production costs, and low profitability, making farming less attractive to younger generations. Another critical weakness identified was the underdevelopment of the food processing sector, which limits the value-added potential of agricultural products and constrains China's ability to compete in higher-end food markets.

CEEC respondents identified several interrelated challenges facing their regional food systems. A prominent concern was the fragmentation of farmland, with many small and scattered farms struggling to achieve economies of scale, market access, and long-term viability. This structural limitation is compounded by an aging farming population, with few incentives for younger generations to remain in or enter the agricultural sector. In non-EU countries, respondents pointed to the limited capacity for organic production and certification, which hampers access to premium markets and weakens sustainability credentials. Another frequently cited issue was the high dependence on food imports, which undermines local production and food sovereignty. Respondents also criticized the lack of consistent government and institutional support, particularly in terms of protecting primary agricultural producers and organizing systematic buy-off schemes or guaranteed purchase mechanisms. Additionally, food waste and quality control deficiencies were mentioned as ongoing problems, highlighting the need for better regulation, infrastructure, and consumer awareness.

### 7.2.3. Lessons China Could Learn from European Food Systems

When asked about valuable lessons or practices that China could adopt from European food systems, both Chinese and CEEC respondents highlighted a shared emphasis on technological and sustainability-oriented innovations. From the Chinese perspective, several respondents pointed to the advanced food processing technologies in Europe as particularly valuable, emphasizing multi-purpose food processing and rigorous food safety control systems.

CEEC respondents emphasized the importance of efficient technologies, modernization, and digitalization across the entire food value chain—from production to processing and distribution. In addition, they suggested that China could benefit from adopting social innovations, such as community-supported agriculture models, and circular economy practices aimed at minimizing waste and maximizing resource use.

### 7.2.4. Lessons Europe could learn from China's food system

When asked what European food systems could learn from China, most Chinese respondents expressed uncertainty, noting limited familiarity with the specific needs, structures, or challenges of European agri-food systems. However, even with this caveat, some noted China's experience in scaling agricultural innovation rapidly across diverse geographies and farm types as a possible area of inspiration, especially for countries facing challenges in modernizing smallholder farming.

CEEC respondents pointed to a number of innovative practices that Europe could explore further, particularly in areas where China has demonstrated strong capacity or potential. One respondent mentioned fertilizer policy reforms in China as a noteworthy example of how strategic regulation can improve efficiency and sustainability in agricultural inputs. Others highlighted China's use of
traditional raw materials, such as herbs and Eastern food products, as well as innovations in dairy processing and conductorial (possibly meaning fermentation or sensory-related) techniques as valuable areas of inspiration. Although some CEEC participants admitted limited direct knowledge of the Chinese food system, there was a general perception that China is advancing in vertical farming technologies and overall efficiency improvements–both of which were seen as promising for adaptation in European contexts focused on climate resilience and resource optimization.

### 7.2.5 Awareness and aspirations for China–Europe cooperation in food systems

When asked about existing cooperation mechanisms or case studies between China and Europe in the food systems domain, most respondents–both from China and the CEEC region–were not aware of specific initiatives. Despite the general lack of concrete examples, participants emphasized the importance of strengthening cooperation platforms, particularly in the areas of agriculture, trade, the digital economy, green industries, and clean energy. These were seen as essential cross-cutting domains with high relevance for future agri-food collaboration, though respondents noted the need for more structured information-sharing and visibility of ongoing or past efforts.

Looking to the future, respondents were more confident in identifying priority areas for cooperation. From the Chinese perspective, several participants pointed to food processing innovation as a key area–especially in light of the climate challenges facing agricultural systems globally. They highlighted the potential for Europe and China to collaborate on resilient, value-added, and low-emission processing technologies.

CEEC respondents outlined a broader set of ambitions. Many emphasized the importance of joint agricultural innovation aimed at producing high-quality, competitive products, and called for deeper academic exchange and labor mobility programs to share technical expertise and operational know-how. Some also saw value in integrating EU technologies with Chinese expertise–particularly in the use of herbs, functional ingredients, and Eastern dietary culture. Others stressed the need for more exchange on sustainable production techniques, food safety, and strategies to protect national agricultural sectors, all of which could benefit from structured, mutually respectful collaboration. Together, these responses reflect a strong interest in enhancing food system cooperation, even if current awareness of mechanisms remains low.

### 7.3 Insights from interviews

To complement the survey data and gain deeper qualitative insights into perceptions of China–Europe cooperation in food systems, we conducted 10 semi-structured interviews between April and May 2025. The interviewees were primarily EU-based stakeholders, including researchers, policymakers, and institutional experts from France, Germany, Austria, Croatia, Slovenia, Slovakia and Greece. These interviews were designed to explore not only technical knowledge and policy insights but also broader reflections on cooperation potential, systemic challenges, and regional dynamics in agri-food innovation.
Despite proactive outreach to over 300 scholars and professionals across Europe and China, response rates for interviews remained low. This limited engagement may reflect a number of underlying factors: a general lack of awareness about existing China–Europe cooperation frameworks in the food system domain, institutional or individual disinterest, or even hesitancy stemming from geopolitical tensions, ideological bias, or sensitivities around international alignment. Nonetheless, the perspectives shared in these ten interviews provide valuable depth to the broader dataset. They highlight not only structural and policy-related challenges, but also areas of alignment, missed opportunities, and future pathways for meaningful China–Europe engagement in sustainable food system transformation. Several themes–such as rural revitalization, the potential of small-scale farming, and calls for more structured cooperation–echo those raised in the survey responses, reinforcing their salience across different stakeholder types and regions.

### 7.3.1 Perceived strengths and weaknesses of the European food system

Across the interviews, experts voiced a wide range of views on the European food system, revealing both deep appreciation for its strengths and sharp critiques of its systemic flaws. There was general consensus that Europe possesses a rich, diverse, and highly capable food system–yet one increasingly undermined by its reliance on industrial models, lobbying pressures, and unsustainable dependencies. One of the most frequently cited strengths was Europe's agricultural diversity and cultural richness. As a French expert put it, "Europe's diversity in cuisine remains one of its greatest assets." This sentiment was echoed by a Croatian researcher, who described the EU as "the biggest food producer globally, the biggest exporter," highlighting its capacity to produce "everything these days," including organic products, high-end delicacies, and globally recognized brands. The EU's investment in knowledge, research, and innovation - particularly in areas like digital agriculture - was also underscored as a strong point.

Another researcher based in France praised Europe's capacity to mobilize resources and coordinate policy, referencing the CAP as a structural advantage. They saw Europe as uniquely equipped to implement continent-wide solidarity mechanisms and "radically redirect" the system if political will were present. However, this same expert lamented that current CAP allocations are skewed in favor of large, export-oriented farms, with little support for resilience or autonomy. "The system favors scale over sustainability," they noted, adding that "the narrative that 'farmers feed France' is false", as most of the food system is now run by salaried labor for large firms, rather than family farms.

The role of lobbying and corporate influence was a recurring critique. Several experts raised concerns about how industrial and agricultural lobbies, particularly in countries like France, resist reform and block environmental progress. A French interviewee called this situation "absurd," saying:

> "We are being completely bamboozled about the mutation of the agricultural system by drawing attention to the distress of farmers, which is real... And at the same time, we must change the discourse and say: well, we must do completely differently from
what you do very well so far, namely agro-industry. We must get out of it because it's
a dead end."

The imperial legacy of Europe's food system was highlighted by a Belgian academic, drawing on Ulrich Brandt's concept of *the imperial mode of living*. Europe, they argued, has constructed a food system highly dependent on external resources, particularly from the Global South—"externalising all the negative and pulling benefits from the South"—which they deemed the biggest weakness of the EU's agri-food structure.

This theme of unsustainable dependency reappeared in the reflections of a German academic, who focused on the fragility of long and overstretched supply chains. "We've stretched them so far, they are insecure," they warned, referencing everything from avocados flown in from Peru to asparagus cultivation shifting due to climate change. The expert emphasized the need to "convince people—especially in wealthier areas—to adapt their dietary behaviors," shifting demand and shortening supply chains to increase resilience. They also noted the erosion of traditional farming knowledge due to demographic change and emigration:

"There aren't experienced farmers anymore; farming knowledge is lost. Heritage seeds are disappearing... It's not enough to just have seed banks if we're not using them."

This erosion was tied to broader sustainability concerns—from the dominance of corporate seed and fertilizer producers (e.g., Monsanto) to issues around soil degradation, methane emissions from food waste, and the food-energy-water nexus. One expert pointed to the paradox of food waste and food insecurity, explaining that much food “never even makes it into stomachs,” a systemic failure linked to inefficient logistics, value chain priorities, and consumer culture.

