With the rise of right-wing politics at both EU and national level, climate sceptics in charge of climate files at the European Parliament, and the European Commission dancing to the beat of industry and corporate lobby deregulation drum, who is left to pave the way for resilient and sustainable agri-food systems?
While the EU’s new Vision for Agriculture and Food lacked vision and the EU 2040 climate target was weakened before it even hit the negotiation table, one disappointing reality has remained consistent for decades: the systemic reluctance to address a major polluter with stagnating emissions.
Around 12% of total EU emissions come from animal rearing and fertiliser use, while drained peatlands — mostly for agricultural use — emit another 5%. Add to that the suffering of animals due to outdated welfare laws, the reliance on land and resources outside of the EU, and the dystopic nature loss and widespread pollution, and you would assume a compelling case has been made for a fundamental reshaping of agri-food systems.
Yet, EU agriculture policy fails to take the climate crisis seriously, and EU climate policy largely ignores agriculture.
Self-congratulating
According to the Commission’s latest analysis of EU countries’ climate plans — known as National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs) — the EU is currently just one percentage point short of its goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by 2030, compared to 1990.
However, for the transport, buildings, agriculture, small industry and waste sectors the ambition gap is wider, with the latest plans adding up to a 38% emissions cut compared to 2005. This is an improvement from the 34% in the draft plans, but still short of the 40% target.
The Commission therefore calls on EU countries, particularly those set to underperform in these sectors, to come up with additional mitigation measures and to make better use of available “flexibilities”, which allow for underperforming sectors to be compensated for by “overperformance” in others.
While the Commission painted a positive picture of the EU staying the course towards net-zero, the final NECPs tell a far more flawed story about EU climate action.
Firstly, the 55% target (and corresponding 40% target for selected sectors) should not be seen as the end goal, but instead as the minimum to be achieved. Outperforming this target is not only desirable, but essential for fair global climate action. Every emission not added to the atmosphere contributes to slowing the climate crisis and yields benefits for society. If we are to reach (and again, to possibly outperform) the goal of the Paris Agreement, we need to step up our efforts.
To reach economy-wide climate targets we need, unsurprisingly, economy-wide action. Rather than calling for countries to better exploit “flexibilities” to make the numbers work, the EU should be tapping into the emission reduction potential of all sectors. Relying on accounting tricks to reach our target in 2030 will only make climate action in the next decade harder and costlier. The good news is that some countries are projected to overachieve on their national targets. This means that, if everyone else reaches their targets, then the cumulative emissions reductions would surpass 55%.
Secondly, analysis by CAN Europe warns that many of the national plans lack detail and commitment when it comes to implementation and dedicated funding, hampering real-world impact. Again, the sectors with a 40% target are falling short, with little more than voluntary initiatives proposed, and without corresponding financial streams. At the same time, the report highlights how emissions from fertilisers and livestock can act as two key levers to address the observed emission gap. So why isn’t there more pressure for underachievers to step up action and make use of those levers?
Too tough to tackle
Having reviewed six final updated NECPs, we the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), found that many countries excused their lack of action in the agri-food sector by labelling it as a complex sector in which reducing emission “in a cost effective and competitively neutral way is more difficult”. With this single sweeping statement, an opportunity for significant greenhouse gas emission reduction and a shift towards sustainable food systems (with the countless co-benefits this would bring) is swept aside.
In concrete terms, this translates into very few countries setting a target for agricultural emissions. Where measures are proposed, both in the case of animal farming and fertilisers, these often materialise as technofixes that will not bring about much needed change. The same negligence was found on the Commission’s side, with little attention paid to agriculture in its feedback on the draft plans, besides some blanket technology-centred recommendations.
Only in its assessment of the final plans did the Commission provide more consistent feedback on agricultural emissions, requesting more detailed information and measures in countries that are lagging behind, but only calling for one country to encourage “sustainable agriculture practices”.
An inconvenient truth
Clearly, without a stronger push by the Commission there is little appetite from most EU countries to tackle agri-food emissions, and even less appetite to rethink their agricultural production models. Yet, the science is clear: we cannot afford delays or derailment when every country should be pursuing maximum emission reductions across all sectors simultaneously. If one sector does not contribute its share, more of the effort will fall on the shoulders of others.
Sadly, with the recently announced new EU budget expected to further divert resources away from the green transition, and the post-2027 agricultural policy set to further dismantle its environmental aspects, the future of EU agri-climate action is looking grim. These actions go directly against the wishes of EU citizens. According to the latest figures, 85% of EU citizens believe that climate action should be a priority to improve public health and quality of life. It is therefore crucial that the Commission enforces climate and environmental law, and holds countries accountable for achieving national climate targets.
Civil society, alongside progressive farmers and businesses, remains committed to reminding policymakers of the opportunity and the need for action on agriculture, to ensure fair and resilient agri-food system for farmers, consumers, and nature.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider buying the author a coffee.
Photo by Andrej Prelesnik
