The good, the bad, the ugly – why the Vision for Agriculture and Food is not (yet) future-proof

Heated debates, protests, and no real action in sight: that is how the debate around the future of EU Agriculture went on for years, leaving everyone frustrated. At the same time, 5.3 million farms had to close down in the last 15 years, leading to personal hardship and huge gaps in European landscapes and rural communities.  

After a promising Strategic Dialogue which brought together 29 stakeholders from all directions and backgrounds, hope for real change was in the air. Then, on February 19th, the European Commission presented its “Vision for Agriculture and Food”, outlining its perspective on the future of the sector while announcing specific legislative action in the coming years. What is our take on it? 

The good. 

As outlined in the Vision, practices where farmers are systematically forced to sell below costs will no longer be tolerated. To facilitate this, the ‘Unfair Trading Practises’ Directive will be revised. Mental health in the agriculture sector should not be a taboo but part of the social support system for farmers and workers. Community-led initiatives, including food councils – recognized as a key driver of change – will be supported, and the EU Commission is committed to bringing these voices to the EU level. As a part of the Food Voices Coalition, we certainly appreciate this. Public procurement will be strengthened with regards to local and sustainable food. Food waste and loss reductions, underlined by the first-ever binding reduction targets agreed recently at EU level, are recognised as crucial, to the benefit of “EU citizens, farmers and all other actors across the food supply chain” (Vision, p. 24). In a world of severe geopolitical tensions, Europe must take its food sovereignty into its own hands and cut its dependency on harmful imports of proteins/feed for our animals, and (also still Russian) fertilisers. Above all, the agri-food sector needs to (finally) function within planetary boundaries. This is where it gets tricky… 

The bad. 

For years there has been a heated discussion around the inefficient and unsustainable payout of the largest chunk of CAP payments. These are largely based on the size of farms and often go towards big agri businesses and landowners. With 1000 farms closing down every single day, the failure of EU payment schemes has therefore been evident all the way – without causing much of a change and empathy from conservative policymakers.  

In the Strategic Dialogue in 2024, one clear outcome was the call for a strong move away from basic hectare-based payments towards targeted income support and effective environmental payments. Yet in the Vision, this is only partially recognised. Yes, “future CAP support will therefore be more directed towards farmers that actively engage in food production, towards the economic vitality of farms and the preservation of our environment”(Vision, p. 7). Yes, farmers who need it the most should be supported, in particular young and new farmers. But, using more powerful instruments such as the degressivity and the capping of subsidies based on farm sizes will be only “considered” (Vision, p. 8) – a very worrying sign. More concerning still, this new approach towards subsidies “should consider prioritising production of agricultural products which are essential for the EU’s strategic autonomy and resilience”  (Vision, p. 7) – leaving the door open to continued ‘strategic’ support of industrial meat production, especially with regards to meat imports from Mercosur countries. 

We would have really hoped for a clear commitment of the EU Commission to reduce the extent of animal farming in Europe – because only this way, can we reach our environmental and climate targets (within crucial planetary boundaries). However, even within the Strategic Dialogue participants could not agree to clearly point out the need to reduce livestock numbers, given the unfortunate and irresponsible controversy around this topic. While we still hoped for strong ambition from the EU Commission in this regard, it comes as no surprise that the Vision puts its focus on an upcoming “Livestock strategy”, as well as a new “work stream” focusing on this transition. Interestingly, this will “seek ways to address its climate/environment footprint, including ways to valorise the link between livestock production and maintenance of environment- and climate-valuable grasslands through more extensive livestock systems beneficial to the preservation of biodiversity and landscapes” (Vision, p. 16).  

But how does this fit together with the current biomethane upscale that will especially benefit factory farms? The Vision not only fails to provide an answer on that. Even worse, its stresses the role that “technological advancements” will play in this. But we will not solve our animal problem with tech-fixes such as biogas and feed additives. The EU Commission should not allow itself to be blinded – especially not in the upcoming revision of the Nitrates Directive – by gloomy announcements of the industry, which ultimately just wants to save its polluting business model!

Similarly, the EU Commission puts a big focus on the development of the bioeconomy and circularity, which should open up new revenue streams for farmers and the possibility to use farm residues. The role of biogas in this is highlighted. Clearly, in anticipation of a “Bioeconomy Strategy” awaited for the end of 2025, this risks further fuelling the current biomethane rush that we are seeing – especially as the EU Commission is not explaining in more detail what role biogas and biomethane could (and should not!) play in the future EU food system.  

The ugly. 

The biggest disappointment of the Vision clearly is the loud silence around sustainable and healthy diets. One of the biggest achievements of the Strategic Dialogue was to support a “sustainable balance between animal and plant-based protein intake at the European population level, (..) by balancing towards plant-based options and helping consumers to embrace the transition” (Strategic Dialogue, p. 54), now any reference to this is missing. Not developing a vision for the consumer side and healthy diets as part of the food system clearly is a missed opportunity and disappointing – especially after more than 130 organisations called for a Plant-Based Action Plan recently. Consuming healthily, especially more plant-based protein, is part of mitigating the climate crisis and would stimulate the demand side for organic products and for regenerative agriculture – a win-win situation for farmers and consumers! 

Fishy business. 

Lastly, there is also some fishy business in the Vision. Next to an upcoming Oceans Pact, the EU Commission will prepare a “vision for the fisheries and aquaculture sector with a 2040 perspective to ensure its long-term competitiveness and sustainability, work to ensure job creation and address pressing issues affecting the fishing community” (Vision, p. 3). Well, we are curious to see whether the EU Commission has read our latest Blue Empire report! Industrial fish farming certainly has many murky practises… 

The end? 

Unfortunately, the Agriculture Vision is too often ‘business as usual’ with few corrective actions that live up to the big challenges ahead. 

Blind trust is put into new technological fixes, perpetuating farmers’ dependencies on banks and big companies for those investments. As it stands, strengthening agriculture’s foundation (nature!), only plays a secondary role. There is far too little attention and too little action to address the climate crisis and its impact on our food system.  

But while this Vision is not yet future-proof, hope persists, especially as many elements are still unspecific and need to be further developed. For us, this means to work all the harder in the coming weeks and months!