Author: Farm Europe

Our Key Priorities presented to M. Olivér Várhelyi, Commissioner for Health & Animal Welfare

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

After their meeting with Commissioner for Agriculture and Food, Christophe Hansen, yesterday, Luc Vernet, Secretary General of Farm Europe, and Paolo Di Stefano, Executive Director of Eat Europe, met with Commissioner for Health and Animal Welfare, Olivér Várhelyi, today. 

They discussed opening a collaborative effort to build a new agenda for agriculture and food. 

“At the start of this new political mandate, we urge the EU to slow down processes that have been initiated or revived without scientific support — such as warning labels, punitive taxation on wine, or the approval of new lab-grown products. At the same time, we must accelerate the initiatives that are genuinely needed, including innovations like NGTs to enhance sustainability and productivity, as well as biocontrol measures that provide farmers — along with a more realistic approach to PPPs—with effective tools to safeguard their investments from the risks posed by pests and diseases. Additionally, we must prioritize consumer protection, including with a clear approach to meat denominations and the provision of transparent information to consumers.”

This meeting also provided the opportunity to present the Roadmap on Agriculture and Food developed by Farm Europe, which also table proposals for future nutrition and health policies. 

It also marked the beginning of a constructive dialogue on the future of animal welfare policies, which must be aligned with the competitiveness of the EU’s livestock sector, both within Europe and globally. 

In our Roadmap for agriculture and food, we emphasize the following points regarding nutrition and health policies:

  • The European Union must maintain its high standards for human health and the quality of its food supply chain, which begins with the high sanitary standards at the farm gate. These standards must also apply to imported products. Controls on imports must be strengthened and certification rules be more robust.
  • The protein plan for Europe should not be in a collision course with the livestock sector, but on the contrary build on the complementarity between arable and livestock farming. This plan should refrain from promoting plant-based alternatives narratives or synthetic food alternatives. In recent years, certain capital-intensive players, supported by pressure groups, have sought to push for the production of synthetic proteins as a supposedly unquestionable sustainability benefit to replace animal proteins (e.g., dairy proteins, meat). A comprehensive, evidence-based debate is needed, considering ethical and environmental aspects, rather than relying on simplistic statements based on inconclusive science.

Regarding Non-Communicable Diseases and the EU’s Beating Cancer Plan, the need to address the real, scientifically backed concerns was highlighted. The EU should focus on the actual issue of rising consumption of ultra-processed products — an issue notably absent from these key EU strategies — rather than undermining the wine sector with a punitive approach that ignores consumption behaviours and scientifically proven health benefits.

Farm Europe outlines its key priorities to agriculture to Commissioner Hansen

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

Today, Luc Vernet, Secretary General of Farm Europe together with Ettore Prandini, chair of Farm Europe’s strategic committee and President of Coldiretti, presented Farm Europe’s key priorities to Mr Christophe Hansen, European Commissioner for Agriculture and Food.

Those orientations are based on key trends that should be taken into account :

  • If we continue not integrating inflation to adjust the value of the CAP in 2034, 54% of its value will evaporate (or 250 billions EUR), in 14 years only. 
  • Over the last 20 years, farmers’ income dropped by 12% per hectare, the EU lost 37% of its farmers and farmers’ debts increased by 30%. 
  • The European Union lost 11 million hectares of agricultural land while its agricultural footprint in the world increased by 10 million hectares. 

These indicators turning red, we urgently call for a new direction for the EU policy so that the farming communities across Europe see concrete and positive developments coming from the European Union. EU policies in the next five years should focus on: 

  • the need to rebuild the economic attractiveness of agriculture, including for boosting generation renewal. 
  • the need to secure agricultural production all across Europe and not only in the most productive areas. 
  • shaping a true agriculture sovereignty in Europe to meet the food and non food demand for our Continent and beyond.

Therefore, as core principles for the future of EU agriculture policy, we call for: 

  •  a strong and dedicated EU budget for a truly common CAP. This budget should be adjusted to inflation (in constant EUR), with strong leverage effect on investments, territorial balance, risks and crisis management, and generational renewal. 
  •  a clear farmers’-centric CAP focusing on entrepreneurs and incentives to enhance a sustainable intensification of EU production rather than norms discouraging farmers. 
  • a permanent combination of economic and environmental performance, integrating the capacity of EU agriculture to decarbonize other sectors and accelerating innovation. 