Some experts advocated for a more regionalized, democratic food system, warning of the politicization of food security. The notion of “weaponized food” was brought up in relation to global supply shocks and geopolitical tensions. Initiatives such as Via Campesina were referenced as successful counterpoints, representing grassroots efforts to push EU institutions toward more inclusive and democratic models of food governance.

Meanwhile, a perspective from an expert in emerging economies described Europe's food system as "extremely rich, sophisticated, and overabundant," capable of feeding itself without relying primarily on exports. Yet this abundance was increasingly directed toward low-quality, sugar-laden foods, shaped more by industry preferences than public health goals:

"Its weakness is that it is more and more bad quality food. That's it... very, very oriented by the food lobby to make sugary products that are appealing to taste. Well, in both cases, we are no longer in food systems..."

While Europe's food system is widely recognized for its diversity, and policy mechanisms, it is equally criticized for entrenched industrial interests, unsustainable dependencies, eroding farmer autonomy, and the growing gap between rhetoric and reality in agri-food governance. The interviews point to a strong appetite for food system transformation - especially through
regionalization, deglobalization, and stronger environmental commitments - but also reveal the
many vested interests and cultural habits that stand in the way.

7.3.2 Perceived strengths and weakness of the Chinese food system

From the perspective of European interviewees there was a mix of admiration and critique when discussing the Chinese food system, often emphasizing its sheer scale, state-driven efficiency, and cultural depth, while also raising concerns around environmental degradation, overproduction, and diet quality. Perspectives ranged from policy-focused to cultural and ecological, revealing the multilayered nature of China's agri-food landscape.

A frequently cited strength was China's ability to feed its massive population, a feat regarded by
several interviewees as one of the country's most significant achievements. A Greek academic
working in China framed this succinctly:

"The great success of China is solving the problem of feeding the population—so many people, and no food problem anymore."

This achievement, according to the same expert, hinges on China's logistical and infrastructural success:

"They have managed to supply big cities with fresh food, every day, and any kind of food, in every corner of China... Considering the size of China, this is a major development."

Beyond infrastructure, China's investment in technological advancement was widely acknowledged. A Croatian researcher pointed to its leadership in digital agriculture, AI, drones, and precision farming, noting significant public and private spending in these areas. This sentiment was echoed by a French researcher, who emphasized the strategic advantage of centralized governance in mobilizing resources and enacting long-term policies. They highlighted the systematic grain stocking policy as a particular point of strength, which enhances resilience in times of supply disruptions or climate shocks. A Croatian expert pointed to the efficiency of new technology for farmers, in a place and time where small scale farming business are constrained by new policies, more expensive assurances, unpredictable weather that can damage an entire harvest. He pointed to China's ability to boost rural entrepreneurship through affordable new technologies such as drones:

"I know an example, here in Croatia of a small scale farm that invested in Chinese drones, to asset damage after bad weather. Before that the farms would have to hire a lot of people, for imperfect results, as these are not trained people and the farmer cannot pay them to go through the entire field. In a time where people are leaving the countryside, expertise being lost, young people not replacing old generations, policies pushing people in urban areas or outside the country, assurance not willing to pay in this age of climate change. All of these create a vicious circle of rural life dying. China has solved a lot of these problems, if only by having access to cheap
yet very performant technologies that make farming more attractive, less labor intensive and more predictable... "

A global food systems expert noted China's strong culinary identity and cultural power, describing the country's food system as one deeply rooted in domestic cooking traditions and guided by principles drawn from traditional medicine.

"The Chinese culinary tradition involves sharing small dishes and selecting food based on its health effects. This concept is alien to Western dining," they observed, adding that such cultural embeddedness may also contribute to the system's resilience.

However, many respondents also pointed to critical weaknesses. The same expert noted that China's food system is often difficult for outsiders to fully understand, due to its embedded cultural codes and practices. This inaccessibility poses challenges for cooperation and mutual learning. One of the interviewees pointed to environmental degradation as a major concern:

"Soil impoverishment, biodiversity loss—these are direct outcomes of intensive agro-industrial policies," they argued. The dependence on imported agricultural inputs, such as natural gas, phosphate, and potash, was seen as another vulnerability. Slowing yields and worsening soil erosion - compounded by climate change - could undermine China's long-term food security, despite its current strengths.

From an emerging economies perspective, an expert who had traveled extensively across China was struck by the impressive agricultural transformation they witnessed firsthand:

"Every time I travel through China, I see this transformation of the agricultural system... sails, nets to protect against predators, very high-yield varieties." Yet they also cautioned that this transformation has bred an "obsession with overproduction", often at the expense of quality and sustainability.

That view tied closely with criticism of dietary shifts in contemporary China. The same expert noted bluntly:

"We eat very badly and we eat too much... It is a very quantitative food system. Very quantitative." This trend, they suggested, reflects a shift from traditional dietary principles toward volume-based, low-nutrient consumption, shaped by rapid urbanization and global market pressures.

Several interviewees also commented on China's ongoing technological challenges, especially in dairy and beef sectors. The Greek academic remarked that China still lags behind Europe in cheese and yogurt production, and that beef quality remains relatively poor, though improvements are underway.

Concerns about farm structure and land use were also raised. One expert noted that the small size of Chinese farms remains a major obstacle to modernization. Despite advances in
infrastructure and logistics, the fragmented nature of rural landholdings complicates efforts to scale up sustainable practices or implement mechanized solutions. Finally, the interviews pointed to the tension between modernization and ecological balance. While China's central planning facilitates rapid transformation, the environmental costs, cultural shifts, and dependency on global inputs suggest that the system is still in transition - rich in capacity but vulnerable to both internal contradictions and external shocks.

### 7.3.3 Perception on common challenges

When asked about shared challenges facing both the European and Chinese food systems, interviewees repeatedly returned to a core theme: the ecological fragility of industrial agriculture, especially in relation to soil degradation, environmental stress, and systemic overdependence on non-renewable inputs.

A French scientific journalist emphasized the undervalued importance of soil fertility, calling it “a critical but overlooked foundation of any food system.” Reflecting on its vulnerability, they offered a poignant observation:

> "We don't realize the value of fertile soil. It's something I learned. How long does it take to get that fertile land? ... And how long does it take for one rain to leach it?"

This remark underscores a wider concern: that both China and Europe have pursued agro-industrial intensification to such a degree that their soils have become dependent on chemical inputs, losing their regenerative capacities. This shared dependency, the journalist noted, poses a long-term threat to food security, especially in the face of climate volatility and diminishing land resilience.

The theme of environmental degradation- including soil erosion, biodiversity loss, and pollution - was echoed by other interviewees as a common systemic weakness. In both regions, interviewees criticized the way large-scale farming practices have depleted natural ecosystems in the pursuit of yield maximization. One expert remarked that industrial agriculture in both China and Europe has made “ecosystems perform like machines-productive, yes, but fragile and dependent.” This fragility, they warned, also manifests in the need for continuous external inputs such as synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and imported animal feed.

### 7.3.4 Perceptions on what Europe and China could learn from each other

Several interviewees emphasized the untapped potential for mutual learning. A Croatian researcher with expertise in China-EU food cooperation underlined the importance of reviving post-pandemic links as a prerequisite for meaningful exchange. Referring to earlier cooperation frameworks such as the “16+1” initiative, they noted that institutional and supply chain connections have weakened significantly since COVID-19:

> "Now after COVID and things like that, I somehow... I don't have enough information about what is going on in China. Those links are not as strong as they
were before.” Rebuilding this foundation is, in their view, a “key challenge” and a necessary first step to reinitiating knowledge flows, academic cooperation, and joint pilot programs.

From a content perspective, the interviewee identified sustainability as a core area for reciprocal learning. While both Europe and China publicly prioritize sustainability, they noted that in both regions it remains more “thought than action.” There is considerable room, they argued, for joint development of new business models for sustainable agriculture, including co-designed typologies of low-carbon practices and collaborative field trials that reflect both European and Chinese farming realities.

One critical gap, they added, is the lack of a common operational definition of what “sustainable” or “resilient” farming looks like in practice. Addressing this through shared indicators and adaptable toolkits would allow researchers and farmers on both sides to better apply climate-adaptive and low-input practices—especially in the face of increasing climate shocks, epidemics, and supply chain disruptions.

