The proper treatment of farm animals is increasingly important to consumers, which is reflected in the desire to ban long transports and the transport of newborns. As a result, European livestock production (dairy and beef herds) is expected to decrease in the future – in line with European dietary trends, visible through the appeal of meat substitutes and to meet sustainability objectives – while global consumption is increasing. Furthermore, the European Union supports this shift towards a more plant-based diet. To increase transparency and trust, the French government has introduced origin labelling for all meat served in canteens and restaurants.
States are investing in their agriculture: in Italy, the finance law grants two billion euros to agriculture, fisheries and agri-food, in France, the amount of aid for cattle for 2021 remains stable, in Greece, 490 million euros are being invested in organic farming, including 130 million for cattle and sheep farming.
European livestock farming is particularly affected by the many diseases, especially animal diseases, present in the country: African swine fever, bird flu, bovine respiratory diseases and covid-19. Massive preventive culls have been imposed in France and Italy, as well as ostracism measures and bans on restocking. This, coupled with soaring energy and feed costs, makes the global market for animal products highly volatile. As a result, French egg companies are on their knees, beef prices are hitting record after record, milk prices are rising. As a result of this damage, many associations have requested emergency aid in France, Ireland and Poland.
The French NSP seeks to improve the sustainable competitiveness of the agriculture sectors, the creation of value, the resilience of farms and the sobriety of inputs in the service of food security.
Basic income support will be distributed to beneficiaries with payment entitlements in a more equitable manner, with a progressive convergence reaching 90% by 2026. France has chosen to target support to sectors in difficulty, which are essential to the resilience of the territories. Thus, 15% of direct payments are devoted to coupled aids, mainly in the livestock sector, as well as a significant increase in the envelope devoted to protein crops to increase the autonomy. The ICHN is maintained and remains targeted on the productions most adapted to territories with handicaps, including mountains, namely grassland breeding.
In terms of the environment, the NSP is in line with European trajectories. It will represent 25% of direct aid as of 2023 and environmental expenditure in the 2nd pillar will exceed 40%. The environmental architecture aims to reduce the specialization and intensification of production, by encouraging diversification of crop production and the search for synergies between livestock and crops, favorable to resilience and sobriety in inputs. Reinforced cross-compliance and the eco-regime aim at a large-scale implementation of practices favorable to climate control, protection of natural resources and biodiversity.
At the territorial and social level, to meet the challenge of generational renewal, the funds dedicated to the installation of young farmers are strengthened, with a total of just over €200 millions mobilized for support dedicated to young farmers on both pillars.
The green architecture
Eco-schemes are new schemes that will account for at least 25 percent of the total allocation of Pillar I support. Eco-schemes impose practices on farmers that go beyond cross-compliance requirements, which already include green payment criteria, and thus correspond to a higher level of environmental ambition than the current green payment.
In French NSP, 1.684 billion per year (8.420 billion for the entire 2023-2027 programming period) are allocated for the eco-scheme.
The eco-scheme as conceived in the French NSP is intended to support as many farmers as possible in their transition, with the aim of massively increasing agro-ecological practices throughout the country, in an inclusive system.
The aid is a decoupled payment of a fixed amount at the national level paid on all eligible hectares of the farm and is divided into three non-cumulative access channels and a supplement (“hedge bonus”) that can be cumulated with the access channel for practices or environmental certification:
– the “practices” pathway is for farmers who commit to agroecological practices on all areas of the farm that are conducive to pesticide reduction, biodiversity and carbon storage. The requirements in terms of practices are different for arable crops, permanent grassland and perennial crops and must be applied to the entire area of the farm;
– the “environmental certification” pathway is aimed at farmers whose entire farm is certified as Organic or as High Environmental Value (HVE);
– the “biodiversity-friendly elements” pathway targets farmers who maintain or create agro-ecological infrastructure or set aside land on their farms;
– the “hedge bonus” remunerates the presence of hedges and their sustainable management; this bonus can be combined with the practices or the certification pathway, allowing to improve the overall effect on biodiversity (association of hedges and crop mosaic, or hedges and grasslands, or hedges and biological land management). The presence of hedges is associated with a requirement for sustainable management of these hedges verified by a certification (e.g. the existing “Label Haie”).
There are two levels of requirements for each of the access routes: a basic level and a higher level for farmers who engage in more ambitious practices.
In addition to the eco-scheme, green architecture is based on Pillar II environmental measures, specifically agri-environmental and climate commitments (AECMs) and support for conversion to organic farming. Most of the AECMs need to be adapted at the local level. The level of ambition pursued by these measures is higher than that required in the practices of eco-scheme.
The budget for agri-environmental and climate measures is increased by +10 M€ to reach 260 M€ on average per year (compared to 250 M€ paid in 2019 and 2020).
The French NSP will contribute to the achievement of a target of at least 18% of French UAA in organic farming by 2027, i.e., nearly 4.8 million hectares of agricultural land, with the ambition of reaching the 25% targeted at the European level by 2030.
To support this doubling of organic farming areas by 2027, an average of €340 million per year will be devoted to aid for conversion to organic farming which corresponds to an increase of €90 million per year compared to the €250 million per year paid in 2019 and 2020, which covered not only aid for conversion (€220 million) but also aid for maintenance (€30 million).
Coupled payment
In order to take into account the challenges and difficulties faced by certain sectors and to support the increase in areas cultivated with protein crops, with the objective of improving the protein autonomy of the French farm and thus reducing the dependence on protein imports, in particular soy, France devotes 15% of its direct aid to coupled aid, i.e. 5 billion euros.
The budget devoted to coupled aid for plant proteins will increase by 15% as of 2023 (reaching 2.3% of direct payments) and then grow each year by 0.3% until it reaches a budget of €236.8 million in 2027, an increase of 75% (3.5% of direct payments). Over the whole of the future programming period, an additional €100 million will therefore be devoted to coupled aid for plant proteins compared to the current programming period.
Coupled support will go to: sheep; sheep for new producers; goats; cattle; calves under the mother’s milk; grain legumes and dehydrated fodder legumes or for seed production; fodder legumes in lowland and piedmont areas; fodder legumes in mountain areas; durum wheat; starch potato; rice; hop; grass seed; hemp; Ente plums for processing; Bigarreau cherries for processing; Williams pears for processing; Pavie peaches for processing; veg farming; tomatoes for processing; small ruminants in Corsica; cattle in Corsica.
Risk management
Support for risk management tools under the NSP is part of a dual perspective of continuity with 2014-2022 programming and strengthening of existing tools.
