Implementing the Farm-to-Fork Strategy: Challenges and Contributions of AKIS and Lifelong Learning

Abstract

The European Union’s Farm-to-Fork (F2F) Strategy sets an ambitious agenda for a socio-ecological transition, positioning agriculture as a critical sector for achieving sustainable food systems. However, its implementation faces significant systemic barriers that hinder its transformative potential. This paper applies a diagnostic framework, derived from the H2020-funded PHOENIX project, that identifies six key challenges to democratic innovations in environmental governance: prolonged timeframes for tangible results, the complexity of environmental issues, the need for transcalar cooperation, the imperative to foster behavioural change, limited deliberative dialogue, and the need to build mutual trust. Through a review of public policies and scholarly literature, this analysis evaluates how these challenges manifest within the F2F Strategy, impacting farmers and the broader agri-food system. The findings demonstrate that barriers to F2F implementation are not solely technical or economic but are deeply linked to governance fragmentation, uneven knowledge flows, and deficits in trust relations. Crucially, the study reveals that Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKIS) and associated Education and Training (ET) consistently emerge as pivotal enabling mechanisms to mitigate these constraints. The research generates actionable recommendations to reinforce F2F by redefining the roles of innovation, education, and multi-level collaboration in building resilient and sustainable EU agri-food systems.

1. Introduction

Conventional agriculture faces a paradox: whilst its practices rely on natural processes such as soil fertility, pollination, and other natural resources, it simultaneously overconsumes water, contributes to biodiversity loss, and significantly increases European Union (EU) greenhouse gas emissions (European Environment Agency (EEA) 2022). This scenario underscores the pressing need for a shift in human behaviour, which entails promoting individual and collective responsibility to respect, preserve, and conserve nature and the environment.

In response to global environmental crises, the European Green Deal (EGD) establishes a regulatory framework that positions agriculture as a cornerstone for achieving a climate-neutral and biodiverse Europe. Central to this transition are the Biodiversity and Farm-to-Fork (F2F) Strategies, which promote a systemic shift towards a fair, healthy, and environmentally sustainable food system (European Commission 2020c). These initiatives reflect a collaborative governance model led by the European Commission’s Directorates-General for Health and Food Safety (DG SANTE), Environment (DG ENV), and Agriculture and Rural Development (DG AGRI), integrating agricultural policy with health and environmental priorities. Beyond ensuring long-term food security for 530 million Europeans by 2050, the F2F Strategy sets rigorous 2030 targets, including significant reductions in pesticide and fertiliser use, a 50% decrease in food waste, and the expansion of organic farming and animal welfare standards. By addressing the interconnections between healthy individuals and a healthy planet, the strategy seeks to harmonise social, environmental, and economic factors, making sustainable food choices more accessible whilst maintaining the EU’s global trade competitiveness.

Scientific studies increasingly demonstrate that the F2F Strategy holds significant potential to address interconnected environmental challenges, particularly climate change and biodiversity loss. Research by Springmann et al. (2018) underscores the centrality of production and consumption patterns in reducing emissions, highlighting the need to transition towards sustainable food systems to meet global climate targets. Complementing this perspective, Pe’er et al. (2020) emphasise that reversing biodiversity decline in agricultural landscapes requires policy approaches that integrate ecological considerations across sectors. Together, these findings reinforce the importance of comprehensive, system-wide policies in driving meaningful environmental transformation.

Despite this potential, recent scientific research (Forero et al. 2025; Kurtsal et al. 2024; Mezzacapo 2024) highlights that progress towards F2F’s specific objectives, such as reaching 25% organic area by 2030, reducing pesticide use, and decreasing food waste, has remained slow. This stagnation is primarily attributed to deep-rooted systemic barriers, including governance fragmentation, resistance to behavioural change, and failures in knowledge transfer between research and agricultural practice. These factors converge to create a landscape of insufficient innovation adoption, irregular knowledge flows, and weak capacity-building structures, ultimately hindering the strategy’s practical implementation.

Furthermore, the F2F Strategy has faced significant opposition from farmers across Europe and escalating political challenges, resulting in major delays and the withdrawal of several key proposals. Farmer protests between 2022 and 2024 were sparked by concerns over the economic feasibility of rapid transitions, particularly regarding strict pesticide-reduction targets and new regulatory burdens. This resistance has been amplified by intense political polarisation, with agri-industry lobbying and various political factions leveraging discontent to roll back legislative progress. Aubert (2024) notes that the strategy’s cross-sectoral approach, placing DG SANTE in the lead rather than DG AGRI, created a sense of exclusion amongst traditional agricultural stakeholders. Moreover, reports by Corporate Europe Observatory (2022), DeSmog (2023), and IPES-Food (2019) document how the outsized influence of industrial lobby groups has diluted the strategy’s transformative agenda.

Beyond the political landscape, farmers face severe practical challenges in transitioning to new production methods, with a disproportionate impact on small-scale producers (Forero et al. 2025) and on countries with lower GDP or higher agricultural dependency (Mainar-Causapé and Martínez 2025; Mezzacapo 2024). A primary concern is the de-authorisation of chemical inputs, as biological alternatives may initially reduce crop yields or product quality, potentially threatening food sovereignty (Buttinelli et al. 2025; Finger 2024; Schneider et al. 2023; Tataridas et al. 2022). Consequently, farmers are placed in a vulnerable position, forced to balance immediate productivity with long-term sustainability mandates (Boix-Fayos and de Vente 2023; Wesseler 2022) whilst navigating uneven implementation across Member States.

Drawing on the analytical framework developed within the PHOENIX project, a H2020-funded initiative investigating how participatory and deliberative methodologies can be enhanced to support the implementation of the European Green Deal, this paper examines the challenges to the Farm-to-Fork Strategy through the lens of six systemic challenges identified as hindering the transformative potential of democratic innovations. Through a systematic review of policy documents and scholarly literature, this analysis traces the manifestation of these challenges by assessing technical, social, capacity, and innovation barriers and evaluating their influence on the overall effectiveness of the F2F transition. By identifying these recurring patterns, the study aims to offer actionable insights into the broader challenges of embedding democratic innovations within European environmental governance. Ultimately, this research contributes to a deeper understanding of the governance complexities inherent in achieving sustainable food systems. To this end, the research is organised around two central questions: 1. Can these systemic challenges be observed in current F2F policy implementation? 2. If so, how can farmers and institutions overcome them?