Those principles should be applied to the toolbox of the CAP with a refocus of the policy on entrepreneurs, production and optimal use of natural resources and cycles. 

EU budget: agriculture needs clarity and ambition

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

While the European Commission adopted its first milestone ahead of the negotiation of the next EU Budget, Farm Europe underlines the need to anchor the negotiation in clear facts and figures. Therefore, Farm Europe publishes today an overview of the key drivers and figures at stake to secure a strong support to agriculture as a strategic sector for Europe.

THE THREE CHALLENGES AROUND EU BUDGET NEGOTIATIONS

Inflation, the enlargement to Ukraine, the capacity or not to rebuild a common vision and the willingness to overcome global challenges together will be some of the major drivers for the next Multiannual Financial Framework negotiations.

  • Without an indexation to inflation for the period 2028-34 – and assuming modest inflation of 2% per year – the economic value of the CAP by 2034 would be more than halved (-54%) in comparison to its 2020 value. The CAP budget should be adjusted to inflation. 
  • The Commission’s initial proposal for a single fund would transfer greater responsibility to MS, with a clear risk of renationalising most of EU policies, loosing the common approach and internal market. This approach, which undermines the common dimension and runs the risk of losing funds earmarked for the CAP, must be rejected.
  • As a member of the EU, Ukraine could claim around 20% of the CAP budget and a substantial share of the budget allocated to cohesion policy.

Those drivers call for a new impetus in the budget negotiations at EU level, with the need to channel new financial capacities at EU level. Europe should be able to overcome new challenges, while at the same time strengthening its capacity to deliver a real agricultural ambition, which requires substantial investments. The commonality of the CAP should not be undermined.

Beating Cancer Plan : a different approach on wine needed, ultra-processed products’ are missing.

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

Farm Europe and Eat Europe express deep concerns regarding the recent proposal outlined in the Commission Staff Working Document published on February 4th, 2025, in preparation for the revision of Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan.

In a letter to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, we emphasized our commitment to supporting policies that promote healthier lifestyles, balanced diets, and sustainable agricultural practices. 

We recognize the urgent need for effective action against cancer and non-communicable diseases (NCDs) across Europe. However, we firmly oppose measures that could undermine the efforts of European producers and their role in providing high-quality, sustainable food.

Our primary concern focuses on the treatment of the wine sector as equivalent to all alcoholic beverages, which fails to recognize key distinctions in terms of consumption patterns, product composition, and the scientifically supported health benefits of moderate wine consumption.

Wine is not only an agricultural product but also a symbol of European culture, tradition, and identity. The wine sector, deeply intertwined with the work of millions of farmers across the EU, faces unique challenges — especially given the ongoing trade tensions affecting the sector. 

The proposal’s potential inclusion of misleading health warnings and unjustified taxation on wine would further harm a sector already struggling with geopolitical challenges.

Furthermore, the staff document of the European Commission neglects the growing concern over the rising consumption of ultra-processed products, which is a highly pressing issue to public health.

We call on the European Commission to shift its attention to these ultra-processed foods and rethink the proposed measures on wine.

We urge the European Commission to reconsider the approach and to engage in meaningful dialogue to protect both public health and the agricultural heritage of Europe.

Farm Europe and Eat Europe remain firm on their commitment to defend the European wine sector and its vital role in Europe’s economy, culture, and agricultural identity.

Building an EU Network of observatories for AgroBiodiversity Monitoring

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

Since 2022 Farm Europe has been actively participating in the BioMonitor4CAP project, funded by the Horizon Europe research and innovation program, together with twenty-two partner organisations (environment experts, agronomists, data scientists etc.) from ten European countries and Peru.


One of the key objectives of the BioMonitor4CAP project is to identify and map relevant observatories, institutions, and networks that gather data and indicators in this domain. By centralizing these resources, the project aims to facilitate access to this valuable information, fostering greater collaboration and understanding in the field. Hence, the project team is in constant research for institutions collecting data on agrobiodiversity. Over 500 institutions have already been identified, potentially holding data on agro-biodiversity in Europe.

