After one year of activities, the Conference on the Future of Europe (CoFoE) reached its conclusions on the recommendations on the future steps the European Union will take in the world of tomorrow.

Farm Europe welcomes both the open and democratic process that led to the conclusions as well as the balanced and forward looking conclusions that emerged from the conference in relation to the agriculture and food systems. These recommandations will certainly be an important contribution to the future sustainable food systems strategy.

The concepts of sustainability, circularity, fairness, affordability, investments in research and innovation in the field of agriculture and nutrition policies are anchored in the recommandations and largely confirm the relevance of the current EU Treaties when it comes to agriculture and the need for a strong Common Agricultural Policy that delivers on their expectations. The Conference advocates for a balanced approach promoting effective environment and climate friendly agriculture in the EU, showing openness to a wide range of solutions as long as they put Europe in a position to « produce more food with less whilst reducing emissions and environmental impact but still guaranteeing productivity and food security », which is the most challenging equilibrium to find for policy makers. The Citizens also call to step up the effort to achieve climate goals incentivising agricultural systems like « organic farming and sustainable agriculture » and to introduce a certification of carbon removals, based on robust, solid and transparent carbon accounting».

Regarding the use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides, the complexity of the topic is well reflected in the recommandations of the Citizens. They are calling to « significantly reduce the use of chemical pesticides and fertilisers, in line with the existing targets while still ensuring food security ». Citizens also want to address more specific topics such as plastic use in agriculture.

When it comes to the livestock sector, they call for « reasoned breeding and meat production with a focus on animal welfare and sustainability, focusing in particular on clear labelling and high standard and common norms for animal farming and transport.

In addition, the Conference also see the EU agricultural sector as an energy provider. It  encourages the development of electric cars, but also underlines that « at the same time, it should invest in the development of other non-polluting technologies, such as biofuels and hydrogen for those vehicles whose electrification is difficult to achieve, such as boats and lorries ».

As far as health promotion, the reflection groups considers food -and diet- as a tool to improve health, approaching health from an holistic approach. Notably, the Conference rises the attention on the importance of education on the topic of food, diet, nutrition from an early age, as well as underlying the impacts of ultra-processed foods on health, proposing a tax on those products that have detrimental effects on health. The recommendations do not provide clear definition of ‘healthy diets’, and ‘healthy lifestyle’, leaving this to personal interpretation.

The CoFoE concluded that food production should be guided by the principles of sustainability, climate responsibility, affordability, safety, and social justice, while aiming at food security and to the safeguard of biodiversity and of ecosystems. Moreover, the Conference commits to ensure that all Europeans have access to education on healthy food and access to healthy and affordable food, as a building block of a healthy lifestyle.  The round of talks proposes, in concrete to:

• Educate people about healthy habits from an early age
• Develop at EU level a standard educational program on healthy lifestyles
• Taxation on non healthy processed food
• Promotion of healthy, varied, and affordable food procurement
• Promote production methods that allow to produce more food with less
• Apply circular economy principles and fight food waste
• Reduce the use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers & invest in research
• Introduce carbon removal certification
• Improve the social side of farming, assuring high quality safety, health and working conditions
• Enforce animal welfare standards
• Improve transparency and communication to consumers
• Protect insects and pollinators
• Support reforestation, afforestation, enforce responsible forest management
• Ban single use plastics
• Protect water sources

Stakeholders from all across Europe and from all backgrounds — including Farm Europe — were consulted during the process. The Conference reached its conclusions in the fields of climate change and the environment, health, economy and social justice, the role of the EU in the world, education, democracy, migration, culture, digital transportations and the values, rights, rule of law and security. 

Joe Biden just decided a few days ago to increase the blending of biofuels in the United States to step up the climate ambition and help the American families struggling with high pump prices. At European level, key negotiations are taking place now, and the pressure from NGOs lobbying for a radical 100% electro-mobility is very high to get a reduction of the crop cap, which is currently set at 7%. Nevertheless, many black and white arguments used in their narrative require to think twice, taking into account the reality of the agriculture sector. 

Some are using the food versus fuel narrative to ask for a phasing out of conventional biofuels. This argument on food security is just wrong when it comes to conventional biofuels produced in Europe. With a very small share of farm land dedicated to biofuels in Europe, the processing through bio-refineries not only contributes to the energy supply, but also to the food and feed production.

Which other sector is in a position to achieve both energy and food sovereignty? Today, 13 million tonnes of high value proteins are coming from this dual supply chain – 30% of the total EU production of top-quality proteins that help reducing imports from South America. This creates a stable and predictable market for EU farmers. It helps them investing on their farm – including in the ecological transition and carbon farming practices. 

Second, renewables made from EU agriculture already represent the equivalent of 8 nuclear plants (biogas), and fuel to 20 million of cars (biofuels). This is far from insignificant. This is a concrete and tangible solution to fight against climate change, reduce our dependency on Russian oil and gas. Even the IPCC underlined the need for biofuels in its recent wake up call report, referring to the Renewable Energy Directive in the EU as a good example of a sustainability framework helping to manage trade-offs and synergies between energy and food security. Via photosynthesis, agriculture is the biggest and most efficient solar industry, not using any imported rare earth!

