisites to all actions outlined in the Vision.
It also said the Commission will propose an EU digital strategy for agriculture later in 2025 to support the transition to digital-ready farming.
Look, I get excited by technological advances too and I don’t have a problem with NGTs per se, but they are not a panacea to the deep-rooted problems in agriculture. They could also worsen inequalities if you don’t tackle the very real problem of intellectual property rights being used to impose patented seeds on farmers and criminalise traditional seed saving methods.
Too Starry-Eyed on Carbon Farming
One particular innovation that received repeated mentions is “Carbon Farming”. It’s being pushed as an additional source of income for European farmers and billed as a key ‘solution’ to reduce agricultural emissions..
Sure, soil stores more carbon than the planet's atmosphere and vegetation combined but there are major questions around its real-world viability and the shortcomings of the EU’s framework to govern and finance this practice (see here and here).
Vitor Rodrigues from European Coordination Via Campesina (ECVC) said, “(Carbon farming and nature crediting) are, by no means, useful to climate mitigation, to address the current biodiversity collapse, or a safe source of income for farmers. However, they are extremely efficient as private corporations greenwashing mechanism and pollution free-pass.”
ECVC is a confederation of groups representing small and mid-sized farmers and agricultural workers across Europe.
Wedded to Livestock
The Commission is all in on livestock, despite their monstrous contribution to climate change. See these screen grabs.
FYI, methane (CH4) from ruminant burps and CH4 from manure management are responsible for 49% and 17% of total agricultural GHG emissions in Europe, according to the European Environment Agency.
Livestock also seems to be the only thing that trumps innovation and technology…
“Certain food innovation is sometimes seen as a threat to the traditions and culture across Europe. This calls for an enhanced dialogue on this matter and better knowledge, to make sure that these innovations can be assessed in an inclusive way that also considers social, ethical, economic, environmental and cultural aspects of food innovation.”
To many reading between the lines, this refers to alternative proteins, which has seen vociferous opposition from far-right and right-wing governments in Europe.
Schtum on Diets
The Strategic Dialogue emphasised the need to shift diets towards plant-based proteins, but the Vision not only doubled down on livestock, it also ignored the whole debate on diets. There’s also nothing on front-of-pack labelling.
Perhaps the Commission sees this as too much of a hot potato? That in itself shows the new crop in the executive branch has no appetite to do anything remotely difficult, even if it is for the greater, longer-term good.
The report talks about providing consumers with “trustworthy information”, holding annual Food Dialogue with “the food system’s actors, including consumers, primary producers, industry, retailers, public authorities and civil society”, and the importance of local authorities to lead engagement on “shaping favourable food environments”.
Am I being unfair in thinking this is all well-intentioned but pretty damn naive?
Providing information alone isn’t enough when you are dealing with an industry that spends billions hawking their products. I’d also suggest Commission officials read this WHO report (or my summed up version) before bringing in the industry to help write policies that will affect their bottom line. Examples from the UK of how cash-strapped local councils are no match for fast-food giants like KFC and McDonald’s are also useful to keep in mind.
There’s a line about “monitoring the effects of certain advertising and marketing practices of food” but it feels like a throwaway at this point.
Lowered Ambitions on CAP, the Environment and Pesticides
More differences between the Strategic Dialogue and the Vision.
On CAP: The former recommended overhauling the CAP to end payments based on farm size and wanted a more equitable distribution. The latter proposes redistributing subsidies to support small farms and young farmers but does not explicitly address ending payments based on farm size.
The European Environmental Bureau (EEB), a network of environmental organisations and a member of the Strategic Dialogue, said a previous version of the Vision suggested a shift of income payments away from the largest and wealthiest farms, but was removed in the final text. It called the Vision “weak and disappointing”.
On the Environment: The former suggested the creation of a Just Transition Fund to help farmers adopt sustainable practices (this is supported by other experts) and for the CAP to promote positive environmental outcomes.
The latter acknowledged environmental challenges and their threat on food production, but focused mostly on reducing administrative burdens and enhancing competitiveness. It didn’t mention a Just Transition Fund.
On Pesticides: The former called for ambitious policy actions to reduce pesticide use and to end the “practice of unethical double standards”: Member States sending toxic pesticides banned within the EU to countries with less stringent regulations.
The latter said banning pesticides without alternatives could cut EU food production, causing the Pesticide Action Network to call out the Commission for including “a worrying unscientific pesticide industry narrative”. The Commission said it will “assess” the export of hazardous chemicals banned in the EU.
It is far more unequivocal on not allowing banned pesticides through imported products. So yeah, the double standard is alive and well.
Contradictory Visions
Andoni Garcia, farmer and member of ECVC coordination committee said:
“There are deep contradictions between the promises for fairer prices on one hand and, on the other hand the push for digitalisation and to increasingly liberalise global markets.
Among many other issues, export and import-oriented agriculture will push prices low and technologisation and digitalisation push costs up. The Vision is contradictory and risks being detrimental to farmers.”
Further reading
ARC2020’s analysis on the final version and an earlier, leaked version
A Note on the Eurobarometer Survey Results
The Commission quoted the survey in both the Press Release and the main Vision document so I got curious and went digging for the original source.
Some of the results were fascinating: the number of people who think the CAP support is “just right” is at a 11-year high, people still support the greening of farming, and they think the current CAP isn’t delivering very well on things it should be prioritising. So I’ve included a few of them below.
Key findings are here but scroll to the bottom to get the full results (Data annex) and full report (Report).
As always, please feel free to share this post and send tips and thoughts on bluesky @thinink.bsky.social, mastodon @ThinInk@journa.host, my LinkedIn page, or via e-mail thin@thin-ink.net.