Are you interested in contributing to our AgroBiodiversity Database? We invite you to contact the BioMonitor4CAP team at this email address: biomonitor4cap(at)irwirpan.waw.pl.

After the wine, a high-level group on sustainable livestock is needed

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

The recommendations adopted earlier this week by the EU High-Level Group on Wine highlight the tangible benefits of a multi-stakeholder approach, as emphasized by Farm Europe at the outset of this process. Bringing together diverse actors across the value chain, with a clear vision and a concrete strategy, is crucial for supporting the economic sustainability of strategic sectors in the EU and for charting a path forward.
A thorough understanding of the sector’s challenges — whether structural, climatic, or shaped by citizen expectations — is essential to developing effective policy recommendations and legislative proposals.
This significant outcome, along with the renewed approach, should serve as a guiding framework for the livestock sector as well, event if the challenges and solutions will be different.
Given the positive, concrete results from the HLG on Wine, along with the European Parliament’s political commitment to fostering a transparent, non-ideological debate on the livestock sector — exemplified by the establishment of the EP’s dedicated Intergroup — Farm Europe and Eat Europe believe it is time for the European Commission to launch a similar process for this sector.

As Farm Europe’s research shows, the livestock sector is at a critical crossroads. To address its challenges, we must take a scientific and evidence-based approach, focusing on both its economic sustainability and the public discourse surrounding it. This includes presenting, in an objective manner, not only the environmental challenges, but also the positive contributions of the sector:

  • Its role in the bio-circular economy, soil quality: manure and by-products produced by a cow are transformed into a positive and virtuous bioeconomy model as energy (biogas, biomethane, biodiesel), or as organic fertilizer (digestate, RENURE). Eighty percent of the water used in a cow’s production cycle is returned to the land, improving soil quality by enriching it with organic matter, just to give some examples;
  • The vitality of the countryside and remote areas, which, without a solid and profitable livestock sector, would be abandoned with dramatic consequences on the environment (erosion, fertility of soils, etc.) and the economy of those regions;
  • The production of high-quality, nutritious food, essential for balanced diets.

It is time for Europe to boost its animal sector to grasp its full potential, rejecting strategies that would lead to the sector being replaced by lower-quality imported proteins or by lab-grown proteins disconnected from natural cycles. The finalisation of the EU/Mercosur deal generates doubts about the double-standard approach by the European Commission.

At a time when producers are grappling with significant challenges, it is crucial to develop a renewed, shared agenda for the sector that is supported by all levels of government, from the EU to local authorities. The EU’s livestock model must remain economically viable while adapting to increasing societal and environmental demands. Key issues — such as health, biodiversity, climate and environmental impacts, economic potential, and the social fabric tied to livestock activities — must be addressed in a cohesive and integrated manner.

These elements should be fully incorporated into the European strategy to ensure a sustainable future for Europe, starting with the establishment of a dedicated High-Level Expert Group.

State aid to agriculture: more than €18 Bn since 2021

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

As part of its considerations on the CAP and crisis management, Farm Europe analysed the State aid granted to the agricultural sector since the start of the budgetary period.

Between 2021 and 2024, Member States allocated over €18 billion in State aid to the agricultural sector, representing no less than 11% of the  total aid under the first pillar of the CAP — a proportion that rises to 14% when focusing solely on the 2021-2023 period.

The volumes of aid granted vary considerably between Member States, revealing a ‘three-speed Europe’.

The Netherlands has by far provided the most support to its agricultural sector, both in absolute terms and relative to direct payments or the national agricultural production value. Over the period studied, aid accounted for 101% of the first pillar received by Dutch farmers, totalling almost €3 billion. Denmark, Greece, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia also granted substantial funds, ranging from 20% to 43% of their respective direct aid. During the 2021-2022 period, Spain distributed the equivalent of 28% of its first pillar. Finally, while the total amounts provided by Italy, France and Germany remain substantial, these States have limited their support to between 5% and 10% of their respective direct aid, a level below the European average.

On average across Europe, these State aids only partially compensated (70%) for the loss in the real value of CAP first pillar payments resulting from their lack of indexation to inflation. The situation, however, varies significantly from one Member State to another.