This view was echoed by other interviewees, particularly in relation to technological innovation, where several experts suggested that Europe has much to learn from China. An academic from the University of Graz in Austria emphasized that technology is one of the main drivers of EU interest in collaboration with China. From AI-powered monitoring systems to drone-based field surveillance and precision agriculture platforms, China's rapid scaling of digital agriculture tools is seen as a potential model for innovation and adaptation in Europe. A European academic currently working at Shandong Agricultural University in China similarly praised China's infrastructure and logistical achievements, pointing to its ability to deliver fresh food daily to cities across a vast territory. While acknowledging areas where Chinese production still lags—such as dairy diversity and beef quality—they highlighted how the Chinese system's strength lies in its organizational capacity and speed of technological deployment. This, they argued, could serve as a learning point for Europe, where food systems are often slower to adopt emerging technologies due to fragmented governance or bureaucratic inertia.

### 7.3.6 Perceptions on existing or potential cooperation on food systems between Europe and China

Interviewees presented a wide spectrum of views on the current state and future potential of cooperation between China and Europe in the agri-food domain. While some highlighted examples of active collaboration - especially in technology, research, and high-level dialogue - others stressed the limited scale, underutilized potential, or even near absence of structured cooperation in this area. Despite political and systemic differences, most agreed that mutual interests exist, and that both regions could benefit from closer engagement, provided that trust, transparency, and institutional alignment are improved.

A Croatian researcher, reflecting on regional dynamics, rated current cooperation between China and Europe as moderately high, assigning it a four out of five. They pointed to recent examples of strong engagement, including ministerial participation from Serbia and Hungary in conferences
held in China, as evidence that cooperation between China and the CEEC countries, especially the Western Balkans, remains active. However, for specific countries like Croatia, the level of cooperation was perceived to be lower, around three out of five:

> "I would say here maybe four...current level of cooperation between China and Europe is somewhere about four... with Croatia, maybe three."

This perception contrasts sharply with the view of a French expert on food systems who suggested that China–Europe food market integration has already reached its peak. Positioning current collaboration at "level three" on a scale of one to five, they argued that further integration is unlikely:

> "I have the impression that the integration of food markets has reached a peak and will never go further. It will probably have to decrease."

Similarly, a researcher based in Belgium emphasized that while cooperation exists, it may not need to be deepened for structural resilience. Instead, they envisioned punctual cooperation during climate disruptions, where grain surpluses in China could stabilize shortages in Europe, or vice versa. They were skeptical of long-distance trade as a sustainable strategy, but saw value in temporary food system alignment in response to global shocks:

> "We can very well imagine moments where extreme climatic events jeopardize the supply of such or such a zone of the world and where we are obliged to temporarily strengthen partnerships..."

In contrast, the Croatian interviewee was more optimistic about the untapped potential for broader cooperation. They emphasized that nearly every area of food production is of interest to China, from luxury products like wine, cheese, and salami to bulk commodities like grains and meat:

> "In China they want everything and they are ready to pay... almost every area of food production is interesting."

This researcher, along with others, also stressed the potential for cooperation beyond trade–in research, policy innovation, and joint sustainability initiatives. From their perspective, there is clear potential to co-develop new business models for sustainable farming:

> "Definitely I see the potential for cooperation in every sense–business, trade, research, policy..."

Technology emerged as a prominent area of interest, especially from the European side. An Austrian academic mentioned difficulties in finding Chinese partners for a Horizon Europe project that mandated China–EU collaboration, only succeeding through personal networks. Yet, several interviewees saw China's strength in agri-tech–particularly AI, greenhouse automation, and precision farming tools–as a major pull factor. A Greek academic working in China cited an ongoing Greece–China cooperation project focused on AI-controlled greenhouses, funded by provincial and national grants, as a successful example. As a member of the China-CEEC
Agricultural Science Alliance he expressed plans to build a common database, sensor-based support tools, and knowledge-sharing platforms to advise growers in real time on pest protection and resource optimization.

Beyond technology, interviewees called for more symmetrical and culturally sensitive approaches to cooperation. A global food systems expert emphasized that working with China successfully requires starting from a position of curiosity and humility:

> "You must not tell them what they have to learn from us, but what we have to learn from them."

This echoed a broader theme among respondents: the idea that cooperation should not be reduced to economic exchange or market access, but rather framed as mutual inspiration and policy learning. The French journalist underlined this point:

> "When I say cooperation, it's not necessarily direct exchange... we can talk about cooperation to inspire each other in our policies."

Cooperation on sustainability and agroecology was also frequently mentioned, especially in moving away from fossil fuel-dependent systems. The same journalist pointed to the ecological necessity of breaking with agro-industrial models:

> "For one food calorie, we consume 10 calories of hydrocarbons. This is something we cannot continue." They called for a deeper exchange on resilient practices, such as agroforestry and edible forests, and for redirecting subsidies toward labor-intensive, small-scale sustainable farming—though they admitted these ideas often run counter to entrenched economic interests.

Not all interviewees were as hopeful. One expert working on emerging economies, including China and India, offered a more critical perspective, stating plainly:

> "I know nothing about it. I am not aware of anything at all... there is very, very little cooperation between China and Europe. Very, very little in all areas."
> 
> They acknowledged the huge, unrealized potential for collaboration—especially on climate, energy, and food—but lamented the lack of institutional frameworks and the rising animosity between the regions that obstruct meaningful progress.

Finally, an Austrian academic highlighted China's cooperative agricultural traditions—with hundreds of democratically structured communal villages still in operation—as an alternative food network that is yet to be explored, suggesting that shared research on ethical and community-based production could open new avenues for cooperation, particularly in the environmental domain.

Overall, interviewees perceived China–Europe cooperation on food systems as a patchwork of promising examples, latent potential, and structural gaps. While trade continues to play a role, the future of cooperation is more likely to rest on shared learning, technology exchange, and joint
responses to climate and food security challenges-provided geopolitical tensions don't overwhelm the willingness to collaborate.

### 7.3.7 Perceptions on obstacles of cooperation on food systems between Europe and China

While most interviewees recognized the potential for greater collaboration between China and Europe in food systems, their reflections on current barriers reveal a complex and multilayered web of obstacles. The interviews collectively highlight how geopolitical tensions, regulatory misalignments, and cultural misunderstandings are currently inhibiting more meaningful cooperation.

An interviewee based in France offered a macro-level critique, pointing not only to institutional friction but to planetary boundaries themselves as a fundamental constraint. They argued that export-oriented agriculture, which characterizes much of the China-Europe food trade, is inherently unsustainable.

> "If your object is sustainable agriculture, export agriculture is not sustainable agriculture. Agriculture dedicated to export is extractivist agriculture."
> 
> In this view, environmental degradation, economic rivalry, and geopolitical tensions all converge as long-term barriers to deeper cooperation.

From a more practical and regional perspective, a Croatian researcher highlighted several business-related challenges, particularly for smaller European countries like Croatia. Production scale and capacity were identified as immediate obstacles to exporting to China:

> "For Croatian companies it's difficult to provide enough quantities to satisfy the huge demand in China." They also cited regulatory mismatches, including discrepancies in sanitary and animal safety regulations, which may deter businesses from engaging fully in China. "Regulation and animal safety... those sanitary regulations seem to be not well balanced."

On the research side, the same Croatian interviewee noted the difficulty of finding Chinese partners for scientific collaboration, especially in urbanized regions where agriculture is no longer a key focus:

> "I had difficulties finding partners to cooperate in China in the scientific or research area in regards to food systems."

Another perspective was presented by a Belgian expert, who described politics as the overriding obstacle to cooperation. The designation of China as a "systemic rival" by the EU and China's growing sense of isolation, they argued, have eroded the spirit of cooperation:

> "There is no desire for cooperation. When Europe declares China its systemic rival, and the Chinese feel besieged, how can there be trust?"
This expert also detailed a steady deterioration in cooperation.

"It has deteriorated year after year... Before, I was regularly invited to conferences. That is over."

Another major theme was the negative perception of China in Europe, highlighted by one of the interviewees. They argued that insufficient and distorted knowledge of China's political system, rather than the quality of its food system, often overshadow its culinary and agricultural achievements in the European public imagination:

"This perception hinders acceptance, even though the nutritional quality of Chinese food is excellent."

The same expert suggested that even in areas where mutual benefit is evident—such as culinary exchange or sustainable agriculture—the symbolic meaning of “China” in Europe can block engagement. Despite these challenges, many interviewees still emphasized the importance of finding new channels for engagement. But for now, these obstacles constitute a substantial barrier to cooperation that must be acknowledged and addressed if future collaboration is to be meaningful and effective.

### 7.3.8 Perceptions on urbanization, rural revitalization, and labor

Interviewees highlighted urbanization and rural depopulation as shared challenges for both China and Europe, particularly in their effects on labor availability, food heritage, and agricultural sustainability. A scientific journalist based in France argued that shifting toward sustainable agriculture will require more labor and less mechanization, creating an opportunity to revitalize rural areas. They saw potential in engaging migrant populations—often with rural experience—to help rebuild a more resilient countryside:

"We can revitalize the countryside... by promoting this type of sustainable agriculture that requires more labor but is much more resilient and adaptive to climate change."