Third, the biofuels are perhaps not a magic wand, but the European Union needs them to build an energy mix. They have a role to play, not only for climate reasons, but also for their cost-effectiveness. Biofuels today offer the most affordable solution for European families. Without changing their car, Europeans can reduce their emissions at a low cost – that’s probably why those willing to sell quickly a lot of electric cars fight so aggressively against them. Biofuels help reducing the fuel price at the pump by 10 cents. 

Fourth, the ambition to develop advanced biofuels is most welcome, and the agricultural energy sector has already shown its willingness to invest. It is clear that the synergies between conventional and advanced biofuels are very important, including for logistical reasons. The overall biomass should be taken into account. The availability of waste and residues largely depends on the availability of crops. Less crops means less waste and residues. Reducing the cap would reduce agricultural outlets, reduce agricultural production, thus undermine the capacity to develop advanced solutions. 

In the European Union, the coming weeks will provide the responses not only to those advocating on the climate ambition and on the capacity of its decision-makers to design a credible way forward, but also to investors willing to contribute to decarbonation. A new attempt to undermine biofuels in the EU would further undermine the flow of investments in the transition on the Continent, and certainly channel it elsewhere in the world. It would favour fossil fuels.

At a time when the European Union’s new food strategy – the Farm to Fork Strategy – is divisive, the balance of the IPCC report encourages nuance and reflection on the governance of the transition of food systems, far from the caricatures and selective readings that can be made of this vast contribution from the international scientific community.

Scientists are once again sounding the alarm on climate disruption and the urgency to act against global warming. They believe that the next few years will be decisive for humanity in its fight to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and keep the situation under control.

The notions of “trade-offs” and synergies are one of the cornerstones of the report, particularly in the areas of agriculture and energy, two subjects that are vital to the transition and to the daily life of our societies. In order to act, we need credible solutions, capable of taking the whole of society along as quickly as possible.

Far from caricatures that fragment opinions and fuel campaigns by groups defending specific interests, reading the latest IPCC report calls for nuance in order to make the transition a success, rather than for decisions taken in a panic. The caricaturists looking for some kind of magic wand will be in for a surprise: even the biofuels so decried by some NGOs should, according to the IPCC report, be used in an intelligent and controlled way, where possible without jeopardizing food security. Sometimes there can be synergies.

In their analysis of the agricultural systems to be promoted, the group of international scientists emphasizes the importance of taking into account the agronomic and environmental context: a practice that is beneficial under certain conditions may have deleterious effects elsewhere. This is the case, for example, with conservation agriculture. This is particularly recommended in dry zones. In temperate zones, absolute no-tillage can have undesirable effects on soil vitality in the long term. Alternating periods and farming systems would be more judicious in this case.

Agro-ecological intensification is put forward as an interesting lever for mitigating the effects of climate change, even if a certain caution is expressed due to the lack of hindsight, at this stage, on these practices. In particular, scientists emphasize the need to avoid any loss of yield, which would have particularly negative impacts, calling into question food security.

In this regard, without dismissing it out of hand, doubts are expressed about organic farming – a form of agro-ecology – which goes against the received wisdom. This has the potential pitfall of lower yields that lead to feeding production needs elsewhere to compensate. Caution is required regarding large-scale conversion, which could lead to an increase in absolute emissions. The report emphasizes its value per unit of land, rather than per unit of production.

Overall, any path to success for agricultural systems, on the path of transition, requires the management of compromises and synergies, as well as changes in eating habits, which must be more balanced in our countries. These two transitions – that of the consumer and that of the citizen – are inseparable from each other, and must go hand in hand in space and time.

The evolution of eating habits in Western societies can free up space and surface resources for other uses of biomass, either for carbon sinks or for non-food purposes. Even forest replanting projects must be well managed to balance the benefits in terms of carbon storage, biodiversity and production.

Similarly, there is also an urgent need to be aware of the already real impacts of climate change on food insecurity in the world. Already a quarter of the planet is food insecure, a situation that has worsened since 2015. By 2050, climate change could have a considerable impact on yields, causing between 315,000 and 736,000 additional deaths, warns the IPCC. Working on scenarios of struggle and adaptation can therefore not wait.

The absence of a fixed prescription that would be the key to the absolute success of the transition, the report encourages not only humility, but also reflection on the governance of change in the agricultural sector. More than any other sector, the agricultural and food sector is complex because of its human environment and its environmental diversity. It deserves not one, but many locally adapted strategies, which can only be implemented with the support and knowledge of the primary stakeholders – the farmers – and one ambition: to give them all the tools they need to do their job – produce – in the most optimal way possible. Whatever the case, a common path must be found to act and achieve results as soon as possible.