Regarding climate risks, the NSP strengthens support for multi-risk crop insurance, with the aim of covering more farms and a larger agricultural area against these risks by 2027. The scheme is expected to increase from €156 million in EAFRD funding in 2023 to nearly €216 million in 2027, in anticipation of an increase in the number of insurance contracts in the coming years.
The agricultural catastrophe scheme, a national solidarity instrument that covers climate risks considered uninsurable, will be profoundly revamped to allow for better coordination of the various instruments to compensate for losses caused by climate risks.
Thus, the French government drafted a bill at the end of 2021 on the reform of multi-hazard climate insurance and the revision of the agricultural disaster system. This law is based on the principle of a three-tier risk management architecture (low, moderate and catastrophic). Moderate risks will be covered by the insurance system, whose contribution is still expected to be partially covered by the PSN, while catastrophic risks will be covered by national solidarity, paid by the State. To make it easier for the farmer to take on the risk, a one-stop shop for compensation is planned, regardless of the source of coverage.
To encourage as many farmers as possible to take out insurance, compensation will be higher for insured farmers than for uninsured ones. In addition, the new system is expected to generate better protection against risks and adaptation to climate change on farms, particularly by developing individualized insurance pricing that takes into account the means of protection used by the farmer, and by providing strong incentives to propose and deploy insurance contracts with a deductible at the farm level, which will encourage more diversified, and therefore more resilient and cheaper farms in terms of inputs.
With regard to health risks and environmental incidents, support for the National Agricultural Fund for the Mutualization of Health and Environmental Risks (FMSE), created in 2013, in the absence of an insurance market comparable to the one that exists for climate risks, will be continued, with potential changes related to the evolution of the categorization of health and phytosanitary risks at the European and national levels, the emergence of new diseases, and the articulation between state and fund intervention. Thus, the NSP provides for the mobilization of the EAFRD up to 1.5 million euros per year to finance compensation for losses that can be covered within this framework.
Regarding income risks, an experiment of a common fund covering income variations (income stabilization tool) will be launched by the Grand-East region for the sugar beet sector. It should make it possible to appreciate for the first time the operation of a risk management tool that compensates for variations in margin, whether attributable to a climatic, health or environmental event or a change in the market. The Region has planned to dedicate 2 million euros of EAFRD funds to this project each year.
Young farmers
The NSP reinforces the targeting effort undertaken in the current programming, by providing additional income support for young farmers up to 1.5% of the direct payment envelope (€101 million), compared to 1% today. This additional support represents half of the total effort requested of 3% of the NSP for young farmers.
In order to no longer link this payment to the area of the installation and to no longer support installations on the largest exploited areas more than others, the additional income support for young farmers will now intervene in the form of a uniform flat-rate amount per farm (with the application of GAEC transparency), and always for a maximum support period of 5 years. The programmed amount of the lump sum is around 3885€ per farm per year, leading to a total of cumulated support over 5 years that should reach more than 19 400€ for beneficiaries between 2023 and 2027, compared to a cumulated amount of 12 500€ for 80% of beneficiaries between 2015 and 2020.
Internal convergence
The convergence choices will allow France to reach, via two successive stages in 2023 and 2025, more than 85% internal convergence of basic decoupled aid to income in 2026. In 2023, an intermediate ceiling will be introduced to fully finance a floor at 70% of the average value of 2023 entitlements; this ceiling should be around €1350 (value to be confirmed based on the actual situation in 2023). In 2025, the ceiling will be lowered to 1000€ per PBO and a floor of 85% of the target value will be introduced. Entitlements above the 2026 target value (evaluated at €129 in 2026) will be subject to a reduction of 50% of the difference with respect to this target value. However, in order not to destabilize farms that still benefit from a payment value per hectare that is much higher than the average value, in geographical areas and with very specific production models, sometimes intensive in terms of employment, a ceiling on individual losses greater than 30% has been introduced. However, this limitation of losses cannot lead to a payment right exceeding the ceiling value of 1000€.
Thus, 96% of farms will benefit, from 2026 onwards, from payment rights between +/-10% of the average value (compared to 69% in 2019 and 29% in 2015). In other words, no farm should have payment entitlements whose value is less than 90% of the average (compared to 41% in 2015 and 21% in 2019), and 4% of farmers will retain payment entitlements whose value is greater than 110% of the average (compared to 10% in 2019 and 30% in 2015).
Pillar 2: Funding Allocation and Priorities
Thanks to the transfer of €2.742 billion from Pillar I to Pillar II (7,53%), France can count on €10 billion in the FEADER fund for the entire 2023-2027 programming period.
A large part of this budget, as much as 3.586 billion, is dedicated to the compensatory allowance for permanent natural handicaps (ICHN) as it plays an important role in reducing income disparities between territories. The ICHN is mainly targeted at livestock farming, and is aimed in particular at the most extensive farms by maintaining appropriate stocking rate ranges, corresponding to resilient, more autonomous livestock farming and a source of important environmental amenities: maintenance of permanent grasslands, maintenance of conditions favorable to biodiversity, carbon capture and well-being of the animals grazing there.
Despite the reduction in the EAFRD funding rate provided for in the strategic plan regulation for this measure (65% of EAFRD mobilizable in 2023-2027 vs. 75% in 2015-2022), France guarantees to maintain the total envelope at €1.1 billion and undertakes to cover the additional cost of €100 million induced by the change in funding rate. The EAFRD thus freed up will make it possible to finance the increase in the budget for conversion to organic farming.
Indeed, the FEADER resources for organic farming amount to a total of 980 million, leaving 1.832 billion for investments and 988 million for agro-environmental climate measures (AECMs).
To be noted that on top of the implementation of the CAP, the Dutch government plans to implement a national program providing each year twice the Dutch CAP budget, financed by national budget, to incentivise the transition of the agricultural sectors to more sustainable ones. National financings will support innovation and investments, some will be devoted to extensification.
Dutch CAP Strategic priorities
For decades, Dutch agriculture and horticulture have been highly innovative, creating prosperity and improving the quality of life in rural areas. However, agricultural production for years has focused primarily on reducing costs and increasing production at the expense of biodiversity, drinking water quality, and landscape diversity.
A transition in agriculture is therefore necessary. In the Netherlands, farmers are already working on this. The new CAP focuses on supporting farmers who actively contribute to the desired transition in agriculture. If farmers are rewarded for their efforts and are supported in their developments and investments, they will be able to provide solutions. This can be done by helping farmers make changes on their farms, but also by allowing farmers to work together in their area, chain, or sub-sector to find solutions.