A global food systems expert pointed to urbanization as a major obstacle, especially in China, where it risks disconnecting people from rural food production and eroding traditional diets. As seen in Europe, they warned, peasant cuisine may become gentrified or lost as cities expand:

"One of the big obstacles that China faces... is its urbanization."

Together, these perspectives suggest that rebalancing urban-rural dynamics—through labor reintegration, preservation of food culture, and support for sustainable farming—will be essential for future food system resilience in both regions.

The expert also points to the necessity of true, large-scale-systemic changes in regards to agroecology. The remark emphasizes the primordial role of ancient forests in both the rise and fall of civilizations; it becomes clear that the preservation and expansion of primary forests is not merely an ecological imperative, it is a civilizational one. Forests are not only lungs of the Earth
but the scaffolding of long-term socio-economic stability and resilience. However, protecting forests in isolation is insufficient. The transformation must reach the roots of our food systems. A shift toward regenerative agriculture is essential, particularly in a country like China, where the scale of agricultural activity is possible in a faster manner than Europe. China being technologically powerful and having learnt from its historical lessons from centuries of land management, it can lead a new paradigm of smart regenerative agriculture. This model of ruralization empowerment could combine traditional agroforestry practices with cutting-edge technologies like AI, satellite monitoring, and soil biointelligence and enable food production that restores rather than depletes ecosystems. The expert also offers real economic returns through improved yields, climate resilience, and long-term soil fertility. Such a transition aligns with China's broader strategic goals of ecological civilization.

> "Agroforestry is a tool that should be pushed further, for example in France the climate has already changed in many places, so instead of pushing for non native plants, we should focus on agroforestry with native plants"

For both the context of Europe and China, forest expansion then can become not just an act of preservation, but a core element of food security, economic continuity, and geopolitical stability.

### 7.3.9 Perceptions on technology and innovation:

Interviewees offered divergent perspectives on the role of technology in transforming food systems, with views ranging from cautious optimism to sharp critique—especially when innovations reinforce, rather than challenge, the dominant agro-industrial model.

A French interviewee was critical of much current agri-tech, arguing that technologies often aim to fix problems created by the very system they perpetuate—such as drone pollinators in response to bee population collapse or AI tools replacing human labor.

> "Technologies and digital tools could be emancipatory, but since they are promoted by the same people who developed industrial agriculture, it's quite the opposite." They emphasized that technology exchange between Europe and China could be beneficial only if publicly funded and judged by environmental and social criteria, not market logic alone. However, they remained uncertain about how much genuine, collaborative tech transfer is currently happening.

A German researcher echoed concerns about energy and resource intensity, questioning how far technology should be pushed, especially in the context of already stretched food supply chains.

> "Technology requires a lot of energy and water... if we have short supply chains, it doesn't have to be so technology intensive."

By contrast, a global food systems expert pointed to cutting-edge innovations like synthetic meat as promising responses to long-term food security challenges. They saw value in scalable, financially viable models that could be replicated globally:
"We have solutions—as long as we manage to develop models that can be duplicated because they are financially viable."

Together, these insights reveal a shared understanding that technology will play a key role in future food systems, but also a deep concern about who controls innovation, for what purposes, and at what ecological cost.

### 7.3.10 Perceptions on governance mechanisms and coherence:

Interviewees expressed a general sense of fragmentation and inadequacy when it comes to governance structures that could support meaningful China–Europe cooperation on food systems. Most viewed current mechanisms as either underdeveloped, uncoordinated, or overly reactive, especially in addressing long-term sustainability and resilience.

Some highlighted the absence of integrated governance frameworks between Europe and China, particularly in the food sector. They observed that each bloc tends to operate autonomously, with minimal alignment in decision-making or shared planning structures:

> "We don't think enough about anticipation, building resilient agri-food systems... We say rather that we have a very efficient system and that therefore it will think about its problems when it happens... and I fear that we will be overwhelmed in the long run by this logic."

This reactive approach, they argued, prioritizes crisis management over prevention and overlooks the structural vulnerabilities of modern food systems—especially the overreliance on monocultures. Drawing on historical agricultural practices like *métayage* (mixed cropping systems), the interviewee suggested that food security can be achieved through planned, diversified systems even if it means sacrificing short-term efficiency.

### 7.3.11 Perceptions on global vs. local/continental autonomy:

In discussing the balance between global interdependence and local or continental autonomy in food systems, interviewees reflected on historical legacies, geopolitical strategies, and contemporary inequalities—highlighting the tension between planetary cooperation and the need for regional self-reliance.

A French researcher argued that while achieving food autonomy is ultimately a global challenge, it must be pursued through regional integration and sovereignty, with zones capable of producing their essential resources. They pointed to China's long-standing focus on self-sufficiency, from Mao-era provincial autonomy to current grain storage policies and overseas land acquisitions, as part of a broader strategy to insulate itself from food insecurity and social unrest.

CEE countries were also seen as victims of structural imbalances, particularly within the EU's subsidy framework, which tends to favor Western European producers and large-scale farms. This has limited the ability of smaller or newer member states to assert meaningful food
sovereignty, making them dependent on EU market dynamics rather than autonomous in their food strategies.

### 7.3.12 Perceptions on the urgency of systemic transformation

Interviewees across backgrounds converged on a central theme: the current agri-food system is fundamentally unsustainable, and only a radical systemic transformation—not incremental reforms — will address its ecological, social, and political failures.

One respondent critiqued the dominant agro-industrial model, describing it as ecologically devastating and politically paralyzed. They emphasized that we already know what needs to change, but political will is lacking:

> "Agriculture is the most devastating thing that exists on the planet and we could do differently. That's what is frustrating..." They stressed that policies must move away from maximizing yield and profit, and instead focus on local, diverse, labor-intensive systems that respect ecological limits. The current system, they said, feels "delusional" and in need of collective therapy.

Similarly, another expert argued that the real barrier is not a lack of knowledge, but the failure of political systems to implement what is known. In comparing governance structures, they suggested that China's model, while problematic in many respects, allows for more rapid environmental interventions than EU democracies constrained by industrial lobbies:

> "There is no gap in research. We know what to do. The gaps are in politics—implementation."

> "In China, reaction capacities are much greater than in Europe, where we are subject to powerful industrial lobbies."

This theme of blocked progress despite clear solutions runs throughout the interviews. While technological innovation is seen as potentially helpful—such as the Greek academic's work on AI for greenhouse climate control—the consensus is that technology alone is not enough without systemic change in values, policy, and governance.

Cultural misunderstanding also emerged as a more subtle obstacle to transformation. The same global expert noted that while Chinese food is increasingly consumed in Europe, its underlying logic—rooted in balance, health, and shared plates — is often lost in translation.

> "Chinese cuisine is illegible to us... tofu, certain herbs—they're not in our culture... We must put them into a grammar we can digest." This disconnect underscores a broader problem: Western food systems have industrialized and globalized so much that they struggle to integrate approaches rooted in tradition, sustainability, and relational values.
Ultimately, these reflections point to a deeper conclusion: the food system crisis is not technical, but civilizational. The challenge lies in shifting collective priorities—from efficiency to resilience, from dominance to coexistence, from profit to sustainability—before the window for change closes.

### 7.3.13 Perceptions on China-CEEC cooperation: potential, gaps, and regional contributions

Experts pointed to several misconceptions about the CEEC food system held by external actors, including Chinese stakeholders. One is the assumption that CEEC countries uniformly have excellent conditions for agriculture, when in fact terrain (karst, mountains) and climate vary significantly.

> "One of the misconceptions is that we have excellent environmental conditions for agriculture, which is not necessarily true."

Another assumption is that farms are all small and underdeveloped, when in reality there are both large-scale farms and highly educated farmers.

> "Another misconceptions is that farms are small... which is not always true... there are larger farmers too."

Positive examples of CEEC food policies include agri-tech support schemes and marketing of traditional foods through geographical indications, which enhance biodiversity, cultural identity, and rural resilience.

> "Agri-tech initiatives... financing those startups and companies in the agri-tech sector... this can be applied elsewhere."

> "Promoting traditional food and gastronomy... food with geographical protection... can also be applied elsewhere."

Pilot projects such as drone-based crop loss assessments and climate adaptation work in the Pannonian region (focused on water, livestock, agroforestry, and organic agriculture) were cited as scalable innovations.

> "We work on one project... innovative solutions for climate change adaptation... water, livestock, organic agriculture, and agroforestry."