To explore these questions, this paper is structured as follows: Section 2 details the materials and methods, outlining the PHOENIX analytical framework and the systematic review approach employed. Section 3 presents the results, systematically mapping the identified barriers to F2F implementation across the six PHOENIX challenges and highlighting the role of Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKIS) as a key enabling mechanism. Section 4 discusses these findings, interprets their broader implications for European environmental governance, and proposes actionable policy recommendations. Finally, Section 4 provides the main conclusions and suggests directions for future research.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Analytical Framework: Democratic Innovations and the Emergence of PHOENIX Challenges

The PHOENIX framework categorises Democratic Innovations (DIs) into four primary typologies, each characterised by distinct organisational structures and deliberative dynamics. These typologies represent the diverse participatory architectures through which environmental governance and policy implementation, such as those under the European Green Deal (EGD) and the Farm-to-Fork (F2F) Strategy, can be mediated across various administrative scales:

• Participatory Budgeting (PB): PB is a cyclical process where citizens co-decide on institutional budget priorities. Its effectiveness in environmental governance stems from its ability to foster trust through concrete impacts and the direct involvement of participants in resource allocation (Wampler 2000; Abers 2000). Early studies highlighted PB’s potential for promoting social equity and local development, with growing recognition of its role in aligning ecological goals with community-led initiatives (Sintomer et al. 2008; Cabannes 2004).
• Citizens’ Assemblies (CAs): Also referred to as citizens’ juries or panels, CAs utilise random selection (sortition) to create a descriptive micro-representation of society. These bodies engage in structured deliberation with experts, producing policy recommendations on complex issues (Warren and Pearse 2008). Foundational work on deliberative democracy and citizens’ juries demonstrated their capacity to integrate diverse perspectives and enhance the legitimacy of environmental decision-making (Kenyon et al. 2001; Goodin and Dryzek 2006).
• Systems of Councils and Public Policy Forums: This typology interrelates permanent consultative bodies (councils) with large-scale intermediate assemblies. Evolving from methodologies like Local Agenda 21, these systems facilitate transcalar cooperation by involving organised civil society in continuous policy monitoring and co-design (Ansell and Gash 2008). Such collaborative governance models have been instrumental in integrating diverse stakeholders into environmental policy processes (Dryzek 2006).
• Public Debates (PD): PDs are often mandated for large-scale public works or transformative policies, such as energy transitions. Overseen by independent authorities, PDs create deep deliberative spaces to examine the environmental, social, and economic consequences of proposed projects (Revel et al. 2007). The institutionalisation of PDs, notably through frameworks like the French Commission Nationale du Débat Public (CNDP), emphasises transparency and the equitable consideration of all expressed opinions in environmental decision-making (McKinney and Harmon 2002).

By analysing the intrinsic characteristics of DIs in its proposal phase, the PHOENIX project has identified six systemic challenges that frequently hinder the effectiveness of democratic innovations in environmental governance. These are recurring characteristics that often diminish the transformative potential of participatory and deliberative initiatives designed to address the environmental crises targeted by the EGD. These challenges can be summarised as follows:

• Timeframe: The extended period required to achieve tangible results from environmental initiatives often complicates stakeholder engagement, as long-term goals may seem distant or irrelevant to immediate socioeconomic concerns.
• Complexity of environmental issues: The inherent complexity of environmental issues frequently discourages broad public involvement, often leading to a reliance on expert-driven top-down approaches that can alienate non-specialist citizens.
• Transcalar cooperation: Effective governance requires fostering synergies across various administrative levels. Since environmental issues transcend traditional boundaries, a failure in multi-level collaboration directly diminishes the quality of citizen and stakeholder involvement.
• Behavioural change: Significant barriers to behavioural change among diverse actors hinder their transformation into active participants. This raises critical questions about how democratic innovations can ensure inclusiveness and promote genuine public agency.
• Lack of deliberative dialogue: The lack of structured deliberation often leaves territorial and sectoral conflicts unresolved, fragmenting efforts and weakening the consensus needed for systemic transformation.
• Low mutual trust: A widespread lack of trust among citizens, institutions, and experts undermines the collaborative relationships essential to robust, legitimate policymaking.

In its research phase, PHOENIX scientific partners, through weekly seminars, deepened the analysis of these six challenges (Sintomer and Abbas 2023). Furthermore, PHOENIX mapped and tested democratic innovations that have been successfully applied in environmental governance around the world and examined the obstacles they face in scaling impacts. The project introduced a flexible methodological framework (the Tangram approach) designed to adapt participatory processes to diverse territorial realities. This process prepared the ground for the design and testing of participatory and deliberative processes in the project’s 11 pilots, across municipal, regional, national, and cross-border levels. The results of the process were translated into a Policy Recommendation paper (Sandri et al. 2025), organised around the six challenges. These policy recommendations draw on multiple layers of knowledge production throughout the project.

While the PHOENIX conceptual framework was initially developed in the context of Democratic Innovations (DIs) to address environmental issues, the systemic challenges it identifies are highly pertinent and directly applicable to the implementation of the European Union’s Farm-to-Fork (F2F) Strategy. The F2F Strategy represents a profound and complex socio-ecological transition, aiming for a fair, healthy, and environmentally friendly food system. Its success hinges not merely on technical or regulatory adjustments, but fundamentally on the active engagement, cooperation, and behavioural shifts of a diverse array of actors, including farmers, consumers, industry, and policymakers across multiple governance levels.

Consequently, the challenges identified by PHOENIX (prolonged timeframes for tangible results, the inherent complexity of environmental issues, the need for transcalar cooperation, the imperative for behaviour change, the fostering of deliberative dialogue, and the cultivation of mutual trust) are not exclusive to DI processes. Instead, they represent fundamental governance challenges that are intrinsic to any large-scale, multi-actor environmental policy implementation (Owen and Videras 2008; Scheberle 2004). For instance, building trust and fostering cooperation among stakeholders with often divergent interests is critical for the effective implementation of F2F policies (Ansell and Gash 2008; Dryzek 2006). Similarly, achieving widespread adoption of sustainable agricultural practices necessitates significant behaviour change, which is influenced by socioeconomic factors, knowledge exchange, and the perceived legitimacy of policies (McKinney and Harmon 2002). Therefore, by analysing the F2F Strategy through the lens of the PHOENIX challenges, this study provides a robust framework for understanding the deep-seated barriers to its successful realisation, offering insights that extend beyond the specific mechanisms of DIs to the broader dynamics of environmental governance.