The new CAP supports farmers by rewarding their public services to the climate and environment with subsidies for public goods. Through the eco-scheme, a farmer can choose from a list of about 25 eco-activities that fit their business and interests and the climate and environmental goals. The more effort a farmer is willing to put in, the higher the compensation.
The green architecture
The green architecture -or the “Green-blue architecture” (GBA) as the Dutch Government prefers to call it- plays a major role in the Dutch NSP. A better network of green and blue interweaving in the landscape will help Netherlands to achieve climate and environmental goals. With the basic premium and cross-compliance in which the majority of farmers participate, there is an improvement in the living environment, biodiversity, climate change, and broader water quality. Through the eco-scheme, each farmer can make extra efforts. Interventions under the second pillar, complement this. Measures can be agreed upon over several years and targeted in an area-specific approach to the most pressing challenges. But other interventions such as investments, sector programs, knowledge and innovation also contribute directly or indirectly.
In some areas of the Netherlands, the environmental challenges are particularly severe. Through the CAP, the Netherlands is investing in business support in these areas. There will be subsidies for integrated area plans, innovations and area processes where the water level is raised and farms are extended. The same goes for farms near Natura 2000 areas, which emit nitrogen near sensitive wildlife. Urgent challenges in areas such as climate, nitrogen, and biodiversity require specific interventions, particularly in the second pillar. To meet these new needs, funds are being transferred from Pillar I to Pillar II. The transfer to EAFRD will be 15% in 2023 and will gradually increase to 30% in 2027.
In 2023, the 25% of the Pillar I budget that remains after the transfer is dedicated to eco-scheme. The amount available is maintained at this level throughout the CAP period. Since the percentage is calculated after the transfer, this means that the percentage after the transfer increases to about 30% (after the transfer) in 2027. This means that for basic income support, an amount of € 447 millions is available in 2023 after the transfer of 15% to the second pillar (and the budget for the eco-scheme is € 152 million). This amount drops to € 339 million in 2027 (with always about 152 million for eco-scheme).
Land-based eco-scheme for climate and environment
The eco-scheme includes the following eco-activities :
Main crop :
1 Permanent crops as main crop at least 1 in 3 (parcel)
2 Early variety of uprooted crop (harvest < 1 September)
3 Early variety of grub (harvest < 1 November)
4 Protein crops as main crop
5 Arable crops, crop from list of permanent crops is on field for more than 18 months
6 Long standing grassland (> 5 years)
7 Buffer strip with herbs
8 Grass/clover
9 Grassland with herbs
10 Strip cultivation, at least 10 strips in a combination of at least 3 crops in strips of at least 3 and maximum 24 m wide
11 Wet cultivation
12 Mange cultivation
13 Small-scale plot (< 2 ha) more than 60% enclosed
16 Under-working sward (without using glyphosate herbicides).
17 Permanent green cover (direct sowing in green manure, covered until harvest of main crop)
Cultivation measures :
18 Biological control (sterile males, nematodes)
Livestock measures :
19 Maximum 1.5 LU per farm (grassland)
20 Extended pasture grazing 1500 hours
21 Extended pasture time 3000 hours
Non-productive agricultural land :
22 Wooded element (hedge, hedgerow, thicket) is maintained
23 Woody element is present (other woody elements)
24 Water element ecologically cleaned. The element has been cleaned 25% to 75% after June 15
25 Non-productive field (edge) minimum 12 months (edge minimum 3 m)
Sustainable farm :
26 Organic farm
The list of activities can be modified after testing and practical experience later, optimization can occur based on annual monitoring and mid-term evaluation in 2025.
The climate and environment eco-scheme has three entry criteria:
1 Farmers or groups of active farmers
2 Eco-activities take place on agricultural land,
3 The farmer or group of farmers has carried out sufficient activities to meet the points system applicable to their area.
Indeed, the eco-scheme is programmed as a point system for all farmland in the Netherlands with area-specific emphases. There is virtually 100% overlap at the farm level between basic income support hectares and eco-scheme hectares. The tasks for the climate, soil/air, water, biodiversity, and landscape objectives are different for each region. The choice of a national point system with regional accents ensures consistency and balance in terms of objectives, actions and their evaluation. The weighting factors for regional accents are landscape type, industry, soil type, specific urgencies in relation to European climate and environmental regulations, spatial location, and coverage.
The eco-scheme is used to promote change toward future-proofing agriculture and to encourage the implementation of agricultural practices that contribute primarily to five sub-goals: climate, soil/air, water, biodiversity, and landscape. Payment rates depend on the use of the scheme. The projected uniform “unit amount” per hectare is 106 euros per year, based on the assumption that 80% of eligible farmers use the scheme. The actual payment is made at the bronze, silver and gold levels with corresponding unit amounts. The payment level is determined based on the eligible value of the assets after meeting the entry criteria, including the point system. Organic farming automatically receives the gold level for farmland that is certified as organic.
Redistributive income support
To support smaller and medium-sized farms the funds available for the Basic Income Support are redistributed from larger to smaller farmers. A higher basic premium is provided for the first 60 hectares, to meet the obligation to redistribute at least 10% of the direct payments. The Netherlands will aim for the minimum compulsory 10% because it does not want to artificially maintain companies that are not viable and therefore have no future prospects. In that respect, Dutch Government thinks that targeted support through investments and knowledge acquisition is better for making small and medium-sized companies stronger and more future-proof than a higher basic premium.
Coupled payment
The Netherlands does not apply coupled income support.
Risk management
Through the Action Programme on Climate Adaptation in Agriculture, the Dutch government is promoting – with national resources – the preparation of the sector to face consequences of climate change. The Netherlands is also working to make the soil and water system more robust (through the National Soil Strategy) and to promote knowledge of risk management and preventive measures. The CAP will also be used to promote knowledge in this sector. Funds from the Investment intervention can be used to take preventive measures. Insurance is seen as the final element in risk management. For the (residual) risks of extreme weather, the Netherlands will use the Broad Weather Insurance (to be co-financed with CAP support) Indeed, without financial support, this insurance is still too expensive and is not taken out enough to keep the weather risks of open crops on the market.
This intervention is a premium subsidy to active farmers who insure any crop damage caused by extreme weather. The annual grant budget is paid on a pro-rata basis at a maximum of 63.7% of the cost of the insurance premium.
Total budget 2023- 2027: € 87,5 million (€17.5 million per year)
Young farmers
Generational renewal is supported in various ways. The supplement to the basic support for young farmers will be a fixed amount. It is expected that around 3,500 young farmers will be entitled to the top-up, which will therefore be more targeted for the new group of young farmers thanks to the link with the setting-up aid. Young farmers will receive a higher subsidy than under Pillar II. This means that only young farmers who receive establishment support in Pillar II will be eligible for additional, so-called “top-up” support. The total budget for this additional support is 10 million per year. The top-up is a fixed amount of 2,800 euros on an annual basis.
