Rethinking Food and Farming in Europe ^†

Abstract

Food security in Europe remains assured, but at too high an environmental cost. The old agro-chemical model has proven inadequate to meet the multi-faceted challenges of the 21st century. The most promising model must be sustainable and simultaneously improve economic performance, environmental protection, and social impact. Agro-ecology meets those goals, but its implementation would require a complete rethinking of EU policies for agriculture and food. The Common Agricultural Policy must radically change from quantitative to qualitative support and favour a demand-led rather than a supply-led approach to reflect consumer needs, not only in food pricing terms but also in nutritional and health aspects.

1. Introduction

Agro-ecology requires a complete rethinking of agriculture and food systems in the EU. The European Commission has already attempted to extricate the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) from its corporatist feature via the European Green Deal, by integrating the entire food chain under a single strategy known as the “Farm to Fork” strategy [1]. It fixed targets such as a 50% reduction in pesticides use, which became controversial and was eventually opposed by the farming sector. Hence, the approach proved ineffective even before concrete implementation took place. Yet climate and biodiversity challenges remain more acute than ever. The CAP should be profoundly revised to help make food and farming more sustainable.

2. The Food and Farming Issue Is Inextricably Linked to Geopolitics, Environment and Climate Change

In 2005, the United Nations launched the concept of food security in its sustainable development goals (SDGs), more specifically in SDG 2 “Zero hunger”, with the aim of ending hunger and food insecurity in the world by 2030. Food security for a country’s population is not only a precondition for its development but also a geostrategic asset, strongly linked to preserving a country’s strategic independence.

Against this background, the EU occupies the position of the world’s leading agrifood exporter, as well as importer. In 2022, the EU exported EUR 229.1 billion worth of agricultural products and imported EUR 195.6 billion worth, generating a surplus of EUR 33.5 billion, a continuation of a robust and positive trend observed over the last 20 years as observed in Figure 1 [2]. Food security is largely assured in Europe, in line with the objectives assigned in 1962 for the CAP, which aimed at guaranteeing food supplies for the European population. Yields steadily increased thanks to seed selection, investment in machinery and intensification of farming by making wide use of chemical fertilizers and plant protection pesticides. Although this agro-chemical model has become the norm, it has not been without damaging consequences for water, air, soil and biodiversity through the pollution it causes (for example, contamination of water by nitrates, the residues of nitrogen fertilisers) and the destruction it generates (such as the collapse of pollinating insects due to the use of pesticides).

The European Environment Agency has identified agriculture as the main factor in the degradation of biodiversity and the destruction of natural capital in Europe, despite efforts to ‘green’ the CAP over the last 10 years [3]. Agriculture also has an impact on climate, mainly due to methane emissions from ruminants, and nitrous oxide emissions from animal waste and nitrogen fertilisers. The greenhouse gas (GHG) emitted from the agricultural sector had fallen thanks to efficiency gains, but is now relatively constant, dropping by only 2% since 2005. The EU agri-food system contributes 31% of EU total emissions.

3. The Real Economic and Strategic Priorities for Agriculture Have Dramatically Changed over the Past 30 Years

The CAP has provided support to farmers since the 1960s, with the initial objectives of boosting agricultural productivity, supporting an economically sustainable food supply, safeguarding fair prices and ensuring reasonably good farm income in the EU. Over time, priorities have evolved, placing increasing emphasis on supporting the provision of environmental public well-being, addressing externalities and promoting rural development. Despite the successive reforms the CAP underwent over the past 30 years in order to align it to evolving objectives, it has not succeeded in reducing GHG emissions neither restoring nor protecting its natural capital (soil, water, biodiversity).

While the CAP budget is still the EU’s biggest item of expenditure with about EUR 55 billion per year, farm incomes remain lower than in other sectors. Three quarters of that budget is spent in the form of aid per hectare paid directly to farmers, forming the so-called “1st pillar of the CAP”. This plays a vital role in determining farm income: direct aid varies according to production type and to the size of the farm (the more hectares a farm has, the higher the overall payment it receives from the EU budget) and can account for up to 100% of farm income in certain regions. The original purpose of this direct aid was to compensate for the fall in prices triggered by the 1992 CAP reform. In practice, this maintains the unequal situation between EU Member States, leading to complex correction mechanisms, particularly in favour of the Baltic States, and between large and small farms (20% of farms in the EU receive 80% of aid [4]. They also encourage the concentration of farms and the continuation of unchanged agricultural practices.

The existence of substantial European subsidies is pushing up the price of agricultural land and driving down the prices paid to farmers by cooperatives and by the processing and distribution industries. Conversely, consumer prices are tending to rise, a sign that the sector’s added value is in fact being captured by its downstream agri-food processors and supermarkets. Some countries, such as France and Spain, are trying through national legislation to pass on to primary producers a fairer share of the prices paid by consumers, but without much success (“Egalim” laws I, II, III... and “Ley de la cadena”).

Today, agricultural production and environmental protection are often placed in opposition to each other, even though any form of agriculture designed for the long term needs healthy, functional ecosystems that respect natural cycles, inter alia water, nitrogen, phosphorus and carbon. The challenge now is to reconcile agriculture and the environment, both in practice and in people’s minds, as agriculture must do more to protect the environment while adapting to a rapidly warming climate.