2.2. Research Design and Data Sources

The research was designed to investigate the implementation challenges of the Farm-to-Fork (F2F) Strategy, using the six systemic challenges identified within the Horizon-2020 PHOENIX project as an analytical lens. The research began with an extensive review of peer-reviewed scholarship and official European Union policy documents. Data collection was organised around two complementary pillars:

First, public policy documents were gathered, focusing on strategic and legislative texts of the European Union published between 2019 and 2024, a period that spans from the launch of the European Green Deal to the most recent revisions of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The corpus includes: (a) strategic frameworks, such as the European Green Deal, the Farm-to-Fork Strategy, and the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030; and (b) implementation and evaluation documents, including technical reports from the European Commission, special reports from the European Court of Auditors (ECA), and assessments from the European Environment Agency (EEA) on agricultural pressures.

Second, a systematic search of scientific literature was conducted, anchored in the six PHOENIX challenges (Timeframe, Complexity, Transcalar Cooperation, Behaviour Change, Lack of Deliberative Dialogue, and Low Mutual Trust) as the primary conceptual framework, which served as the primary conceptual framework, guiding the selection of keywords and the study’s thematic scope. Using this framework as a point of departure, a systematic search was conducted in the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases to understand how these same topics have been addressed by other authors across diverse geographical and socio-political contexts. Only peer-reviewed articles in English were included, with priority given to studies that examine socioeconomic, behavioural and governance dimensions of agricultural transitions. Non-technical dissemination pieces and studies focusing exclusively on agronomic aspects without a clear connection to governance, education or policy were excluded. The final corpus comprised 69 documents, including PHOENIX project deliverables, scientific articles (about participatory and deliberative methodologies and Farm-to-Fork Strategy) and policy texts.

Data Analysis

Data analysis followed a deductive thematic procedure inspired by Braun and Clarke (2021). Rather than allowing categories to emerge inductively, the six systemic challenges of the PHOENIX project were used as a priori codes. All documents were read in full and coded iteratively to identify arguments, empirical findings, and policy claims that directly addressed each challenge. This allowed us to map how current literature and EU policy discourse conceptualise and problematize Timeframe, Complexity, Transcalar Cooperation, Behaviour Change, Lack of Deliberative Dialogue, and Low Mutual Trust in the context of the F2F Strategy and wider Green Deal implementation.

Throughout the process, particular attention was paid to preserving the link between the abstract formulation of each challenge and the realities of the agricultural sector. For example, tensions between short-term farm solvency and long-term environmental commitments were used to substantiate the Timeframe challenge, while gaps between expert knowledge and situated farmer knowledge were coded under Complexity and Low Mutual Trust. This iterative movement between framework and material was used to enhance the interpretive robustness of the analysis and to highlight how European ambitions intersect with the operational constraints and perceptions of agricultural actors.

Finally, all references and policy documents were mapped against the six systemic challenges, identifying overlaps and cross-cutting contributions. Several sources (e.g., Kurtsal et al. 2024; Forero et al. 2025) appear under more than one challenge, reflecting the transversal character of their analyses. Institutional documents (such as European Commission communications and OECD reports) were also retained where they provided the normative and strategic context for governance and innovation issues (e.g., AKIS).

In total, 29 documents were used to analyse each of the six challenges, with several documents contributing to more than one. Table 1 presents the distribution of scientific papers and public policy documents used to analyse each of the six systemic challenges.

Table 1. Scientific publications and public policy documents for each challenge.

PHOENIX Systemic Challenge	Focus Description	Bibliographic References (Authors/Entities)
Timeframe	Mismatch between long-term goals and immediate economic pressures; perception of delayed benefits.	Boix-Fayos and de Vente (2023); Forero et al. (2025); Wesseler (2022); Hepping et al. (2025)
Complexity	Intricate nature of the agriculture–climate nexus; technical communication gap and psychological barriers.	El Bilali et al. (2021); Ghisellini et al. (2023); Vignola and Oosterveer (2025); Whitton and Carmichael (2025); Chindasombatcharoen et al. (2024); Kurtsal et al. (2024); Mainar-Causapé and Martínez (2025)
Transcalar Cooperation	Coordination failures between the EU, Member States, and regional levels; policy fragmentation (CAP vs. F2F).	Boix-Fayos and de Vente (2023); Hepping et al. (2025); Mezzacapo (2024); Fiala et al. (2024); Bazzan et al. (2023); European Commission (2020b); Kurtsal et al. (2024)
Behaviour Change	Barriers to adopting new practices (agroecology/organic): labour costs and production uncertainty.	Tataridas et al. (2022); Schneider et al. (2023); Buttinelli et al. (2025); Forero et al. (2025); Wesseler (2022); Whitton and Carmichael (2025); Sander et al. (2024); European Commission (2020b); OECD (2023b); Kurtsal et al. (2024); Hurley et al. (2024); Chindasombatcharoen et al. (2024)
Lack of Deliberative Dialogue	Unresolved conflicts of interest; need for co-design and multi-actor consultation spaces.	Fiala et al. (2024); Frelih-Larsen et al. (2023); Forero et al. (2025); Hepping et al. (2025); Holland and Tansey (2022); Katz and Earl (2007); Earl et al. (2006); Kurtsal et al. (2024); European Commission (2020b)
Low Mutual Trust	Scepticism regarding policy fairness (eco-schemes); perception of exclusion and economic risks.	Forero et al. (2025); Kröner et al. (2025); Sander et al. (2024); Wesseler (2022); Hepping et al. (2025); Whitton and Carmichael (2025); Finger (2024); Saba (2025); EU CAP Network (2024); European Commission (2020b); Kurtsal et al. (2024)

3. Results

This section presents the findings derived from the systematic review of policy documents and scholarly literature, analysed through the deductive lens of the six PHOENIX challenges. Each challenge is explored to identify specific barriers hindering the effective implementation of the European Union’s Farm-to-Fork (F2F) Strategy. The evidence gathered highlights the multifaceted nature of these obstacles, encompassing technical, social, institutional, and cognitive dimensions, which collectively impede the transition towards a sustainable food system. The subsequent subsections detail the manifestation of each challenge within the F2F context, drawing upon empirical observations and expert analyses from the reviewed sources.

3.1. PHOENIX Challenges as a Framework for the Farm-to-Fork Strategy

The six challenges identified by the PHOENIX project provide more than a theoretical typology; they offer a diagnostic lens for critically evaluating the practical implementation of the F2F Strategy. By mapping the systemic challenges encountered in the F2F transition, ranging from temporal mismatches to trust deficits, onto this framework, it becomes possible to identify why high-level European ambitions often struggle to gain traction at the local level. The following analysis applies a deductive approach to explore how these six dimensions manifest in the agri-food sector, revealing the complex interplay amongst policy design, stakeholder engagement, and the socioeconomic realities of the farming community.