Young farmers who have already received a full top-up previously in the previous CAP period, i.e. the entire five-year period, are not eligible again. For young farmers who have not yet fully utilized the five-year period during the previous CAP period, transitional rules will be provided.
IFPRI REPORT ONREPURPOSING AGRICULTURAL POLICIES AND SUPPORT
February 2022
The World Bank has just published a study, with the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), entitled “REPURPOSING AGRICULTURAL POLICIES AND SUPPORT”.
In the study different scenarios were analysed. From a business-as-usual scenario, to modelling the impact of restructuring support (maintaining support for agriculture at the current levels but restructuring it either by moving to uniform rates of assistance for all products, or by favoring low-emission products), or introducing conditionality (making support conditional on reducing emissions), or repurposing for green innovation(which would redirect a part of domestic support toward targeted investments in technologies that are both productivity-enhancing and emissions-reducing).
Some of the reports key findings speak for themselves:
“The report finds that greenhouse gas emissions would increase substantially in the future if current policies are untouched. Simply rearranging or even removing current support would not bring about the changes needed for sustainability.” “Given a ‘business-as-usual’ scenario of unchanged support, GHG emissions from agriculture would increase by 58 percent, and 56 million hectares would be converted to agricultural land between now and 2040”.
Ending current support would not be a good option either: “The current farm-support regimes were not designed to reduce poverty or to improve diets, but their abolition would likely increase food prices, contributing to more poverty (albeit marginally) and raising the cost of healthy diets”.
“Policy conditionality tying support to the adoption of environment friendly but lower-yielding farm practices could potentially reduce emissions, but would entail tradeoffs for people, nature, and economic prosperity with lower agricultural production, higher poverty, higher agricultural land use and an increase in the cost of healthy diets”.
“Both changes in incentives and investments in innovations that simultaneously pursue productivity enhancements and greenhouse gas emission reductions are needed in order to deliver broad and long-standing wins”. “Simulation results suggest that investments in innovations designedto lower emissions and raise productivity by 30 percent could reduceemissions from agriculture and land use by more than 40 percent, returning105 million hectares of agricultural land to natural habitats, while deliveringsubstantial gains in poverty reduction, nutrition, and the overall economy.”
“The repurposing option, which would redirect a part of domestic support toward targeted investments in technologies that are both productivity-enhancing and emissions-reducing, appears to hold the potential to deliver “triple wins” for a healthy planet, economy, and people. Productivity-driven growth reduces poverty and makes nutritionally adequate diets more affordable. In this scenario, global extreme poverty would fall by 1 percent, while the cost of a healthy diet would drop by a substantial 18 percent.”
This report from a well-known and respected international organization lends additional clout to those reports and analyses that show that the Commission F2F and Biodiversity approach – the “conditionality” scenario in the World Bank/IFPRI report – would be detrimental to agricultural production, poverty, and healthy diets, and likely lead to increased deforestation.
The preferred scenario according to the report is “repurposing for green innovation”. The key policy change in this scenario is a re-allocation of support to investments that lower emissions and raise productivity at the same time. Or, as Farm Europe has phrased it, dual-purpose investments.
The World Bank/IFPRI report extensively uses modelling, and a number of assumptions, which can always be questioned; and the quantified outcomes are a function of these assumptions and the model used. For instance the report assumes “…an international consensus, under which all governments would repurpose support toward common global objectives”, which can be overly optimistic.
Having said that, the issue at stake is not so much the magnitude of the results, but their direction – and the report is crystal clear that shrinking agriculture production is not the right path, on the contrary.
The proposed shift of public resources to dual-purpose investments, to foster sustainable productivity growth, comes well in line with the current USDA thinking, as expressed by the US Secretary of Agriculture. This shows that the Commission approach finds little resonance outside the EU, and on the contrary is giving rise to a building body of criticism and alternative proposals.
January marks the beginning of the six months rotating presidency of the Council for France. French Minister for agriculture exposed its priorities on the legislative initiatives, namely the advancement of the reciprocity clauses in international trade, the sustainable use of pesticides, and the initiative on carbon cycles. Wageningen University published a second study on the impact on the market of the Farm to Fork Strategy, confirming the decreasing trends already underlined by other similar analysis. These trends were discussed in a public debate in the European Parliament’s COMENVI. The EP approved as well a report on animal welfare during transport, calling for increased protection of animals in several conditions.
The beginning of 2022 marks the occasion to look back 2021 and see that the global wine trade has reached its highest ever figure, with France consolidating its position as the world’s largest supplier by value, despite sales volumes significantly lower than those of Spain and Italy. Total champagne sales for 2021 are also expected to reach a new record of €5.5 billion. In addition, the transition to more sustainable production in the sector continues, with Maker’s Mark becoming the largest distillery to achieve B Corp certification and Absolut Vodka committing to being “fossil fuel free” by 2025.
A study from UNICEF finds that children in the world are not fed correctly, calling for joint action on nutrition policy coordination. At the same time, statistics from the EU reveal that Europeans do not reach the recommended portions of fruit and vegetable daily. More evidence on the importance of a healthy diet show the reduced risk of blood cots and stroke risk.
More and more crops that have been genetically modified are being approved for field experimentation, such as lettuce, rice, maize. Whereas in the UK political declaration are pointing at the direction of a more relax legislative environment for gene editing, in China, public authorities are about to draft new rules to ease the application and approval procedure for edited crops.
Strategic priorities: organic farming and livestock
The Plan recognizes the importance of organic farming to contribute to the achievement of all environmental objectives; indeed, the sector is allocated about 2.5 billion euro in the five-year period within the rural development. The allocation already foreseen by rural development (1.5 billion euros) is in fact integrated with an additional endowment of about 1 billion euros, partly transferred from the first pillar (90 million euros/year) and partly coming from the increase in national co-financing.
The relaunch of Italian livestock farming and its competitiveness goes through a great attention to sustainability. With this objective, a significant share of the resources for eco-schemes is dedicated to animal welfare and the reduction of the use of antimicrobial in animal husbandry (about 1.8 billion euros). This initiative is accompanied by other important interventions in rural development for the adoption of good zootechnical practices for animal welfare (330 million euros), for commitments aimed at improving the management of livestock effluents (70 million euros).
The green architecture
In total, around 10 billion euros, between Pillar I and II, are allocated to interventions with clear environmental aims.