> "Use of drones in crop loss assessment... with AI to analyze hail or storm damage... saves time, money, and resources."

A major theme was the disconnect between theoretical sustainability frameworks and practical application, especially in vulnerable areas like islands or regions facing climate change, tourism pressure, or rural decline.

> "Most significant gaps are connected with trying to find sustainable business models and resilient farm systems."
"If it is more expensive than the benefit it produces, then it's not sustainable."

"Sometimes these adaptation systems are presented as solutions... but they can be completely inefficient."

China-CEEC research ties can be improved through jointly financed projects with competitive calls, researcher exchanges, and expanded use of online tools to overcome travel and cost barriers.

"Joint projects... financed by China, EU, and the countries... exchange of researchers, exchange of students."

"Modern technology... online learning and meetings... can make cooperation cheaper."

Technology and digital tools were rated five out of five in importance for future China-CEEC cooperation.

"Technology, digital tools... can enhance this cooperation quite a lot... China is quite advanced in technological solutions."

"Extremely important."

According to the interviewees, adoption of low-carbon and sustainable practices in CEEC is hindered by several factors:

* Lack of knowledge and technical support

* High investment costs for new machinery and methods

* Limited market recognition for sustainable products

* Uncertain legal frameworks, e.g. around solar energy sales

"Main challenges are lack of knowledge, access to information, and how to apply these things."

"Financial means... switching to low-carbon techniques is expensive."

"If the market doesn't recognize the product, why should the farmer switch?"

According to our interviewees In the next 5-10 years, three areas should be prioritized for China-Europe (and China-CEEC) cooperation:

* Research partnerships

* Sustainable agriculture
→ Digital transformation

"All of those areas are important... but to make it short: research partnership, sustainable agriculture, and digital transformation."

There is tension between producing high-end food and ensuring food security, especially for local populations. Experts stressed that digital technologies can help improve yields, bridging the gap.

"If we go for high-quality food, food security becomes more difficult."

"Digital and innovation techniques can help increase yield... and support food security."

"Low-carbon techniques can improve crop resilience."

A sobering theme was the demographic collapse of rural areas in CEEC countries, driven by corruption, lack of opportunity, and political favoritism.

"Lots of young people left the rural area... for better jobs and salaries."

"It's connected with policy, corruption, and lack of freedom."

This rural decline affects food production, biodiversity, and sustainability. One critical lesson for other regions is to invest in rural demographics and avoid similar neglect.

Rural entrepreneurship was described as an underused strategy with high potential. Interviewees suggested that China's experience with rural transformation, agri-startups, and digital agriculture can inspire similar moves in the CEEC.

"Huge potential... rural entrepreneurship can solve many problems—people leaving, resilience, profitability."

"China can be a great source of inspiration and ideas—not just in tech, but in how rural development is approached."

The views of CEEC experts—especially from Croatia—highlight a region ready to engage, but still navigating structural, demographic, and strategic challenges. The interviewees stressed that China-CEEC cooperation should not be based solely on trade volumes or technology transfer, but on a deeper, reciprocal process of learning and joint innovation. By leveraging the region's strengths-agri-tech, food culture, circular economy practices, and rural entrepreneurship - and addressing existing gaps, China and the CEEC can co-develop models for a more sustainable, resilient global food future. Together, these insights reveal a shared recognition of cooperation potential-particularly in areas like sustainability, innovation, and rural revitalization-tempered by structural, perceptual, and political constraints.

8. Recommendations: deepening EU-China and China-CEEC cooperation for sustainable food systems
This section outlines a comprehensive set of recommendations for enhancing food systems cooperation between China, the European Union (EU), and Central and Eastern European Countries (CEEC). These recommendations are drawn from theoretical insights, comparative analysis, stakeholder interviews, and survey results presented throughout the report. The proposals aim to advance resilient, inclusive, and climate-compatible agri-food systems. Additionally, more targeted recommendations addressing specific thematic areas and regional contexts can be found throughout the report.

## 8.1 Enhancing EU-China food system cooperation

1. **Ensure continuity of flagship initiatives like FAB.**

While FAB and the Co-Funding Mechanism (CFM) under Horizon 2020 laid a strong foundation for EU-China cooperation, many of these initiatives have concluded. A new phase of co-funded programs is essential, with clear commitments to long-term research, monitoring, and policy uptake. Sustainability challenges such as soil degradation, agri-tech ethics, and dietary transitions deserve dedicated focus. Structured mapping and tracking of completed and ongoing projects would improve transparency, coherence, and learning. Without mechanisms for continuity and mainstreaming, FAB risks becoming a one-off success. Dedicated FAB-style calls for CEEC participation are needed to address their underrepresentation despite acute agri-food challenges (e.g. land fragmentation, limited innovation capacity).

2. **Institutionalize thematic working groups and foresight exercises.**

EU-China working groups on low-carbon agriculture, food traceability, IWFS management, and waste reduction should be established to support knowledge co-creation. These groups should use decision-support tools like FARMSTEPS and FARMSCAPE to guide policy and innovation tailored to diverse agro-ecological settings.

3. **Align food system cooperation with environmental and biodiversity agendas.**

Food systems should not be siloed from climate and biodiversity goals. China's ecological civilization strategy and the EU's Green Deal can converge through targeted collaboration on nature-based solutions, land use optimization, and biodiversity-friendly farming.

4. **Foster open knowledge-sharing platforms and data transparency.**

A digital EU-China observatory on food sustainability–featuring dashboards, case studies, and project databases–could improve visibility, enable monitoring, and democratize access to best practices. Continuity in academic events, co-publication, and thematic conferences would reinforce intellectual exchange.

5. **Strengthen cultural and culinary diplomacy.**

As highlighted in interviews, food is not just trade or policy–it is culture. Culinary diplomacy efforts, cross-cultural campaigns, and gastronomy exchanges can help
dismantle stereotypes and foster mutual understanding. Emphasis should be placed on
understanding each other's food grammars and values.

## 8.2 Strengthening China-CEEC cooperation: from trade to institutional transformation

1. Move beyond trade to build structural partnerships.

While trade remains a key pillar, China-CEEC cooperation must evolve into co-created initiatives. This includes establishing joint labs, field stations, and agri-tech incubators that respond to CEEC needs (e.g., fragmented landholding, rural out migration, biodiversity loss). In Croatia and N. Macedonia, for instance, targeted pilot programs in AI-driven agriculture and cold-chain development have been identified as high-potential areas for co-development with Chinese partners.

2. Develop joint research frameworks and funding mechanisms.

Inspired by Horizon Europe, a China-CEEC research program with multi-year funding calls could target digital farming, agroforestry, circular economy models, and sustainable value chains. Dedicated R&D platforms for Polish dairy and honey exports, integrated with blockchain-based certification, could build on China's e-commerce strengths and CEEC specialty food offerings.

3. Launch integrated education and mobility schemes.

Establishing joint degree programs, bilateral scholarships, and student exchanges focused on rural entrepreneurship, sustainable agri-business, and food governance would strengthen human capital and build future-ready cooperation.

4. Address rural depopulation and youth disengagement.

Drawing on China's Science and Technology Backyard model and CEEC's rural startup hubs, projects should empower youth through leadership labs, AI hackathons, and co-designed value-added production models. Diaspora engagement should be institutionalized to bridge innovation and cultural knowledge. The use of youth-focused agri-tech innovation hubs in Serbia, Romania, and N. Macedonia could catalyze local talent and mitigate migration pressures.

5. Co-create regional green innovation zones.

China and CEEC should establish regional innovation corridors (e.g., in the Balkans or Carpathians), integrating smart agriculture, climate adaptation, and eco-tourism. These zones would serve as replicable showcases of cooperative innovation. China's RES (Resource and Ecologically Sound) model could be adapted to SEE countries, emphasizing long-term cooperation, agroecology, and sustainable input reduction.

6. Prioritize digital traceability, waste reduction, and food safety.

Joint platforms could integrate China's blockchain capabilities with the EU's food labeling standards.
## 8.3 Cross-cutting and systemic recommendations

1. **Create a tri-regional Observatory on Sustainable Food Systems.**

This observatory could track project outcomes, monitor cooperation levels, assess alignment with SDGs, and offer a repository for tools, models, and datasets. It would also help evaluate trade-offs in environmental, economic, and social goals.

2. **Promote long-term collaboration models.**

Recommendations include establishing joint labs, launching cross-regional pilot initiatives, and creating co-funded innovation platforms. These can ensure continuity in research, support institutional trust-building, and foster collaborative innovation. Joint China-CEEC mechanisms modeled on the EU-China Co-Funding Mechanism could ensure sustainable R&D investment beyond ad hoc bilateral projects.