3.1.1. Prolonged Timeframes for Tangible Results

Applying the PHOENIX diagnostic of ‘Prolonged Timeframes’ to the F2F Strategy reveals a fundamental mismatch between the long-term goals of sustainability initiatives and the immediate economic pressures faced by agricultural stakeholders. The ambitious 2030 targets of the F2F Strategy necessitate a profound systemic transition involving complex regulatory shifts, socioeconomic restructuring, and market reorganisation (Boix-Fayos and de Vente 2023). However, the biological and structural maturation required for such a transformation often operates on a timeline that exceeds immediate political and economic expectations. The analysis of policy documents and scholarly literature confirms that the extended period required to achieve tangible results from F2F initiatives is a significant barrier to implementation. Agronomic transitions, such as soil recovery, biodiversity improvements, and market reorientation, often demand much longer timeframes to yield measurable benefits (Boix-Fayos and de Vente 2023). This inherent temporal mismatch between policy timelines and ecological realities increases farmers’ perceived risk and reduces their willingness to invest in uncertain changes, particularly when short-term profit margins are tight (Forero et al. 2025; Wesseler 2022). Evidence from the reviewed literature indicates that when policy benefits are delayed, but compliance costs are immediate, policies are perceived as unrealistic, widening the gap between high-level ambition and on-farm decisions (Hepping et al. 2025). These dynamic initiatives fuel farmers’ politicisation and resistance, as farmers feel pressured to adopt practices that offer no immediate or guaranteed return on investment. Consequently, this delay in visible outcomes risks diminishing the interest and active participation of the very actors (farmers, businesses, and consumers) who are the essential driving force behind the strategy’s success, illustrating how the PHOENIX time-related barrier specifically jeopardises the F2F’s transformative potential (Forero et al. 2025).

3.1.2. Complexity of Environmental Issues

Applying the PHOENIX diagnostic of ‘Complexity of Environmental Issues’ to the F2F Strategy reveals a significant barrier to effective engagement and implementation. This intricate challenge stems from the inherent interdependencies within agricultural systems, the technical communication gap between experts and practitioners, and underlying psychological barriers to change. The F2F Strategy operates within a highly intricate nexus of agriculture, biodiversity, climate change, and global food systems, a finding consistently supported by the reviewed literature (El Bilali et al. 2021; Ghisellini et al. 2023). This complexity is compounded by the multiscale nature of food production and the technical difficulty of measuring environmental performance across diverse domains. Our analysis shows that this systemic density often creates a significant communication gap, where high-level technical goals fail to resonate with the daily realities of local actors (Vignola and Oosterveer 2025; Whitton and Carmichael 2025). This environment directly triggers the PHOENIX challenge of complexity that discourages engagement. The literature suggests that when sustainability narratives feel overwhelming or overly technical, they create psychological barriers and a reliance on expert-driven discourse, making it increasingly difficult for farmers and consumers to see themselves as active participants in the transition (Chindasombatcharoen et al. 2024). This complexity results in uneven implementation capacity, especially in regions where advisory and training systems are weaker (Kurtsal et al. 2024; Mainar-Causapé and Martínez 2025).

3.1.3. Transcalar Cooperation

Applying the PHOENIX diagnostic of ‘Transcalar Cooperation’ to the F2F Strategy reveals a persistent challenge in achieving robust alignment across various governance levels (EU, Member State, regional, local) and diverse policy domains (e.g., Common Agricultural Policy, environment, health, trade) (Boix-Fayos and de Vente 2023). Implementing the F2F Strategy requires a robust framework for cross-sectoral integration that aligns European ambitions with national and local sectoral policies, such as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) (Bazzan et al. 2023). This ‘integrated’ approach demands more than aligning policy instruments; it necessitates a governance shift that fosters transparency and avoids contradictions amongst environmental, health, and trade objectives (Boix-Fayos and de Vente 2023). The analysis indicates that a prevalent barrier is the lack of coordination and fragmentation across these levels, which can dilute the F2F Strategy’s transformative intent and create contradictory incentives (Boix-Fayos and de Vente 2023; Hepping et al. 2025; Mezzacapo 2024). This often leads farmers to perceive F2F as a top-down, inconsistent set of requirements rather than a coherent transition pathway, thereby undermining legitimacy and reducing engagement, particularly amongst groups feeling excluded from agenda-setting processes (Fiala et al. 2024; Hepping et al. 2025). The success of the F2F hinges on its ability to translate high-level systemic goals into actionable, site-specific practices. Without effective coordination across administrative levels, the gap between European strategic vision and local implementation remains unbridged, diminishing the legitimacy and feasibility of the proposed changes. To overcome these issues, literature highlights the effectiveness of collaborative, results-oriented instruments for policy innovation. Bottom-up approaches that integrate the preferences of farmers and environmental actors have been shown to facilitate smoother implementation of biodiversity protection measures (Bazzan et al. 2023). Crucially, transcalar cooperation necessitates the development of ‘interface capacity’, which includes facilitators, boundary organisations, advisory services, and multi-actor spaces. These elements are vital for connecting high-level policy objectives with local experimentation and feedback mechanisms.

3.1.4. Behaviour Change

Applying the PHOENIX diagnostic of ‘Behaviour Change’ to the F2F Strategy reveals a critical, yet often underestimated, challenge. The transition towards agroecology and regenerative agriculture, as promoted by the F2F Strategy, requires farmers to adopt practices that often conflict with long-established habits and existing economic incentives (Whitton and Carmichael 2025). This challenge encompasses various barriers to adopting new, more sustainable agricultural practices, such as agroecology or organic farming. These include not only the perceived labour costs and production uncertainty associated with new methods but also deeply ingrained habits and risk aversion (Tataridas et al. 2022; Schneider et al. 2023; Buttinelli et al. 2025; Forero et al. 2025; Wesseler 2022; Whitton and Carmichael 2025; Sander et al. 2024; OECD 2023b; Kurtsal et al. 2024; Hurley et al. 2024). Beyond individual motivation, this shift is hindered by structural barriers, including the need for specialised expertise, increased labour demands, and limited access to appropriate resources (Chindasombatcharoen et al. 2024; Tataridas et al. 2022). Economic feasibility remains a primary concern underlying farmer resistance (Forero et al. 2025; Wesseler 2022; Whitton and Carmichael 2025). Behavioural change is unlikely to occur if the transition is framed merely as compliance with regulations. Instead, uptake significantly improves when farmers are empowered to experiment, learn from peers, access trusted advice, and can anticipate stable markets and supportive policies (Sander et al. 2024; Whitton and Carmichael 2025). Without supportive community structures and financial risk mitigation, the inertia of existing production systems continues to delay the F2F’s transformative potential.