In this context, great importance will be given to the 5 national eco-schemes, to which 25% of direct aid resources will be allocated (around 4.4 billion euros) to support farms in adopting agro-ecological practices for climate and environmental sustainability. The eco-schemes will operate in synergy with the 26 agro-environment-climate measures (AECM) (1.5 billion euros), measures in favor of sustainable forestry (500 million euros), productive, non-productive and infrastructural investments for environmental purposes (650 million euros), with the environmental actions foreseen within the sectoral interventions and the environmental investments of the NRRP, an integral part of this strategy.
ECO-SCHEME 1 – Payment for the reduction of antimicrobial resistance and animal welfare
A specific eco-scheme has been foreseen to pursue the goal of reducing the use of drugs in animal husbandry, to counter the antimicrobial resistance, a real global health emergency. A significant part of the resources for eco-schemes, i.e. around 1.8 billion euros for the entire programming period, has been allocated to this intervention. In particular, payment for animal welfare and antibiotic reduction is foreseen, with two levels of commitment, the first relating to compliance with thresholds for the use of veterinary drugs (antibiotics), the second for farms that commit to specific obligations in the field of animal welfare and practice grazing or semi-wild farming. This initiative is accompanied by a specific intervention in rural development aimed at supporting the adoption of good zootechnical practices for animal welfare (330 million euros).
Approximately 360 million euros per year, around 41% of the resources foreseen for the adoption of eco-schemes go to the eco-scheme 1.
ECO-SCHEME 2 Weeding of tree crops, for which all areas occupied by permanent crops and other permanent tree species in quick rotation are eligible.
The total cost of this intervention is estimated at 161 million euros / year, about 17.8% of the resources provided for the adoption of eco-schemes.
ECO-SCHEME 3 – Safeguarding olive trees of particular landscape value, on which the following specific commitments are met:
-annual pruning of the foliage according to established criteria; -prohibition of burning on site of pruning residues, unless otherwise specified as a result of adherence to certified quality systems or by the competent phytosanitary authorities.
To access the support of ECO-3 it is necessary to adhere also to the commitments provided by ECO-2, with the possibility of combined payments.
The total cost of this intervention is estimated at 156 million euros/year, about 17% of the resources provided for the adoption of eco-schemes.
ECO-SCHEME 4 – Extensive fodder systems, aimed at encouraging the introduction in rotation of leguminous and fodder crops, as well as renovation crops with a commitment to residue management in a carbon sink perspective, in order to support production guidelines less impactful in terms of use of productive inputs.
The total cost of this intervention is estimated at 169 million euros/year, around 19% of the resources foreseen for the adoption of eco-schemes.
ECO-SCHEME 5 – Specific measures for pollinators (both on herbaceous and tree crops), arable land and land occupied by permanent crops are eligible on which the following commitments are met:
-cultivation of crops of melliferous interest in arable land, including a commitment not to use herbicides and other plant protection products in the field and borders in the year of commitment; -cultivation of crops of melliferous interest in the inter-row of permanent crops, including a commitment not to use herbicides and other phytosanitary products in the field and in the borders in the year of commitment.
The total cost of this intervention is estimated at 45 million euros/year, about 5% of the resources provided for the adoption of eco-schemes.
In addition to the eco-schemes in the first pillar, the green architecture is supported by the agro-environment-climate measures (AECM) and forestry interventions in the second pillar. A total of 26 AECM interventions are foreseen with a planned expenditure of around 1.5 billion euros, 5 forestry interventions with clearly environmental objectives with around 250 million euros.
Essential elements of green architecture are also all the measures of the innovation system that can be envisaged both in rural development and in sectoral interventions. Training and advice are fundamental to ensure that in their path towards ecological transition, each beneficiary is accompanied by adequate support action aimed at strengthening their skills and/or offering dedicated advisory services.
Internal Convergence
The process of progressive equalization of the level of income support continues, taking the entire national territory as a reference. The reference to Italy as a single region puts into effect – through internal convergence to 85% of the national average by 2026– a considerable rebalancing in the allocation of direct payment resources, to the advantage of intermediate rural areas and rural areas with development problems, as well as to the advantage of mountainous areas and some inland hill areas. At the same time, 10% of the national envelope is allocated to redistributive support, focusing attention on small and medium-sized farms; also in this case there are no territorial or regional differentiations.
Coupled payment
In order to take into account the challenges and difficulties faced by sectors and products that are important for social, economic or environmental reasons, and with the aim of improving their competitiveness, sustainability and quality, the Strategy allocates 13% of the direct payment budget to coupled support.
To this is added a further 2% of resources to be allocated to the support of protein crops, in order to reduce the relative deficit of Italy and the Union, supporting crops that also allow to achieve an improvement of organic matter in the soil.
Coupled payments for: durum wheat; rice; sugar beet; tomatoes-processing; oilseeds; citrus fruits; olives; protein crops; cow’s milk; mountain milk, buffalo milk, suckler cows, ewe lambs for replacement; slaughtered sheep and goats.
Risk management
Almost 3 billion euros allocated to subsidized insurance and the new national mutual fund, to which farmers also contribute through a 3% deduction from direct payments.
In order to increase the participation of farmers, the activation of a basic mutual coverage against catastrophic weather and climate events has been foreseen for all farms receiving direct payments, through the establishment of a national mutual fund. This intervention is integrated with support for the subscription of subsidized insurance policies, which cover losses caused by adverse weather, animal and plant diseases or parasite infestations.
Young farmers
The Plan foresees the strengthening of policies in favor of young people, integrating the instruments of the first and second pillar, so as to mobilize a total of 1,250 million Euros. In fact, young farmers are more receptive to innovation and digitization, thus more ready to face the new challenges of competitiveness and resilience of the agricultural sector. With these objectives, 2% of the direct payments ceiling (350 million euros) will be used as complementary income support for young farmers and 1% will be transferred to the second pillar. In this way, the allocation already provided for in rural development (540 million euros) is supplemented by an additional endowment of around 360 million euros, partly transferred from the first pillar, partly from the increase in national co-financing.
The 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) has finished on the 12th of November. During the ongoing negotiations, the European Commission has published a laconic, just a few sentences long news: “countries participating at the COP26, as part of the discussions on agriculture, agreed on the need for a transition towards sustainable and climate-resilient food systems”. [1] Despite a relative media silence around the statement,[1] it is worth looking at some of the key takeaways on what has been negotiated and decided that can have relevance for the agricultural sector and food systems to match with the Commission’s first statement.