3. **Center cooperation around resilience, not market integration.**

Thematic exchanges should highlight context-specific practices (e.g., agroforestry in China, organic farming in CEEC) rather than standardizing around industrial models.

4. **Engage youth, civil society, and diaspora communities.**

Exchange programs, co-design initiatives, and leadership training focused on sustainability and digital tools can build legitimacy and innovation. CEEC and SEE countries, engaging diaspora researchers and professionals in joint China-CEEC agri-programs would enhance credibility and cross-cultural transferability.

5. **Pursue a multi-scalar strategy.**

Interventions should span farm, landscape, and national levels and be informed by both grassroots insights and strategic planning.

6. **Build cross-cultural understanding through shared food narratives.**

Cultural humility is essential. More inclusive communication efforts, co-produced media, and grassroots storytelling can mitigate distrust and build mutual respect.

7. **Incorporate emerging challenges in future cooperation.**

Topics like land grabs, rural equity, food sovereignty, and ecosystem restoration (e.g., Loess Plateau-style projects in CEEC) must feature more prominently in cooperative agendas. Given China's success with the Grain for Green Program, similar ecosystem restoration efforts in the Carpathians or the Balkans could serve as symbolic and practical pillars of trilateral cooperation.
## 9. Conclusion

This study set out to examine the evolving contours of food system transformation through the lens of China–EU–CEEC cooperation. It sought to answer four core research questions: the role of policy frameworks and technological innovation in enhancing sustainability and resilience; the potential of mutual learning and technology transfer; mechanisms to strengthen trilateral cooperation; and how China–CEEC collaboration can be more strategically leveraged for agricultural modernization.

EU food systems, framed by strategies such as the Farm to Fork and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), rely on regulatory incentives, stakeholder consultation, and subsidiarity. However, interview data and secondary analysis reveal persistent gaps in implementation–particularly in CEEC countries – due to uneven administrative capacity, bureaucratic fragmentation, and short-term funding cycles. Nonetheless, the EU provides an advanced model of agroecological experimentation, digital governance in food labeling, and consumer trust mechanisms like Protected Geographical Indication (PGI), which can serve as blueprints for international cooperation. In contrast, China’s food system is rooted in state-led planning, centralized coordination, and a robust pilot-to-policy model. Innovations such as the Integrated Water-Fertilizer System (IWFS), blockchain traceability, and the No-Waste Cities initiative demonstrate how large-scale transformation can be orchestrated when supported by aligned political, infrastructural, and technological systems. Notably, China’s Science and Technology Backyard model, which embeds researchers within rural communities, mirrors European efforts like EIP-AGRI, but with greater state support and implementation continuity. Despite their divergent institutional logics EU–China food systems cooperation has a strategic relevance. The FAB initiative, co-funded Horizon research, and policy dialogues have offered frameworks for structured engagement. Key areas of synergy include food traceability, digital agriculture, ecosystem services, and sustainable dietary transitions. Yet, interviews point to the need for better communication, continuity in funding, and more inclusive governance mechanisms to overcome geopolitical tensions and public skepticism.

Central and Eastern European Countries (CEEC) occupy a particularly strategic position in this evolving trilateral framework. As “formalizing” systems, they share institutional affinities with China, such as post-socialist legacies, fragmented landholdings, and under-resourced extension services. Countries like Serbia, Croatia, N. Macedonia, and Poland illustrate both the vulnerabilities and the innovation potential of this region. Survey responses and interviews underscored structural constraints–ranging from rural depopulation to outdated technologies–but also revealed optimism about the potential of targeted China–CEEC engagement, especially through pilot projects, capacity building, and cold-chain logistics integration. The analysis confirms that mutual learning and technology transfer between China, the EU, and CEEC must be approached as a two-way street. While much of the discourse has focused on what China can learn from EU standards, China’s experience in scaling innovation and linking food policy with poverty alleviation, rural revitalization, and ecological restoration offers crucial insights for the EU – especially in CEEC contexts, where implementation remains weak.

The report also identifies key mechanisms to enhance cooperation, including:
* The institutionalization of trilateral platforms, such as a Tri-Regional Observatory on Sustainable Food Systems,

* Joint research labs and mobility schemes to foster innovation and human capital,

* Regional Green Innovation Zones tailored to CEEC agricultural ecosystems,

* Cross-pilot projects in digital agriculture, smart irrigation, food waste reduction, and traceability integration.

China-CEEC cooperation, in particular, must evolve from symbolic trade expos and infrastructure projects to deeper, institutionalized partnerships. This includes building long-term R&D alliances, leveraging CEEC's scientific and agricultural institutes, and embedding cooperation within local governance structures. As the report notes, models such as China's RES (Resource and Ecologically Sound) agriculture can be adapted to Southeast Europe, while EU tools like performance-based payments and eco-schemes may help structure incentives for local farmers. What emerges from this study is a vision of food system transformation grounded not only in sustainability and innovation, but also in institutional co-evolution. The systemic differences between China and the EU are not merely obstacles - they offer fertile ground for complementary learning and experimentation. The CEEC region, with its institutional hybridity and openness to external investment, can serve both as a bridge and a laboratory for testing these hybrid approaches.

Ultimately, realizing this potential will require a shift from ad hoc, top-down initiatives to participatory, place-based, and long-term strategies. By aligning their respective strengths - China's scaling capacity, the EU's governance tools, and CEEC's regional knowledge-these partners can co-develop a new architecture of cooperation that is resilient, equitable, and future-oriented. The findings and recommendations throughout this report provide a roadmap for moving from parallel efforts to genuine co-production of sustainable food futures.
## Acknowledgements

We thank all stakeholders who generously contributed their time, insights, and experience to this research. In particular, we are grateful for their contributions in helping us map out emerging developments, institutional trends, and cooperation opportunities in the evolving landscape of sustainable food systems. While most contributions remain anonymous, we gratefully acknowledge the following individuals and institutions for their valuable input: Laurent Testot, Dr. Jean-Joseph Bouillot, Prof. Gilles Fumey, Dr. Dongming Xue, Prof. George Papadakis, and colleagues from Shandong Agricultural University, as well as representatives from the China-CEEC Modern Agricultural Science and Education Innovation Alliance. Their insights were instrumental in advancing our understanding of both strategic priorities and on-the-ground realities in the EU, China, and CEEC regions, and in informing the proposals outlined in this report.
## 10. References

Arslan, A., Cattaneo, A., Benitez Humanes, M., McMenomy, T., Ranuzzi, E., & Sadiddin, A. (2024). *A typology for agrifood systems – Background paper for The State of Food and Agriculture 2024*. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. https://doi.org/10.4060/cd2991en

APACCCEEC. (2025). *China-CEEC Cooperation*. Association for the Promotion of Agricultural Cooperation between China and the Central and Eastern European Countries. Retrieved May 17, 2025, from https://china2ceec.org/china-ceec-cooperation/?lang=en

Boakes, E. H., Dalin, C., Etard, A., & Newbold, T. (2024). Impacts of the global food system on terrestrial biodiversity from land use and climate change. *Nature Communications*, 15(1), 5750.

Bossard, C., Santin, G., & Guseva Canu, I. (2016). Suicide among farmers in France: occupational factors and recent trends. *Journal of Agromedicine*, 21(4), 310-315.

Chen, P., & Li, J. (2024). Sustainable agricultural management: how to achieve carbon neutrality in agriculture–evidence from China agricultural sustainable development plan. *Sustainable Development*, 32(3), 2846-2857.

Chen, A., He, H., Wang, J., Li, M., Guan, Q., & Hao, J. (2019). A Study on the Arable Land Demand for Food Security in China. *Sustainability*, 11(17), 4769. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174769

Ciglovska, B. (2018). Developing Sustainable Agricultural Sector, as an Impetus for Macedonia’s Economic Growth. *European Journal of Sustainable Development*, 7(4), 545-545. Crouch, C. (2004). *Post-democracy*. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Crane, H., Hailey, L., & collaborators. (2021). Food Systems in Central and Eastern Europe: Structural Challenges and Innovation Paths. *Journal of Agricultural Policy Studies*.

Deng, Y., Cai, W., Hou, M., Zhang, X., Xu, S., Yao, N., ... & Yao, S. (2022). How eco-efficiency is the forestry ecological restoration program? The case of the sloping land conversion program in the Loess Plateau, China. *Land*, 11(5), 712.

Drejerska, N., & Sobczak-Malitka, W. (2023). Nurturing Sustainability and Health: Exploring the Role of Short Supply Chains in the Evolution of Food Systems–The Case of Poland. *Foods*, 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12224171
Dudek, M., & Śpiewak, R. (2022). Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Sustainable Food Systems: Lessons Learned for Public Policies? The Case of Poland. Agriculture. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12010061.