3.1.5. Lack of Deliberative Dialogue

Applying the PHOENIX diagnostic of ‘Lack of Deliberative Dialogue’ to the F2F Strategy reveals a significant impediment to achieving consensus and fostering collective action. The implementation of the F2F Strategy involves navigating a complex landscape of often-conflicting interests among farmers, environmentalists, and policymakers (Fiala et al. 2024; Frelih-Larsen et al. 2023). Tensions frequently arise from the delicate balance between immediate economic viability and long-term environmental mandates, a conflict acutely felt by farmers striving to protect their livelihoods (Forero et al. 2025). This challenge stems from unresolved conflicts of interest amongst diverse stakeholders and the insufficient provision of spaces for co-design and multi-actor consultation. The importance of inclusive and meaningful dialogue to build shared understanding, reconcile differing perspectives, and develop more legitimate and effective policy solutions is well established (Fiala et al. 2024; Frelih-Larsen et al. 2023; Forero et al. 2025; Hepping et al. 2025; Holland and Tansey 2022). Without inclusive processes that reconcile diverse perspectives, these territorial and sectoral conflicts can fragment implementation efforts and weaken the consensus necessary for systemic change (Hepping et al. 2025). Deliberation is therefore essential to ensure that farmers’ voices are not just heard but actively integrated into the co-creation of sustainable food systems (Frelih-Larsen et al. 2023). Multi-actor collaboration is critical, not merely as a governance ideal but as a practical implementation mechanism, as further emphasised by Kurtsal et al. (2024) in navigating complex policy landscapes.

3.1.6. Low Mutual Trust

Applying the PHOENIX diagnostic of ‘Low Mutual Trust’ to the Farm-to-Fork (F2F) Strategy reveals a substantial obstacle to its success. The ultimate success of the F2F Strategy is contingent upon stakeholders’ willingness to embrace new, often risky practices. However, many farmers express scepticism about the fairness of policy instruments, such as eco-schemes, and the economic viability of organic transitions (Forero et al. 2025; Kröner et al. 2025). This scepticism is fuelled by perceived economic risks and a sense of exclusion from the policymaking process (Sander et al. 2024; Wesseler 2022). These dynamics culminate in a pervasive lack of mutual trust amongst citizens, institutions, and experts. Mistrust fundamentally undermines the collaboration required for effective governance and reinforces resistance to change (Hepping et al. 2025). This challenge manifests as scepticism regarding policy fairness, particularly concerning eco-schemes, and a pervasive perception of exclusion and economic risks amongst agricultural producers (Forero et al. 2025; Kröner et al. 2025; Sander et al. 2024; Wesseler 2022; Hepping et al. 2025; Whitton and Carmichael 2025; Finger 2024; Saba 2025). Establishing transparent communication and ensuring equitable support mechanisms are, therefore, crucial for building the trust necessary for farmers to fully commit to the F2F transition (Hepping et al. 2025; Whitton and Carmichael 2025).

3.1.7. The Role of AKIS as an Enabling Mechanism

Beyond identifying the systemic barriers, the analysis of policy documents and scholarly literature consistently highlights the crucial role of Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKIS) and associated Education and Training (ET) as key enabling mechanisms to overcome these challenges within the Farm-to-Fork (F2F) Strategy. AKIS emerged from the research as the primary infrastructure for knowledge transfer, multi-actor collaboration, and targeted support, which are vital for navigating the complexities of the green transition (European Commission 2020b; Kurtsal et al. 2024).

To understand how this mechanism addresses the identified barriers, it is essential to recognise that the concept of AKIS has developed significantly within the European Union, particularly over the last two decades, driven by the need to shift from a linear research model to an interactive, application-oriented innovation model (Sutherland and Prager 2025). The term AKIS is defined as a system in which human actors and organisations interact in relation to the creation, transformation, transmission, storage, retrieval, integration, dissemination, and exploitation of knowledge and information, intending to work collaboratively to support decision-making, problem-solving, and promoting innovation in the agricultural sector (Zahran et. al. 2020; Kountios et al. 2024).

A well-developed AKIS encompasses seven main functions: (i) knowledge development; (ii) the creation of networks for knowledge diffusion; (iii) entrepreneurial activities; (iv) search guidance; (v) market formation and resource mobilisation; (vi) the creation of legitimacy; and (vii) finally, the neutralisation of resistance to change (Kountios et al. 2024).

Over the past three years, AKIS has been elevated to a central pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for the 2023–2027 period, becoming the backbone of the cross-cutting objective to modernise agriculture and rural areas (European Commission 2023). A critical dimension of this modernisation is the integration of Lifelong Learning (LLL) as a continuous process for farmers and advisors to adapt to rapid technological and environmental shifts (EU CAP Network 2024). The European Commission has solidified AKIS as a strategic requirement, mandating that every Member State include a detailed AKIS Strategic Plan within its CAP Strategic Plan, specifically addressing how training and advisory services will foster long-term skills development (European Evaluation Helpdesk for the CAP 2023). This approach aligns with the Pact for Skills in the agri-food sector, which aims to upskill and reskill the workforce, with at least 60% of adults participating in training each year by 2030 (European Commission 2024).

The findings indicate that by fostering continuous learning, facilitating deliberative spaces, and building trust through impartial advice, this strengthened AKIS framework directly addresses the core issues identified across the six PHOENIX challenges. Table 2 summarises the key barriers and the corresponding AKIS/ET enabling mechanisms identified in the literature for each PHOENIX challenge:

Table 2. Main findings.