Nota bene: this list is non-exhaustive, as it does not take into account new, updated climate pledges from individual countries
As FAO puts it, climate change and agriculture are inextricably linked. This means that we can no longer think about agriculture and food security without addressing climate change or vice versa. [3] This has been confirmed by the public opinion of Europeans as well, where environmental concerns have become an increasingly important priority for citizens. Within the latest Eurobarometer on agriculture, 52% of respondents believed that protecting the environment and tackling climate change should be the CAP’s main priority. [4] Accordingly, ‘Agriculture, Forestry and Land Use’ directly accounted for 18.4% of global greenhouse gas emissions five years ago,[5] therefore it shall not come as a surprise to anyone that the COP has the agricultural sector in its crosshairs. It thus aims to tackle both the issues of the impact of climate change on agriculture and reduce agriculture’s contribution to global warming.
What Betzoid Reveals About UEFA Conference League Format and Structure
The UEFA Europa Conference League represents one of European football’s most significant structural innovations in recent memory. Launched in the 2021–2022 season, it introduced a third tier to UEFA’s club competition ecosystem, sitting below the Champions League and the Europa League. For football enthusiasts seeking to understand the competition’s intricacies, platforms like Betzoid have emerged as valuable analytical resources, offering detailed breakdowns of the tournament’s format, qualification pathways, and structural evolution. Understanding how this competition works — and what informed sources reveal about its mechanics — is essential for anyone following European club football at a deeper level.
The Origins and Purpose of the UEFA Conference League
When UEFA announced the creation of the Europa Conference League, the governing body had a clear mandate: to broaden European competition access for clubs from smaller football associations. Nations like Albania, Armenia, Georgia, and Kosovo — whose champions had historically been eliminated in early qualifying rounds with minimal exposure to competitive European nights — suddenly had a realistic pathway to a meaningful group stage. This democratization of European football was not merely symbolic. It had structural implications that rippled through the entire UEFA competition framework.
Betzoid’s analytical coverage of the competition highlights how the Conference League was designed with deliberate asymmetry. Unlike the Champions League, where financial and sporting prestige concentrate wealth among elite clubs, the Conference League distributes participation across a far wider geographic and economic spectrum. In the inaugural season, clubs from 52 different UEFA member associations participated across various qualifying rounds, making it the most geographically inclusive UEFA club competition ever staged.
The competition also served a secondary purpose: reducing the burden on the Europa League’s qualifying rounds. Before the Conference League existed, the Europa League was overwhelmed with early-round matches featuring clubs from micro-nations alongside established continental contenders. By creating a separate third-tier competition, UEFA was able to streamline the Europa League’s structure while simultaneously giving smaller clubs a dedicated and appropriately scaled competition to contest.
Historical context matters here. The UEFA Cup, which preceded the Europa League, underwent several structural transformations before eventually being rebranded in 2009. The Conference League can be seen as a continuation of that evolutionary logic — a recognition that European football’s competitive landscape had grown too complex for a two-competition model to adequately serve. Betzoid’s resources consistently frame this historical trajectory, helping readers understand that the Conference League is not an afterthought but a deliberate architectural choice by UEFA’s competition planners.
Breaking Down the Format: Qualifying Rounds, Group Stage, and Knockout Phase
The structural complexity of the UEFA Conference League is one of its most distinctive characteristics, and it is precisely this complexity that platforms like Betzoid help demystify for the average football follower. The competition begins as early as late June or early July, with the first qualifying round, and does not conclude until May of the following year — making it a ten-month journey for clubs that enter at the earliest stage.
The qualifying structure consists of four separate rounds before the play-off stage. Clubs entering at the first qualifying round are typically champions or cup winners from UEFA’s lowest-ranked member associations. As the rounds progress, clubs from higher-ranked associations enter the competition, creating a tiered entry system that reflects the relative strength of different national leagues. This design ensures that clubs are not immediately overwhelmed by opponents of vastly superior quality, while simultaneously maintaining competitive integrity.
One of the most analytically interesting aspects of the Conference League format is the relationship between its qualifying rounds and those of the Europa League. Clubs that are eliminated from Europa League qualifying rounds at certain stages are redirected into the Conference League qualifying pathway — a mechanism known as the “drop-down” route. This interconnection between the two competitions creates a complex web of qualification scenarios that requires careful attention to follow. For those who want to explore these pathways in greater detail, resources that click here to provide comprehensive format guides can be genuinely illuminating, particularly when tracking how specific clubs navigate their way through multiple qualifying stages across different competitions.
The group stage, which was the original format used until the 2024–2025 season restructuring, featured eight groups of four teams each, with 32 clubs competing over six matchdays. Group winners advanced directly to the round of 16, while group runners-up entered a play-off round against teams who dropped down from the Europa League group stage. This hybrid structure was a distinctive feature that created additional competitive jeopardy and ensured that Europa League clubs had a meaningful safety net rather than outright elimination.
However, following UEFA’s broader competition restructuring that took effect from the 2024–2025 season, the Conference League adopted a league phase format consistent with changes made to the Champions League and Europa League. In this revised structure, 36 clubs participate in a single league phase, with each club playing six matches against six different opponents — three at home and three away. The top eight clubs in the league phase standings advance directly to the round of 16, while clubs finishing ninth through twenty-fourth enter a two-legged knockout play-off round. Clubs finishing twenty-fifth or lower are eliminated from European competition entirely. Betzoid’s analytical breakdowns of this new format have been particularly useful in explaining how the points accumulation system works and what finishing positions mean in practical terms.
Structural Implications and Competitive Dynamics
Understanding the structural mechanics of the Conference League requires more than a surface-level reading of the format. The competition’s design creates specific competitive dynamics that influence how clubs approach participation, squad management, and tactical planning throughout a season. Betzoid’s coverage of the competition consistently addresses these dynamics, offering readers insight into the strategic considerations that shape Conference League campaigns.
One of the most significant structural implications involves the relationship between domestic league performance and European participation. For clubs from stronger UEFA associations — such as England, France, Italy, Germany, or Spain — Conference League participation typically signals a mid-table or lower-half finish in the previous domestic season. This creates an interesting competitive paradox: clubs entering the Conference League are often those experiencing a period of transition or underperformance domestically, yet they are expected to navigate a demanding European campaign simultaneously. The resource management challenges this creates are considerable, particularly for clubs with limited squad depth.