4. In the Future the European Food System Will Either Be Sustainable or Rapidly Become Unviable

The world of agriculture has to face up to a series of challenges, which are equally societal issues, around the question of food. These economic, strategic, environmental, climatic and human issues go beyond the scope of the farming profession. It is the role and responsibility of the political authorities to take a clear stand on the direction in which society wishes to develop the agriculture and food of the future, since these bodies have the power to legislate and to provide financial support or taxation to help achieve societal objectives.

Europe needs to build on its assets, which are the excellence of its agricultural, food and gastronomic products, as well as a tangible heritage (landscapes, soils and terroirs, rural architecture) and intangible heritage (farming know-how, agronomic science, innovations, flagship agri-food businesses, traditional products, chefs, etc.) of great value. While developing and preserving these precious assets, we need to drastically reduce the impact of agricultural production on the environment and, more particularly, on biodiversity, itself a source of life. By the same token, climate change requires agriculture and food systems to make a vital effort to adapt, so that it can continue to grow crops and produce food, as affirmed by the heads of state and government at the COP 28 [5].

Because climate change and biodiversity loss are the biggest threats to food security, the direction to be taken by agriculture is without doubt that of sustainability and resilience. Legislative and budgetary means should support farmers to move confidently in this direction. Laissez faire liberalism fosters doubt, uncertainty and market volatility. There has never been a “green revolution” in agriculture in this context. There is always government impetus and support when agriculture develops strongly, as history shows.

The best farming model with the capacity to simultaneously bring about economic performance, environmental protection and social equity is agro-ecology. As this term may designate a scientific discipline, a social movement or a set of agricultural techniques based on agronomic science, we need to define what we mean here by agro-ecology. We retain the definition given in a French agricultural law of 2014: “Agro-ecological production systems combine economic and social performance, in particular through a high level of social, environmental and health protection. These systems prioritise the autonomy of farms and the improvement of their competitiveness, by maintaining or increasing economic profitability, improving the added value of production and reducing the consumption of energy, water, fertilisers, plant protection products and veterinary medicines, in particular antibiotics. They are based on biological interactions and the use of ecosystem services, and the potential offered by natural resources, in particular water resources, biodiversity, photosynthesis, soil and air, while maintaining their capacity for renewal in terms of quality and quantity. They contribute to mitigating and adapting to the effects of climate change”. The most successful agro-ecological systems are those developed by organic farming, permaculture, agroforestry, conservation agriculture, and regenerative farming, as well as several other environmental-friendly agricultural practices.

5. The EU Should Radically Turn Its CAP into a Transformative Policy Supporting Farm and Food Innovations

The CAP should evolve more rapidly in the direction of sustainability, which means rethinking the productivity model of development and opting for a radical shift to agro-ecology. Farmers would move beyond their role as primary producers of agricultural products and assume that of suppliers of public goods. This must be enshrined in European regulations at the highest level, as well as in a governance model that attributes to the regions the full capacity to finance and implement the optimal implementation of this agro-ecological policy.

Our central argument for turning the CAP into a transformative policy consists in radically reforming the way it delivers its support, together with other actions. As seen above, the 1st pillar eventually supports the continuation of unchanged agricultural practices, when we need investments to finance the agro-ecological transition. Rent-seeking mechanisms should be removed and the purpose of EU public aid to agriculture should be reconsidered, so that it encourages investment rather than supplementing farms’ cash flow. The so-called 2nd pillar of the CAP, also known as the Rural Development branch of that policy, is precisely designed for financing physical and intellectual investment, for supporting environmental and climatic measures and helping the results of research and innovation to flourish among farms. Yet only a quarter of the CAP budget goes to the 2nd pillar. This should become more important, to the detriment of the first pillar, i.e., direct aid.

The new CAP would no longer count two pillars, associated with two different financial regimes (the EU budget pays in full the expenditure for the 1st pillar, and the 2nd pillar expenditure is co-financed between the European Commission and the Member States) but support one single budget regime, entirely co-financed, and targeting sustainability, climate adaptation, transformative innovation and agro-ecology. Hence, a sizeable source of funding will serve the transition. Furthermore, sharing the financial burden will increase the responsibility of all actors, while one single regime will mean simplification for national and regional administrations.

Other actions should envisage a debt relief programme for farmers, a special programme for favouring the entry of young people and women in the sector, a specific approach to agriculture in the Free Trade Agreements, a remuneration for carbon storage in soils, a ban on cages in animal rearing, a reconnection of animals and crops on the same farm, budgetary and fiscal support to organic food and farming, using genome-editing techniques with all due caution, a sufficient budget for research and innovation, openness to bottom-up initiatives, on-farm employment, free training and advice, and many more other actions. Each of these would merit further study and development.

At the other end of the food chain, consumer needs must be taken on board, not only in food pricing terms, but also in nutritional and health aspects. It is only by encompassing whole food systems that the transition to sustainability will succeed. The Farm to Fork strategy has opened up a promising avenue in this direction, which needs to be pursued with determination [6].