PHOENIX Challenge	Key Barriers Identified in Literature/Policy	Enabling Mechanisms (AKIS/ET) Identified in Literature
1. Prolonged Timeframes	- Temporal mismatch between policy goals and ecological realities (Boix-Fayos and de Vente 2023) - Increased perception of risk and uncertainty for farmers (Forero et al. 2025; Wesseler 2022) - Immediate compliance costs vs. delayed benefits (Hepping et al. 2025)	- Modular, seasonally aligned Education and Training (ET) to support gradual adoption (Cabannes 2004; Kurtsal et al. 2024) - Farmer-to-farmer exchanges and demonstration activities - Advisory support to reduce uncertainty and clarify pathways
2. Complexity of Issues	- Communication gap between high-level goals and local realities (Vignola and Oosterveer 2025; Whitton and Carmichael 2025) - Psychological barriers discouraging engagement (Chindasombatcharoen et al. 2024) - Uneven implementation capacity due to weak advisory systems (Kurtsal et al. 2024; Mainar-Causapé and Martínez 2025)	- ET to translate complex targets into actionable practices (Kurtsal et al. 2024; Mainar-Causapé and Martínez 2025) - Focus on decision-making skills (risk management, monitoring) (Cabannes 2004) - AKIS networks combining formal, non-formal, and informal learning
3. Transcalar Cooperation	- Lack of coordination and fragmentation across governance levels (Boix-Fayos and de Vente 2023; Hepping et al. 2025; Mezzacapo 2024) - Contradictory incentives and top-down perception - Undermined legitimacy and reduced engagement (Fiala et al. 2024; Hepping et al. 2025)	- Collaborative, results-oriented instruments and bottom-up approaches (Bazzan et al. 2023) - Development of ‘interface capacity’ (facilitators, boundary organisations, advisory services) - AKIS framework strengthening knowledge flows and multi-actor coordination (European Commission 2020a; Kurtsal et al. 2024; Bazzan et al. 2023)
4. Behaviour Change	- Practical constraints (labour, input access, support, yield uncertainty) (Tataridas et al. 2022; Schneider et al. 2023; Buttinelli et al. 2025) - Economic feasibility concerns and resistance (Forero et al. 2025; Wesseler 2022; Whitton and Carmichael 2025)—Transition framed merely as compliance	- Vocational Education and Training (VET) and Lifelong Learning (LLL) within AKIS to build competence and confidence - Advisory services and peer networks to reduce experimentation risks (Sander et al. 2024; Whitton and Carmichael 2025) - Participatory approaches (e.g., living labs) for learning-by-doing (European Commission 2020b; OECD 2023b; Kurtsal et al. 2024; Hurley et al. 2024)
5. Lack of Deliberative Dialogue	- Conflicting interests amongst stakeholders (Fiala et al. 2024; Frelih-Larsen et al. 2023) - Fragmentation of implementation efforts and weakened consensus (Hepping et al. 2025) - Perception of remote or unbalanced policy design	- Inclusive processes for reconciling diverse perspectives (Kurtsal et al. 2024) - Multi-actor consultation spaces, learning communities, co-design formats (Katz and Earl 2007; Earl et al. 2006; European Commission 2020b) - Embedding deliberative functions within AKIS for ongoing engagement
6. Low Mutual Trust	- Scepticism about policy fairness and economic viability (Forero et al. 2025; Kröner et al. 2025) - Perceived economic risks and exclusion from policymaking (Wesseler 2022; Sander et al. 2024) - Mistrust undermines collaboration and reinforces resistance (Hepping et al. 2025)	- Transparent communication and equitable support mechanisms (Hepping et al. 2025; Whitton and Carmichael 2025) - Farm Advisory Service (FAS) as impartial innovation facilitator and mentor (Saba 2025) - FAS focus on sustainability and digitalisation for credible guidance (Saba 2025; EU CAP Network 2024)

In summary, the analysis across all six PHOENIX challenges reveals a consistent pattern of multifaceted barriers hindering the effective implementation of the Farm-to-Fork Strategy. These include significant temporal mismatches between policy targets and agronomic realities, the inherent complexity of environmental issues, which leads to communication gaps and reduced engagement, and fragmentation across governance levels that undermines policy coherence. Furthermore, practical constraints and economic feasibility concerns contribute to resistance to behavioural change amongst farmers. The presence of conflicting interests amongst stakeholders often leads to a lack of deliberative dialogue, whilst perceived policy unfairness and economic risks culminate in low mutual trust between farmers, institutions, and experts. Crucially, as detailed in Section 4.1, Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKIS) and associated Education and Training (ET) consistently emerge from the literature and policy analysis as key enabling mechanisms for addressing these systemic challenges. These findings collectively underscore the complex interplay of factors impeding the F2F transition and highlight the pivotal role of knowledge and innovation systems in fostering a more resilient and sustainable agri-food sector. The subsequent section will further interpret these results, explore their implications, and propose targeted policy recommendations.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

4.1. Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System as a Cross-Cutting Strategy to Overcome Systemic Challenges

A cross-cutting finding from recent reviews is that the challenges to sustainable transitions are strongly mediated by AKIS capacity and accessible, practice-oriented Education and Training (ET) (Kurtsal et al. 2024). While EU strategies recognise research and innovation as key drivers of accelerating sustainable transitions, the pace of innovation uptake in the European agri-food and forestry sectors remains insufficient to meet the targets set by the Farm-to-Fork (F2F) Strategy (Kurtsal et al. 2024; Maini et al. 2021).

In the reviewed literature, ET is repeatedly identified as one of the most effective levers for enabling sustainable practices, particularly when embedded in interactive AKIS arrangements rather than linear ‘knowledge transfer’ models (OECD 2023a; Kurtsal et al. 2024; European Commission 2020b). AKIS has evolved toward participatory and co-creative approaches that combine formal, non-formal, and informal learning and support continuous competence development for farmers, advisors, and other value-chain actors (European Commission 2020b; Kurtsal et al. 2024). This shift matters for F2F because it directly targets challenges associated with complexity (through translation and skills), behavioural change (through confidence and support), cross-scale coordination (through multi-actor interfaces), and trust (through repeated, credible interaction).

According to Kurtsal et al. (2024), AKIS must evolve beyond traditional models to integrate formal, non-formal, and informal learning. This expanded focus should foster interdisciplinary and participatory knowledge co-creation, supporting lifelong and vocational learning for farmers, advisors, and all actors along the value chain (Birke et al. 2025; Jakab et al. 2025). Furthermore, strengthening AKIS governance and integrating digital knowledge management are seen as strategic levers to align the F2F Strategy’s transformative goals with the practical realities of planetary health and societal well-being (Milardo 2025).

A particularly relevant connection between policy design and AKIS capacity concerns instrument mixes. Bazzan et al. (2023) propose a typology of agri-environmental instruments (action-based vs. result-based; individual vs. collective) and argue that collaborative, result-based procedural instruments are among the most innovative and likely to produce coherent policy mixes. Their case study shows that bottom-up schemes incorporating farmers’ and environmental groups’ preferences can facilitate smoother implementation (Bazzan et al. 2023). However, such collaborative, results-based approaches depend on facilitation, monitoring, advisory support, and co-design spaces, functions typically delivered through a strong AKIS and appropriate ET.