Duina, F., & Zhou, X. (2021). Europeanization from the periphery: the case of 'second-class' food in Central and Eastern Europe. *Territory, Politics, Governance, 11*, 1537 - 1552. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2021.1925581.

Durazzo, A., Astley, S., Kapsokefalou, M., Costa, H. S., Mantur-Vierendeel, A., Pijls, L., ... & Finglas, P. (2022). Food composition data and tools online and their use in research and policy: EuroFIR AISBL contribution in 2022. *Nutrients*, *14*(22), 4788.

European Commission. (2013). *New rules on Payment Services for the benefit of consumers and retailers* [Press release]. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_13_719

European Commission (2020). Farm to fork strategy: for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, 381, 1-9.

European Parliament. (2021, September). *Recovery plan for Europe: State of play, September 2021 – Summary*.

European Commission. (2023). *Summary of CAP Strategic Plans for 2023–2027: Joint effort and collective ambition* (COM(2023) 707 final). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52023DC0707

European Commission. (2025). *A vision for agriculture and food: Shaping together an attractive farming and agri-food sector for future generations* (COM(2025) 75 final). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52025DC0075

European Commission. (2025, February 11). Commission work programme 2025: Moving forward together – A bolder, simpler, faster Union (COM(2025) 45 final).

Fan, S., & Rue, C. (2020). The Role of Smallholder Farms in a Changing World. *The Role of Smallholder Farms in Food and Nutrition Security*. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42148-9_2.

Fan, S., Zhu, Y., & Fang, X. (2023). Big food vision and food security in China. *Agricultural & Rural Studies*, *1*(1), 0001-0001.Fanzo, J., Haddad, L., McLaren,
R., & Marshall, Q. (2020). *Food Systems Dashboard*. Johns Hopkins University, GAIN, FAO. https://www.foodsystemsdashboard.org

Fan, S. et al. (2023). Transforming Chinese Food Systems for Both Human and Planetary Health. In: von Braun, J., Afsana, K., Fresco, L.O., Hassan, M.H.A. (eds) Science and Innovations for Food Systems Transformation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15703-5_41

Food Research & Action Center (FRAC). (2024). *Hunger and Obesity: Understanding the Paradox*. Retrieved from https://frac.org/hunger-obesity

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2023). *The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2023*. Retrieved from https://www.fao.org/publications/fao-flagship-publications/the-state-of-food-security-and-nutrition-in-the-world/en

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2024). *The state of food and agriculture 2024: Value-driven transformation of agrifood systems*. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cd2616en

Franić, R., & Ljubaj, T. (2015). Common agriculture policy: The case of Croatia. EU Public Policies Seen from a National Perspective: Slovenia and Croatia in the European Union. Ljubljana: Faculty of Social Sciences, 141-152.

Food Systems Dashboard. (2024). *Country Profile: Croatia*. https://www.foodsystemsdashboard.org/countries/hrvfoodsystemsdashboard.org

Food Systems Dashboard. (2024). *Country Profile: France*. https://www.foodsystemsdashboard.org/countries/frafoodsystemsdashboard.org

Food Systems Dashboard. (2024). *Country Profile: Germany*. https://www.foodsystemsdashboard.org/countries/deufoodsystemsdashboard.org+2foodsystemsdashboard.org+2foodsystemsdashboard.org+2

Food Systems Dashboard. (2024). *Country Profile: Italy*. https://www.foodsystemsdashboard.org/countries/itafoodsystemsdashboard.org

Food Systems Dashboard. (2024). *Country Profile: North Macedonia*. https://www.foodsystemsdashboard.org/countries/mkdkfoodsystemsdashboard.org+1foodsystemsdashboard.org+1

Food Systems Dashboard. (2024). *Country Profile: Poland*. https://www.foodsystemsdashboard.org/countries/pol
Dimitrievski, D., & Kotevska, A. (2008). Challenges faced by the agro-food sector in the Republic of Macedonia regarding its integration in the EU markets. Agriculture in Western Balkans and EU integration. Ljubljana, DAES, 47-67.

Dong, F., Pan, Y., Zhang, X., & Sun, Z. (2020). How to evaluate provincial ecological civilization construction? The case of Jiangsu province, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(15), 5334.

Gorton, M., Hubbard, C., & Hubbard, L. (2009). The folly of European Union policy transfer: why the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) does not fit Central and Eastern Europe. Regional studies, 43(10), 1305-1317.

Gjorgjioska, M. A. (2021). *North Macedonia economy briefing: The impact of Covid-19 on agricultural producers*. China-CEE Institute. https://china-cee.eu/2021/04/12/north-macedonia-economy-briefing-the-impact-of-covid19-on-agricultural-producers/

Gjorgjioska, M. A. (2023). *North Macedonia economy briefing: The Government attempts to regulate the prices of food amidst declining domestic agricultural production*. China-CEE Institute. https://china-cee.eu/2023e04_North-Macedonia

Guo, R., Qiu, X., & He, Y. (2021). *Research on Agricultural Cooperation Potential between China and CEE Countries Based on Resource Complementarity*. Mathematics, 9(503).

Guyomard, H., Soler, L., Détang-Dessendre, C., & Réquillart, V. (2023). The European Green Deal improves the sustainability of food systems but has uneven economic impacts on consumers and farmers. *Communications Earth & Environment*. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-01019-6

Harvard School of Public Health. (2023). *Billions worldwide consume inadequate levels of micronutrients critical to human health*. Retrieved from https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/billions-worldwide-consume-inadequate-levels-of-micronutrients-critical-to-human-health/

Härtel, I., & Yu, H. (2018). Food security and food safety law. Handbook of Agri-Food Law in China, Germany, European Union: Food Security, Food Safety, Sustainable Use of Resources in Agriculture, 57-126.

Herrero, M., Thornton, P. K., Mason-D'Croz, D., Palmer, J., Bodirsky, B. L., Pradhan, P., Barrett, C. B., Benton, T. G., Hall, A., Pikaar, I., Bogard, J. R., Bonnett, G. D., Bryan, B. A., Campbell, B. M., Christensen, S., Clark, M., Fanzo, J., Godde, C. M., Jarvis, A., Loboguerrero, A. M., Mathys, A., McIntyre, C. L., Naylor, R. L., Nelson, R., Obersteiner, M., Parodi, A., Popp, A., Ricketts, K., Smith, P., Valin, H., Vermeulen, S. J., Vervoort, J., van Wijk, M., van Zanten, H. H. E.,
West, P. C., Wood, S. A., & Rockström, J. (2021). Articulating the effect of food systems innovation on the Sustainable Development Goals. *The Lancet Planetary Health*, 5(1), e50–e62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30277-1

Houkai, W. (2022). China's Rural Development in the 14th Five-Year Plan Period. China Economist, 17(1), 2-11.

Jongeneel, R., Silvis, H., Martinez, A. G., & Jager, J. (2021). *The Green Deal: An assessment of impacts of the Farm to Fork and Biodiversity Strategies on the EU livestock sector* (No. 2021-130). Wageningen Economic Research.

Jehlička, P., Grivins, M., Visser, O., & Balázs, B. (2020). Thinking food like an East European: A critical reflection on the framing of food systems. *Journal of Rural Studies*. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.04.015.

Kalinowska, B., Bórawski, P., Bełdycka-Bórawska, A., Klepacki, B., Perkowska, A., & Rokicki, T. (2022). Sustainable development of agriculture in member states of the European Union. *Sustainability*, 14(7), 4184.

Li, R., Song, H., Zhang, J., & Zhang, J. (2025, February 12). The effects of a multifaceted poverty-alleviation program on rural income and household behavior in China

Li, S., Li, Y., Jiang, N., & Xu, W. (2024). Development of key ecological conservation and restoration projects in the past century. *Ecological Frontiers*.

Li, G., Sun, S., Han, J., Yan, J., Liu, W., Wei, Y., ... & Sun, Y. (2019). Impacts of Chinese Grain for Green program and climate change on vegetation in the Loess Plateau during 1982–2015. *Science of the Total Environment*, 660, 177-187.

Liao, R., Chen, Z., Sirisrisakulchai, J., & Liu, J. (2025). Enhancing Rural Economic Sustainability in China Through Agricultural Socialization Services: A Novel Perspective on Spatial-Temporal Dynamics. *Agriculture*, 15(3), 267.

Liu, Z. (2020). *Cooperation between China and the CEEC in Times of Major Changes*. China International Studies.

Liu, Z. (2017). *China-CEEC Cooperation: China's Building of a New Type of International Relations*. CIRR, 23(78).