  • Four countries overcompensated for the decline, providing farmers with liquidity that could boost their investment capacity. The Netherlands stands out in particular, with support 8 times greater than the inflation-related decline. Poland and Spain (1.4 times), and Greece (1.3 times) follow.
  • The other countries that provided the most support for their agriculture offset the decline by between 50% and 75%.
  • Finally, it should be noted that some countries granted very little state aid to their agricultural sectors (e.g. Latvia, Estonia, Ireland, Romania, Belgium, Luxembourg, Bulgaria and Portugal).

In the “Our work” section, you will find a more detailed analysis of the subject, as well as an infographic showing the situation in each of the countries of the European Union, over the period and by year. 

EU / Ukraine: analysis of the main agricultural crop sectors

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

As part of the process of enlarging the European Union to include Ukraine, Farm Europe has analysed both the weight and comparative competitiveness of Ukraine’s main crop sectors compared to those of the European Union. 

The difference in competitiveness ranges from 19% to 39% depending on the sector, with structural factors accounting for most of the difference. To this must be added the ‘carbon’ competitiveness conferred by the natural richness of Ukraine’s soils. 

At a time when the steps and conditions of accession are about to be drawn up and the pre-accession programmes defined and launched, we feel it is important that objective data can serve as a basis to define the European Union’s roadmap, without bias or avoidance.

Ukraine & European Union: key figures for the main agricultural crops 

In 2022, Ukraine’s utilised agricultural area covered 41.3 million hectares, including 32.7 million hectares of arable land (State Statistics Service of Ukraine (SSSU)). This agricultural area makes Ukraine the largest agricultural country on the European continent. 45% of the country’s surface area is made up of humus-rich, particularly fertile soils known as ‘rich’ chernozems.


Marked by its communist past, the Ukrainian agricultural sector is characterised by 110 huge vertically integrated agricultural companies, known as agro-holdings, which control all or part of the production chain (crop-livestock, processing, trade). These entities aim to maximize returns on invested capital, investing heavily in cutting-edge, large-scale equipment and the use of inputs. Twenty of these companies are estimated to control 14% of Ukraine’s Utilised Agricultural Area (UAA), and 57% of the UAA is farmed by enterprises of more than 1,000 ha. Agriculture plays a major economic role in the country, accounting for 10.9% of GDP in 2021 and almost 14.7% of employment.

Sugar

The organisation and competitiveness of the Ukrainian sugar sector is very different from that in Europe: agro-holdings, huge vertically integrated farms, cultivate 93% of the sugar beet area. The average cultivated area is 23,700 ha, 1,763 times more than in the European Union. 

Ukraine has much lower labour and investment costs. What’s more, the presence of fertile soils means that fewer inputs are used on crops: up to 1.5 times less fertiliser than in the European Union. 

The opening up of the European market to Ukraine has resulted in an influx of sugar, which has led to an increase in European stocks. Exports of sugar from Ukraine to Europe have increased by 230% between 2022 and 2023, with a forecast export capacity to the EU of 800,000 tonnes to 1 MT. The introduction of safeguard measures now limits exports for the time they are in force. 

Detailed analysis for the sugar sector

Cereals

Cereal production is not as dominated by large farming structures as the sugar sector: 51% of production is carried out by structures of less than 1,000 ha. It should be noted, however, that 22% of production is carried out by companies with more than 3,000 ha. 

If Ukraine were to join the European Union, the country would account for 20% of European cereals production, with 49% of maize production and 15% of wheat production. 

Ukrainian cereal production costs are on average 30% lower than those in Europe. 

For these reasons, grain imports from Ukraine have doubled between 2019/21 and 2023. The European Union has become a pillar of support for the Ukrainian economy, accounting for 51% of wheat exports in 2023, compared to 30% in 2021.

Detailed analysis for the cereal sector

Sunflower

While 58% of production is carried out by structures of less than 1,000 ha, companies with more than 3,000 ha account for 17% of production. In 2023, Ukrainian production alone was greater than the entire EU’s production. As such, if Ukraine were to join the European Union, the country would become Europe’s leading producer of sunflower seeds, as well as sunflower oil. 

Ukraine has been the EU’s leading supplier of sunflower oil for around ten years now. The opening up of the European market to Ukraine has had no significant impact on the flow of sunflower oil from the country.

Detailed analysis for the sunflower sector

Rapeseed

Farms of less than 1,000 ha account for 73% of rapeseed production, but oil production is dominated by 5 companies which accounted for 92% in 2021.