A cornerstone of AKIS is the Farm Advisory Service (FAS), which, since 2007, has been subsidised by the EU through Rural Development Programmes to ensure that every European farmer and breeder has access to agricultural knowledge (European Commission 2025a). Under the CAP 2023–2027, the role of the FAS has been significantly expanded to support a culture of lifelong learning, guided by two overarching principles: Impartiality and Integration. This means the FAS must operate impartially and be fully integrated into the broader AKIS framework, serving as both an innovation facilitator and a mentor for continuous professional development (Saba 2025). Furthermore, the FAS is now mandated to focus on Sustainability and Digitalisation, requiring advisors to support farmers not only in regulatory compliance but also in adopting sustainable practices and navigating the digital transition, utilising micro-credentials and modular training to facilitate continuous learning (EU CAP Network 2024; Saba 2025).

Overall, the European Commission has strategically transformed AKIS from a theoretical concept into a public policy imperative. This evolution champions lifelong learning and interactive knowledge co-creation as essential for addressing the multifaceted challenges of the Green Deal and ensuring the long-term resilience and sustainability of the European agricultural sector (European Commission 2025b). This transformation directly informs our first research question: Can these systemic challenges be observed in current F2F policy implementation?

Indeed, the application of the PHOENIX framework to the Farm-to-Fork (F2F) Strategy reveals that the primary challenges to its implementation are not merely technical or economic. Instead, they are deeply rooted in governance fragmentation, uneven knowledge flows, and strained trust relations across the agri-food system. The convergence of long timeframes, complex issues, and cross-scale coordination gaps creates a landscape where high-level policy ambitions frequently fail to resonate with the daily realities of the farming community. This systemic misalignment is further exacerbated by behavioural inertia and a lack of deliberative spaces, which collectively weaken the transformative potential of the F2F as experienced by farmers and implemented by institutions.

Evidence suggests that the systemic constraints hindering sustainable transitions can be mitigated when farmers are engaged not as passive recipients of regulation, but as central actors in co-producing solutions and testing innovations. In this context, strengthening Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKIS) emerges as a strategic lever for change. AKIS, defined as a system where human actors and organizations interact for knowledge creation, transformation, and dissemination to support decision-making and innovation (Zahran et al. 2020; Kountios et al. 2024), has been elevated to a central pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for 2023–2027 (European Commission 2023). A well-developed AKIS encompasses critical functions such as knowledge development, network creation, and the neutralization of resistance to change (Kountios et al. 2024). To understand how these functions, operationalize the green transition, it is necessary to examine how AKIS addresses the specific PHOENIX challenges identified in the literature.

Afterwards, to operationalise this pivotal shift, two implementation-oriented strategies stand out, which will be further elaborated as policy recommendations.

4.2. How AKIS Addresses the Specific PHOENIX Challenges

4.2.1. Mitigating Risks in Prolonged Timeframes

The first of these challenges concerns the temporal mismatch between immediate compliance costs and delayed ecological or economic benefits, which significantly increases farmers’ perceived risks (Forero et al. 2025; Wesseler 2022; Boix-Fayos and de Vente 2023). When policy benefits are delayed, initiatives are often perceived as unrealistic, widening the gap between ambition and on-farm decisions (Hepping et al. 2025). AKIS addresses this temporal gap by providing continuous Education and Training (ET) and advisory support. Modular and seasonally aligned ET formats, delivered through a robust AKIS, support gradual, iterative adoption rather than abrupt changes (Cabannes 2004; Kurtsal et al. 2024). This approach effectively reduces the ‘perceived time-to-benefit’ and builds farmer confidence in long-term investments.

4.2.2. Translating the Complexity of Environmental Issues

Beyond temporal concerns, the intricate nature of the agriculture–climate nexus creates a significant communication gap, where high-level technical goals often fail to resonate with local actors (Vignola and Oosterveer 2025; Whitton and Carmichael 2025). Overly technical sustainability narratives can create psychological barriers and a reliance on expert-driven discourse (Chindasombatcharoen et al. 2024). AKIS mitigates this by utilising robust advisory and training systems to translate complex environmental metrics into actionable knowledge. ET is most effective when embedded in AKIS networks that combine formal, non-formal, and informal learning, emphasizing essential decision-making skills like risk management and on-farm monitoring (Kurtsal et al. 2024; Mainar-Causapé and Martínez 2025; Cabannes 2004).

4.2.3. Facilitating Transcalar Cooperation

The complexity of these issues is often compounded by governance failures, where policy fragmentation and a lack of coordination across levels dilute the transformative intent of strategies like Farm-to-Fork (Boix-Fayos and de Vente 2023; Hepping et al. 2025; Mezzacapo 2024). AKIS addresses these institutional hurdles by emphasising “interface capacity”, the development of advisory services, boundary organisations, and multi-actor spaces that connect high-level policy objectives with local experimentation (European Commission 2020a; Kurtsal et al. 2024; Bazzan et al. 2023). By strengthening these knowledge flows, AKIS facilitates collaborative, bottom-up approaches that are essential for transcalar alignment.

4.2.4. Empowering Behaviour Change

While structural coordination is vital, the ultimate success of the transition depends on individual behaviour change, which is currently hindered by practical constraints such as labour costs, production uncertainty, and risk aversion (Tataridas et al. 2022; Schneider et al. 2023; Buttinelli et al. 2025). AKIS recognises that behavioural change requires targeted support rather than mere regulatory compliance. Vocational Education and Training (VET) and Lifelong Learning (LLL) within the AKIS framework build the necessary competence and confidence for farmers to transition. Furthermore, participatory approaches such as living labs and peer networks reduce the risks of experimentation, thereby accelerating the learning-by-doing process (European Commission 2020b; OECD 2023a; Kurtsal et al. 2024; Hurley et al. 2024).

4.2.5. Fostering Deliberative Dialogue

Empowering individual change, however, must be supported by collective consensus, especially when navigating the conflicting interests of farmers, environmentalists, and policymakers (Fiala et al. 2024; Frelih-Larsen et al. 2023). AKIS provides the multi-actor consultation spaces and co-design formats necessary to foster mutual understanding and generate shared solutions. By embedding these deliberative functions within its structure, AKIS ensures ongoing engagement and adaptability, integrating farmers’ voices directly into the co-creation of policy (Kurtsal et al. 2024; European Commission 2020b).

4.2.6. Building Mutual Trust

Ultimately, all the aforementioned efforts rely on a foundation of mutual trust, which is currently strained by perceived economic risks and scepticism regarding policy fairness (Forero et al. 2025; Wesseler 2022; Sander et al. 2024; Kröner et al. 2025). AKIS, particularly through the Farm Advisory Service (FAS), acts as a crucial mediator in rebuilding this trust. The expanded mandate of the FAS under the CAP 2023–2027 emphasises impartiality and integration, positioning advisors as innovation facilitators and mentors (Saba 2025; EU CAP Network 2024). By focusing on sustainability and digitalisation through transparent communication, AKIS provides the credible guidance necessary for farmers to fully commit to the collective transition.