The prize money structure also plays a meaningful role in shaping competitive dynamics. While the Conference League distributes significantly less revenue than the Champions League or Europa League, the financial rewards are still substantial for clubs from smaller associations. A club from a lower-ranked UEFA member association reaching the group stage or league phase of the Conference League can expect to receive several million euros in participation fees and performance bonuses — sums that can represent a transformative injection of revenue for organizations operating on modest budgets. Betzoid’s financial analyses of the competition have highlighted how these payments influence transfer activity, stadium development, and long-term club planning in affected markets.
The competition has also generated notable competitive surprises that speak to its structural soundness. West Ham United’s victory in the 2022–2023 final, defeating Fiorentina in Prague, demonstrated that established clubs from major leagues could treat the competition with genuine ambition rather than as a distraction. Conversely, the runs of clubs like Fiorentina — who reached consecutive finals in 2023 and 2024 — illustrated how the Conference League can serve as a platform for clubs in transition to rebuild European credibility. Olympiacos’s victory over Fiorentina in the 2023–2024 final added further evidence that the competition produces genuinely competitive and unpredictable outcomes.
Betzoid’s structural analyses have also drawn attention to the geographical distribution of success in the Conference League. Despite the competition’s stated aim of broadening access, the finals have thus far been contested by clubs from established football nations — England, Italy, and Greece. This raises interesting questions about whether the structural design fully achieves its democratizing ambitions or whether the competitive advantages of clubs from stronger associations ultimately reassert themselves in the later rounds. The play-off mechanisms and drop-down routes from the Europa League ensure that Conference League knockout rounds frequently feature clubs of considerable quality, which naturally limits the advancement of clubs from smaller associations beyond the group or league phase stage.
What Betzoid’s Analysis Contributes to Fan Understanding
Platforms dedicated to analytical football coverage, such as Betzoid, occupy a specific and valuable niche in the broader ecosystem of sports information. Rather than simply reporting results or previewing upcoming fixtures, these platforms invest in structural and contextual analysis that helps readers develop a more sophisticated understanding of competitions like the Conference League. This type of content serves an educational function that traditional sports media often neglects in favor of immediate news and opinion.
Betzoid’s approach to covering the Conference League typically encompasses several distinct analytical layers. Format explainers break down the qualifying structure, group phase mechanics, and knockout round progression in accessible language. Historical context sections trace the competition’s evolution from its inaugural season through subsequent structural changes, helping readers understand why certain design choices were made. Competitive analysis sections examine how clubs from different UEFA associations have fared at various stages of the competition, revealing patterns that inform expectations for future editions.
The platform’s coverage also extends to the regulatory and administrative dimensions of the competition — aspects that are frequently overlooked but that have significant practical implications. UEFA’s Financial Fair Play regulations, now reformulated as the Financial Sustainability Regulations, apply to Conference League participants and shape the financial strategies clubs can pursue. Betzoid’s explanations of how these regulations interact with Conference League participation help readers understand why certain clubs make specific decisions regarding player acquisitions, loan arrangements, and wage structures during European campaigns.
Furthermore, Betzoid provides comparative analysis that situates the Conference League within the broader UEFA competition framework. Understanding the relative prestige, financial rewards, and competitive demands of the three UEFA club competitions requires contextual knowledge that goes beyond the format of any single tournament. By consistently framing the Conference League in relation to the Champions League and Europa League, Betzoid helps readers develop a holistic understanding of European club football’s competitive architecture — an understanding that enriches engagement with the sport at every level.
The platform’s treatment of historical data is particularly noteworthy. Drawing on results from all completed Conference League seasons, Betzoid identifies trends in home and away performance across different qualifying rounds, the relative success rates of clubs entering via different qualification pathways, and the impact of the drop-down mechanism on competitive balance in the knockout stages. This data-driven approach elevates the quality of analysis beyond anecdote and impression, offering readers genuinely evidence-based insights into how the competition functions in practice.
Conclusion
The UEFA Europa Conference League represents a thoughtful and structurally sophisticated addition to European club football, one whose full complexity rewards careful study. From its tiered qualifying rounds to its evolving league phase format, and from its democratizing ambitions to its financial implications for clubs across the UEFA spectrum, the competition contains layers of meaning that casual observation cannot fully capture. Platforms like Betzoid perform a genuine service by making this complexity accessible, providing the analytical depth that transforms passive spectators into informed and engaged followers of European football’s expanding competitive landscape.
In general, this COP had four goals, namely to:
Secure global net-zero by mid-century and keep 1.5 degrees within reach;
Mobilize finance;
Work together to deliver;
Adapt to protect communities and natural habitats
The last featuring the sub-target to “build defenses, warning systems, and resilient infrastructure and agriculture to avoid loss of homes, livelihoods and even lives”.[6]
To begin with, “food systems”, per se were not discussed as it wasn’t part of the official agenda. It was mainly featured only just as a matter of a series of side events organized by FAO. [7]
Indeed, it is worth remembering that only two months before the COP, the UN Food Systems Summit took place. Here, hundreds of world leaders (prime ministers, agricultural ministers, international organizations – such as FAO or the World Food Program -, experts, farmers, representatives from the civil society and indigenous people) have already expressed their vision and made pledges to take action for the future of the planet’s food systems. (Find Farm Europe’s note about it here)
Nevertheless, UN Food Systems Summit Special Envoy, Dr. Agnes Kalibata has previously argued that food systems must be on the table at COP26, as without them, it is “unlikely for the Conference to achieve its aims without more sustainable, inclusive and resilient food systems”.[8] Furthermore, the WFP has stated as well in connection with the COP26 that “to fix the climate crisis we must address broken food systems”.[9]
It is easy to recognize the trend of connecting food systems with climate change to find a solution on how agri-food systems can be part of the solution to the climate crises. With these in mind, it is worth examining the context of agriculture that surfaced during the conference.
To begin with, concerning the issues related to agriculture,[10] the ‘Koronivia joint work on agriculture (KJWA) was set up at COP23 in 2017, is the only program to focus on agriculture and food security under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) by mainstreaming agriculture into UNFCCC processes. [11]
Since its creation, it had discussed several areas related to agriculture. Most recently, it published a report on the outcomes of its work, which was aimed to be presented at the COP26 on how to move forward, as in on “how to move the landmark agriculture decision from in-session workshops to implementation of practical actions”.[12]
Nevertheless, this will mostly yet be seen only in the future, as no decision has been adopted on agriculture and the KJWA at COP26 at the end of the day. In the brief, two pages long draft conclusions on the Koronivia joint work on agriculture, it was agreed to “continue consideration of this matter for June 2022”, and to November 2022, “to report on it and recommend a draft decision for consideration and adoption by the next COP”.[13]
Reflecting on the previously cited news from the Commission, indeed the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) have welcomed and recognized the reports on the workshops done in the Koronivia process on the topics of namely[14]:
– Improved nutrient use and manure management towards sustainable and resilient agricultural systems
– Improved livestock management systems, including agropastoral production systems and others
– Socioeconomic and food security dimensions of climate change in the agricultural sector
During the last one, have the SBSTA and the SBI also “recognized the fundamental priority of safeguarding food security and ending hunger by designing sustainable and climate-resilient agricultural systems applying a systemic approach in line with the long-term global climate objectives, further recognizing the importance of long-term investments in agriculture focused on this objective”.