In 2020, the cost of rapeseed production in Ukraine was, on average, 1.5 times lower than in France.

Compared to the 2018-2021 average, Ukrainian production of rapeseed and rapeseed oil has risen by 57% and 174% respectively. Similarly, exports grew by 37% and 170% respectively. If Ukraine were to join the European Union, it would become the leading rapeseed producer in the EU, accounting for 24% of seed production and 4% of oil and meal production.

The EU was already the largest importer of Ukrainian rapeseed products before the war.

However,  imports of rapeseed have increased, and the EU now receives 93% of Ukraine’s rapeseed exports, compared to 83% in 2020/21.

Detailed analysis for the rapeseed sector

(Click on the image to enlarge it)

WHAT IS NEW IN THE LATEST TEXT OF THE EU-MERCOSUR AGREEMENT

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

The Commission has reached a revised EU-Mercosur Agreement in December 2024, which presents some changes regarding the previous 2019 Agreement.

The Paris Agreement on Climate Change is now included. It will allow the suspension of the agreement if a country leaves the Paris Agreement and also if it stops being a party “in good faith”.

But what are the obligations of developing countries, like those in the Mercosur, under the Paris Agreement?

  • Adaptation planning: developing countries must engage in adaptation planning processes and implement actions to build resilience to climate change. This includes: assessing climate change impacts and vulnerability; formulating prioritized actions; monitoring, evaluating, and learning from adaptation plans and actions.
  • Developing countries must also prepare, communicate, and maintain Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which are their post-2020 climate actions. NDCs include actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build resilience to climate change. 
  • Developing countries must regularly report on their emissions and progress in implementing their NDCs. 

None of these obligations comprises any specific or quantified targets. In addition to that, the Paris Agreement does not provide for any sanctions in case of non-respect. There are no GHG reduction commitments to respect, or any other quantified commitments.

Therefore, if Mercosur countries do not walk out of the Paris Agreement or stop preparing NDCs, there are no foreseeable consequences of its inclusion in the EU-Mercosur Agreement. 

A new Annex to the Trade and Sustainable Development (TSD) Chapter has been negotiated, which will have the same legally binding nature as the TSD Chapter itself. A key feature of the Annex are new commitments on deforestation: “Each Party reaffirms its relevant international commitments and shall implement measures, in accordance with its national laws and regulations, to prevent further deforestation and enhance efforts to stabilize or increase forest cover from 2030”. But the Annex also states: “They further acknowledge that their policies must take into account the social and economic challenges of developing countries and their contribution to global food security”. “They also stress the need for enhanced support and investment to achieve these objectives, including through financial resources, technology transfer, capacity-building, and other mechanisms foreseen in this Agreement”.

From the above text it is far from clear whether, if a party like Brazil does not achieve stopping deforestation from 2030, whilst having implemented measures to that effect, that party infringes the Agreement. Moreover, could not that party claim that she did not receive enhanced support from the EU, including financial support, to reach those objectives?

The precise nature of the commitment to stop deforestation from 2030, whether it is actually effective, is far from clear. In addition, a reference is added to the EU regulation on deforestation (EUDR), undelining that “the EU recognises that this Agreement and actions taken to implement commitments thereunder shall be favourably considered, among other criteria, in the risk classification of countries“. This point must not justify lowering the EUDR risk category of Brazil or other Mercosur countries because of the Agreement, neither biais in the fact basis assessment expected by the European Commission when classifying risks . 

On the Tariff liberalisation schedule there are a few changes on trade concessions and safeguards for cars, but what strikes the most are the additional concessions on agriculture to the benefit of Paraguay: an additional quota of 1500 tonnes of pork, and an additional quota of 50 000 tonnes of biodiesel.

On export duties for raw materials and on Government procurement there are a few changes and concessions.

But there is a new and potentially more significant rebalancing mechanism in the Agreement. If a party considers that a measure of the other party nullifies or substantially impairs its benefits under the agreement, it can ask a panel to rule on this question. The rebalancing mechanism concerns trade effects of measures that the complainant could not have expected when the deal was closed. This new rebalancing mechanism could for instance concern the application of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) by the EU. As the CBAM taxes would only be applied from 2026, it looks likely that the Mercosur countries could bring the EU to a bilateral dispute panel with a view to withdrawing concessions under the EU-Mercosur Agreement, or asking for compensation, in the event the CBAM taxes their exports.