Liu, Y., Liu, J., & Zhou, Y. (2017). Spatio-temporal patterns of rural poverty in China and targeted poverty alleviation strategies. *Journal of Rural Studies*, 52, 66-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JRURSTUD.2017.04.002.
Lu, Y., Zhuang, J., Chen, J., Yang, C., & Kong, M. (2025). The Impact of Farmland Transfer on Urban-Rural Integration: Causal Inference Based on Double Machine Learning. Land, 14(1), 148.

Louhichi, K., Ciaian, P., Espinosa, M., Perni, A., & Gomez y Paloma, S. (2018). Economic impacts of CAP greening: application of an EU-wide individual farm model for CAP analysis (IFM-CAP). *European Review of Agricultural Economics*, 45(2), 205-238.

Marinelli, A. (2020). *EU-China Relations on Food Security and Agri-Food Trade*. UNESCO CRIS Working Paper Series #07. United Nations University – CRIS.

Marvin, H., Bouzembrak, Y., Van Der Fels-Klerx, H., Kempenaar, C., Veerkamp, R., Chauhan, A., Stroosnijder, S., Top, J., Şimşek-şenel, G., Vrolijk, H., Knibbe, W., Zhang, L., Boom, R., & Tekinerdogan, B. (2022). Digitalisation and Artificial Intelligence for sustainable food systems. *Trends in Food Science & Technology*. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2022.01.020.

Marshall, Q., Fanzo, J., Barrett, C. B., Jones, A. D., Herforth, A., & McLaren, R. (2021). Building a Global Food Systems Typology: A New Tool for Reducing Complexity in Food Systems Analysis. *Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 5*, 746512. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.746512

Mazzucco, N., Sabanov, A., Antolín, F., Naumov, G., Fidanoski, L., & Gibaja, J. F. (2022). The spread of agriculture in south-eastern Europe: new data from North Macedonia. Antiquity, 96(385), 15-33.

NDRC (2021). *Outline of the 14th Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development and Long-Range Objectives for 2035*. National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), People's Republic of China.

National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China. (2015). *Legislation Law of the People's Republic of China* (2015 Revision). Ministry of Justice of the People's Republic of China. https://en.moj.gov.cn/2023-12/15/c_948358.htm

Niggli, U., Sonnevelt, M., & Kummer, S. (2023). Pathways to advance agroecology for a successful transformation to sustainable food systems. Science and Innovations for Food Systems Transformation, 341-359.

Offe, C. (1991). Capitalism by democratic design? Democratic theory facing the triple transition in East Central Europe. *Social Research*, 58(4), 865–892.

Pan, J., & Zhang, X. (2020). *Ecological Civilization: A Pathway to Sustainable Development in China*. Beijing: China Environmental Press.
Pedersen, B. (2024, November). *The future of food in Croatia: Challenges and opportunities*. Meatflow.io. https://www.meatflow.io/blog/the-future-of-food-in-croatia-challenges-and-opportunities

Pryor, S., Casey, T., & Dietz, W. H. (2024). Conceptualizing Agrifood Systems for a Healthy, Sustainable, and Just Transformation: A Systematic Scoping Review. *Sustainability*, 16(22), 9862. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16229862

Ruben, R., Verhagen, J., & Plaisier, C. (2019). The challenge of food systems research: What difference does it make? *Sustainability*, 11(1), 171. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010171

Rudnicki, R., Biczkowski, M., Wiśniewski, Ł., Wiśniewski, P., Bielski, S., & Marks-Bielska, R. (2023). Towards green agriculture and sustainable development: Pro-environmental activity of farms under the common agricultural policy. *Energies*, 16(4), 1770.

Silver, B. J. (2003). *Forces of labor: Workers' movements and globalization since 1870*. Cambridge University Press.

Snoek, H. M., Eijssen, L. M., Geurts, M., Vors, C., Brown, K. A., Bogaardt, M. J., ... & van't Veer, P. (2018). Advancing food, nutrition, and health research in Europe by connecting and building research infrastructures in a DISH-RI: Results of the EuroDISH project. *Trends in food science & technology*, 73, 58-66.

Stanojević, N. (2021). *Green Silk Road and sustainable agriculture in Southeast Europe* (Working Paper No. 8). China-CEE Institute.

Stark, D. (1996). Recombinant property in East European capitalism. American Journal of Sociology, 101(4), 993–1027. https://doi.org/10.1086/230786

Stojcheska, A. M., Zhillima, E., Kotevska, A., & Imami, D. (2024). Western Balkans agriculture and rural development policy in the context of EU integration-The case of Albania and North Macedonia. Regional Science Policy & Practice, 16(8), 100049.

Swyngedouw, E. (2005). Governance innovation and the citizen: The Janus face of governance-beyond-the-state. Urban Studies, 42(11), 1991–2006. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980500279869

Tortajada, C., & Zhang, H. (2021). *When Food Meets BRI: China's Emerging Food Silk Road*. Global Food Security, 29, 100518.
Tribaldos, T., & Kortetmäki, T. (2022). Just transition principles and criteria for food systems and beyond. *Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions*, 43, 244-256.

UNICEF (2024). The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2024.

UNEP, FAO, & UNDP. (2023). *Rethinking Our Food Systems: A Guide for Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration*. Nairobi, Rome, and New York.
https://doi.org/10.4060/cc6325en

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). (2024, January 26). *UNCTAD raises alarms on escalating disruptions to global trade due to the geopolitical tensions and climate change affecting the world's key trade routes* [Press release]. UNCTAD. https://unctad.org/press-material/unctad-raises-alarms-on-escalating-disruptions-to-global-trade

Vidnjevic, M., & Kralj, M. (2024). Analysis of China's trade relations with China. *MEST Journal*. https://doi.org/10.12709/mest.12.12.02.09.

Wallerstein, I. (1979). *The capitalist world-economy*. Cambridge University Press.

Wang, Q. (2024). China's SDG cooperation and environmental strategies towards Central-Eastern Europe countries. *Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development*. https://doi.org/10.24294/jipd10000.

Wang, X., Du, R., Cai, H., Lin, B., Dietrich, J. P., Stevanović, M., ... & Popp, A. (2024). Assessing the impacts of technological change on food security and climate change mitigation in China's agriculture and land-use sectors. *Environmental Impact Assessment Review*, 107, 107550.

Wang, G., Li, S., Yi, Y., Wang, Y., & Shin, C. (2024). Digital Technology Increases the Sustainability of Cross-Border Agro-Food Supply Chains: A Review. *Agriculture*, 14(6), 900.

Wang, S., & Zhang, H. (2024). Inter-organizational cooperation in digital green supply chains: A catalyst for eco-innovations and sustainable business practices. *Journal of Cleaner Production*, 472, 143383.

World Health Organization. (2024). The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2024: financing to end hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition in all its forms (Vol. 2024). Food & Agriculture Org

Wu, X., Wang, S., Fu, B., Feng, X., & Chen, Y. (2019). Socio-ecological changes on the Loess Plateau of China after Grain to Green Program.. *The Science of the total environment*, 678, 565-573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.022.
Wu, Q., Jiang, X., Song, M., Liu, Y., Shi, X., Lei, Y., & Nie, T. (2023). Study on the development trend of social-ecological systems and the drivers of sustainable development–A case study of the Loess Plateau in China. *Ecological Indicators*, 156, 111172.

Wu, Y., Xi, X., Tang, X., Luo, D., Gu, B., Lam, S. K., ... & Chen, D. (2018). Policy distortions, farm size, and the overuse of agricultural chemicals in China. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, 115(27), 7010-7015.

Xian, J., Xia, C., & Cao, S. (2020). Cost-benefit analysis for China's Grain for Green Program. *Ecological Engineering*, 151, 105850.

Yan, C., Li, X., Zhan, L., Li, Z., & Wen, J. (2025). Measurement of Production Efficiency and Analysis of Influencing Factors in Major Sugarcane-Producing Regions of China. *Agriculture*, 15(8), 885.

Yao, J., Chen, Y., Guan, X., Zhao, Y., Chen, J., & Mao, W. (2022). Recent climate and hydrological changes in a mountain-basin system in Xinjiang, China. *Earth-Science Reviews*, 234, 103957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2022.103957

Yuan, Y., Wang, C., Zai, X., Song, Y., & Zhang, X. (2023). Optimizing fertilizer use for sustainable food systems: an evaluation of integrated water-fertilizer system adoption among cotton farmers in China. *Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 7*, 1310426.

Zhou, X. (2020). Ecological Civilization in China: Challenges and Strategies. *Capitalism Nature Socialism*, 32, 84 - 99. https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2020.1802497.

Zhou, J., & Jin, S. (2013). *Food safety management in China: A perspective from the food quality control system*. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1142/8816