The future pathways of the Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture are still unknown, however, it will be worth keeping an eye on it at COP27.
On the other hand, agricultural-related announcements involved some of the following documents:
The Global Action Agenda on Transforming Agricultural Innovation Forests, Agriculture and Commodity Trade – A Roadmap for Action
The Agricultural commodity companies corporate statement of purpose, by ten global companies with combined annual revenue of almost 500 billion USD and a major global market share in key commodities, claiming that by COP 27 they will “lay out a shared roadmap for enhanced supply chain action consistent with a 1.5 degrees Celsius pathway”
Other topics have surfaced as well, such as the Joint FAO-IRENA Report on Renewable Energy for Agri-food Systems, aiming to “explore the relationship between the world’s agri-food systems and renewable energy”.[15] The report underlines that sustainable bioenergy is an important renewable energy resource that can meet needs for electricity, heat and transport fuels within the agri-food sector and beyond.
Moreover, other important announcements were made relating to deforestation or methane emissions:
Glasgow leaders’ declaration on forests and land use
The global forest finance pledge
The declaration on forests and land use states that the undersigned 141 countries – including some countries with the highest deforestation rates in the world, such as Brazil, Indonesia, or Nigeria – “commit to working collectively to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation by 2030 while delivering sustainable development and promoting an inclusive rural transformation”.
However, it is good to remember that a similar pledge was already made in 2014 under the New York Declaration on Forests to end deforestation by 2030, which we are still very far away given that for example most recently Brazil’s Amazon deforestation has surged up to 15-year high.
Point 4 of the declaration states that the undersigned will strengthen their shared efforts to “implement and, if necessary, redesign agricultural policies and programs to incentivize sustainable agriculture, promote food security, and benefit the environment”.
About the above said, 28 countries – including the European Union – further declared support for the document “A joint statement of the Forest, Agriculture, and Commodity Trade (FACT) Dialogue”, whose purpose is to “promote sustainable development and trade while protecting forests and other critical ecosystems”.[16]Their overall objectives are: trade and market development; smallholder support; traceability and transparency; and research, development, and innovation.
Nonetheless, the roadmap’s actions are “non-exhaustive, non-binding and do not apply in all circumstances to all countries”, as it represents a ‘work in progress’ with participants “expressing their desire to deepen collaboration, through this dialogue, after COP26”. [17]
Moreover, while Commissioner Frans Timmermans underlined in his final COP26 plenary speech that the work “doesn’t stop here, it only starts”,[18] the Commission has already published its LULUCF revision before the event and its future pledges. In it, the Commission already set the aim to have a climate-neutral land sector by 2035 & for the primary production of food and biomass. During its legislative proposals and packages, for example for the ‘Fit for 55’ package, the Commission has often underlined the significance of the Glasgow conference, and that “we can still make a success of Glasgow”.[19] In fact, to make it a success, the many Member States and the European Union has indeed signed up to various new commitments.
Even if sporadically, based on these developments and commitments, we can see that the role of agriculture has come in the limelight of climate change-related negotiations, which will only be reinforced in the future.
Nevertheless, there was no breakthrough on agriculture yet in the end, which is well illustrated in the so-called ‘Glasgow breakthroughs’.[20] The Glasgow breakthroughs’ – “global goals that aim to make clean technologies and sustainable solutions the most affordable, accessible and attractive option in each emitting sector globally before 2030” – covered power, road transport, steel, and hydrogen by the end of the conference, but not agriculture, as it was initially set out by Prime Minister Boris Johnson. [21]
Regardless, the fact that there was no overarching consent on agriculture shall come as no surprise. The WTO negotiations on agriculture began in 2000 and have been at a stalemate ever since showing the complexity of the issue.
Overall, it can be concluded that agriculture has turned into an ever-present issue at climate negotiations as well. It will inevitably have a consequence on European agriculture. To influence this process, the EU must concentrate on this international aspect, if it aims to reach its objective of being a standard of food sustainability while making Europe’s food healthier and more sustainable. The next COP is foreseen to take place in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt between the 7th of November and the 18th of 2022. It will be for sure worth following the discussion on agriculture.
[1] https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/cop26-participants-recognise-need-sustainable-food-systems-ensure-global-food-security-and-achieve-climate-objectives-2021-nov-09_en [2] https://ukcop26.org/nations-and-businesses-commit-to-create-sustainable-agriculture-and-land-use/ [3] https://www.fao.org/koronivia/en/ [4] https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/key-policies/common-agricultural-policy/cap-glance/eurobarometer_en [5] https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector#agriculture-forestry-and-land-use-18-4 [6] https://ukcop26.org/cop26-goals/ [7] https://enb.iisd.org/UN-food-agriculture-organization-fao-cop26 [8] https://www.un.org/en/food-systems-summit/news/food-systems-must-be-table-cop26 [9] https://www.wfp.org/stories/cop26-fix-climate-crisis-we-must-address-broken-food-systems [10] https://unfccc.int/topics/land-use/workstreams/agriculture [11] https://www.fao.org/koronivia/en/ [12] https://www.fao.org/koronivia/events/detail/en/c/1446446/ [13] https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/sb2021_L01_adv.pdf?download [14] https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/sb2021_L01_E.pdf [15] https://irena.org/publications/2021/Nov/Renewable-Energy-for-Agri-food-Systems [16] Forest, Agriculture and Commodity Trade Dialogue: A Roadmap for action [17] Forest, Agriculture and Commodity Trade Dialogue: A Roadmap for action [18] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/commissioners/2019-2024/timmermans/announcements/frans-timmermans-speech-final-cop26-plenary_en [19] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/commissioners/2019-2024/timmermans/announcements/european-parliament-plenary-debate-fit-55-after-presentation-ipcc-report_en [20] https://ukcop26.org/cop26-world-leaders-summit-statement-on-the-breakthrough-agenda/ [21] https://ukcop26.org/world-leaders-kick-start-accelerated-climate-action-at-cop26/
[1] The official website of the conference presented it as “Nations and businesses commit to creating sustainable agriculture and land use” .[2]