The above discussion has illuminated the multifaceted nature of the challenges hindering the effective implementation of the Farm-to-Fork (F2F) Strategy, as framed by the PHOENIX framework. We have demonstrated that issues such as prolonged timeframes, the inherent complexity of environmental concerns, fragmented transcalar cooperation, resistance to behavioural change, a lack of deliberative dialogue, and pervasive low mutual trust are not merely isolated obstacles but interconnected systemic barriers. Crucially, our analysis has consistently underscored the transformative potential of Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKIS) as a cross-cutting solution capable of addressing these challenges by fostering knowledge transfer, multi-actor collaboration, and targeted support. Recognising that the success of the F2F Strategy hinges on moving beyond a top-down regulatory approach to one that actively engages farmers as co-producers of solutions, the following policy recommendations are proposed to operationalise AKIS effectively and enhance the legitimacy and feasibility of the transition.

Policy Recommendation 1—Practice-based, Modular, and Inclusive ET Pathways within AKIS

The radical renewal of Education and Training (ET) policies is a prerequisite for navigating the complexities of the F2F Strategy proposed transition. Current literature emphasises the need for flexibility through modular learning and accessibility in rural contexts, ensuring that upskilling and reskilling are available across all career stages (OECD 2023a; Kurtsal et al. 2024). By integrating Education and Training (ET) with Lifelong Learning (LLL), these pathways can effectively reduce the “perceived time-to-benefit”, a direct response to the PHOENIX challenge of prolonged timeframes. Modular ET allows farmers to adopt innovations in manageable increments, mitigating the uncertainty associated with complex regulatory requirements and increasing overall confidence in transition planning. This approach transforms education from a static requirement into a dynamic tool for resilience, enabling continuous adaptation of practices as new environmental and economic challenges arise.

Policy Recommendation 2: Strengthened Multi-actor Collaboration as an Implementation Mechanism

To address the trust deficit and the lack of deliberative dialogue, the F2F Strategy must adopt multi-actor collaboration as its core implementation mechanism. Such collaborations act as ‘interfaces’ that connect high-level EU targets to farm-level experimentation and feedback, fostering a culture of mutual adjustment among farmers, researchers, and administrations (Katz and Earl 2007; Kurtsal et al. 2024). Moving beyond the traditional ‘knowledge triangle’ (education–research–business), recent scholarship proposes expanding to a ‘knowledge rectangle’ that explicitly incorporates local society and communities (Moschitz et al. 2021). This broader framing ensures contextual responsiveness and enhances the transition’s social legitimacy. By embedding democratic innovations within these collaborative spaces, the F2F can move from a perceived “imposition” to a co-produced agenda, bridging the transcalar coordination gaps that currently hinder progress.

In conclusion, applying the PHOENIX challenge framework to the Farm-to-Fork Strategy indicates that the main implementation challenges are deeply socio-political in nature. Long timeframes, issue complexity, and behavioural inertia converge to weaken the strategy’s transformative potential as experienced by the farming community. However, these constraints are not insurmountable. The evidence suggests that when farmers are engaged not as passive recipients of regulation but as central actors in co-producing solutions, the feasibility of the transition increases significantly.

Strengthening Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKIS) along with Education and Training (ET) represents the strategic focus necessary for this transition. By integrating formal, non-formal, and informal learning and investing in multi-actor spaces, the EU can align F2F objectives with the daily realities of farm life. Ultimately, the effectiveness of the F2F Strategy depends on combining ambitious environmental goals with credible, participatory, and context-sensitive implementation mechanisms.

4.3. Limitations of This Study and Future Research Topics

The limitations of this study, which primarily relies on a systematic literature review and policy document analysis, stem from several key areas. Firstly, its theoretical and documentary nature means that while it offers a robust analysis of conceptual barriers, there might be an empirical implementation gap due to the absence of direct primary data, such as interviews or surveys with farmers experiencing the transition firsthand. Secondly, the strong EU perspective focus may lead to an incomplete understanding of the heterogeneity among Member States, where national AKIS capacities vary significantly, and regional specificities might not be fully explored. Thirdly, the deductive approach, which utilises the six predefined categories of the PHOENIX project, could potentially overlook emerging barriers that do not neatly fit into these established frameworks, such as recent geopolitical tensions or energy crises impacting production costs. Finally, the temporal dynamics of the Farm-to-Fork Strategy, still in early implementation phases, mean the study captures a snapshot of an ongoing process, thereby limiting the assessment of the actual long-term impacts of the proposed recommendations.

While this study provides a critical diagnosis of the challenges facing the Farm-to-Fork (F2F) Strategy through the PHOENIX framework, its inherent limitations, such as a predominantly theoretical and documentary nature, an EU-centric perspective, a deductive approach, and the temporal snapshot of an ongoing process, necessitate further empirical and nuanced investigation. Future research can effectively address these gaps by embarking on several key avenues. A comparative analysis of AKIS effectiveness across diverse EU Member States, examining both centralised and decentralised models, would provide crucial insights into mitigating trust and communication challenges, thereby addressing the current study’s EU-focused perspective and its inability to fully explore regional specificities. Furthermore, investigating the impact of digitalisation on AKIS and the role of digital tools and precision agriculture can shed light on how these technologies facilitate lifelong learning and reduce the ‘perceived time to benefit’, directly addressing the empirical implementation gap. Longitudinal case studies of ‘Living Labs’ and co-creation spaces are essential to empirically measure their real impact on farmers’ behavioural change and the building of mutual trust among stakeholders, moving beyond theoretical assumptions. Concurrently, exploring the role of informal networks in agricultural learning, contrasting peer-to-peer learning with formal training, will help integrate and validate farmers’ tacit knowledge, enriching the understanding of on-the-ground dynamics. To enhance the study’s resilience to unforeseen factors, future work should analyse the F2F Strategy’s adaptation to external shocks, such as armed conflicts, pandemics, or extreme climate events, which significantly alter farmers’ immediate economic priorities and were not fully captured by a deductive framework. Finally, fostering innovation in policy evaluation by developing new indicators for ‘interface capacity’ and deliberative dialogue will move beyond traditional metrics, offering a more comprehensive assessment of long-term impacts and policy effectiveness that transcends a mere temporal snapshot.