To summarize, the 2024 modifications to the EU-Mercosur Agreement seems to trade mostly declaratory commitments from Mercosur on climate change and deforestation, for the possibility for Mercosur to seek rebalancing concessions if the EU applies new measures with trade effects like the CBAM; and adds some concessions on agriculture (pork, biodiesel) in favour of Mercosur.

The EU seems to have paid a price to conclude the deal, as it was visibly the most adamant and demanding party in the negotiations.

BioMonitor4CAP: New tools to monitor the Agro-Biodiversity

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

Since 2022, Farm Europe has been actively participating in the BioMonitor4CAP project, funded by the Horizon Europe research and innovation program, together with twenty-two partner organisations (ecologists, agronomists, data scientists etc.) from ten European countries and Peru.

Monitoring the status of agro-biodiversity is essential for effective management of agro-ecosystems and for appropriate and effective implementation of strategies and policies to maintain biodiversity in order to avoid unsustainable agricultural practices that are one of the main factors affecting habitat and species diversity in EU agricultural landscapes. 

The BioMonitor4CAP project aims to develop simple and advanced agro-biodiversity monitoring and surveillance systems to support and implement outcome-oriented policies in European agricultural landscapes. 

BIODIVERSITY INDICATORS

Monitoring biodiversity involves four main areas: remote sensing, soils, insects and birds.

FIELD RESEARCH : NEW MONITORING TECHNOLOGIES

Traditionally, biodiversity assessments have relied on field surveys, which can be time-consuming, labour-intensive, and limited in their geographical coverage. In recent years, Remote Sensor-based technologies have emerged as a valuable tool for biodiversity monitoring, offering the ability to collect large-scale data at frequent intervals. The BioMonitor4CAP project will collect biodiversity data in multiple and new complementary ways. The classical in-situ and ex-situ surveys (field observations and measurements) will be combined with new methods: eDNA sampling, optical methods, acoustic sensors, drone-based systems, and satellite earth observation.

FACILITATING THE ADOPTION OF BIODIVERSITY MONITORING AND GOOD FARMING PRACTICES

Identifying stakeholder groups and how they perceive agrobiodiversity is essential for the effective development of agrobiodiversity policy measures that promote positive agrobiodiversity decision-making.

  1. Farmers’ agrobiodiversity perceptions and their motivations to adopt management practices set out by the agricultural policies have been studied. Farmers recognize how their management practices and agri-environmental programs are connected to biodiversity and how biodiversity positively benefits farming. However, conservation activities, farm management, and closely related agricultural policies often conflict with farmers’ management decisions. Preliminary literature review results suggest key considerations for designing agrobiodiversity-enhancing policy measures :
  • Theoretical and practical agrobiodiversity education for farmers: educational activities increase stakeholders’ understanding and motivation towards agrobiodiversity;
  • Rewarding farmers for monitoring and enhancing agrobiodiversity: various measures to improve adoption of the extent and development of novel agrobiodiversity-preserving farming practices; 
  • Supporting cooperation between farmers and other stakeholders in the agricultural value chain: encouraging and increasing information flows, shared goals and management practices for improving agrobiodiversity throughout the agricultural value chain;
  1. Consumers’ food preferences indirectly influence farmers’ production decisions. Consumer perceptions and their food choices may have significant influence on agrobiodiversity conservation. Citizens appreciate the intrinsic values of agrobiodiversity, which contrasts with farmers’ perception that emphasises its instrumental values. For citizens, agrobiodiversity is mainly associated with aesthetic values by those who prefer restored and traditional landscapes. Preliminary literature review results suggest key considerations for designing agrobiodiversity-enhancing policy measures:
  • Agrobiodiversity information on food products for consumers: informing about the agrobiodiversity impacts of the products and farmers’ agrobiodiversity-enhancing measures increases awareness;
  • Ensuring far-reaching agrobiodiversity research funding and dissemination activities: increasing awareness of agrobiodiversity among lesser-studied stakeholders such as companies’ representatives, authorities, children and students to emphasise the importance of agrobiodiversity in future food production.