Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Promoting autonomous and sustainable food production: strategies for the common agricultural policy post-2027’ (exploratory opinion requested by the Belgian Presidency of the Council of the EU)
Date: 2024-01-17
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU strategy, agri-foodstuffs, common agricultural policy, food policy, food resources, food security, foodstuff, strategic autonomy, sustainable agriculture, sustainable development








C_202402099EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/2099


26.3.2024






Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Promoting autonomous and sustainable food production: strategies for the common agricultural policy post-2027’
         
(exploratory opinion requested by the Belgian Presidency of the Council of the EU)
(C/2024/2099)







Rapporteur:



Stoyan TCHOUKANOV (BG-III)











Referral


Letter from the incoming Belgian Presidency of the Council of the EU, 10.7.2023




Legal basis


Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union




Section responsible


Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment




Adopted in section


19.12.2023




Adopted at plenary


17.1.2024




Plenary session No


584




Outcome of vote
(for/against/abstentions)


147/2/16




1.   Conclusions and recommendations









1.1.


The EESC considers that the common agricultural policy post-2027 must provide a stable long-term policy framework geared to sustainable food production and open strategic autonomy for the European Union, while protecting the diversity of types of farming in the EU and responding to societal and ecological needs (‘public money for public goods’), alongside ensuring rural development.












1.2.


The next CAP must be a wake-up call shining a spotlight on the need to adequately support farmers through the transition. Environmental and climate policies should not be seen as a burden in the recovery from the current crisis, but rather as part of long-term solutions and guidelines for decision-making in the future. The decline in the EU’s textile and steel industries should serve to warn all policymakers that insufficient or inadequate support can trigger sudden and unintended transformation in sectors.












1.3.


The CAP has enabled the European Union to secure a stable supply of food in high and still increasing quality for its growing population while maintaining a family farming model which has disappeared from many other parts of the world. However, the CAP has failed to target the farmers that needed the most support, or it has been inadequate in various areas, which need to be tackled by the next policy framework:












1.3.1.


The latest CAP reform strengthened the principle that every hectare supported must in return provide society with environmental services. However, uniform funding per hectare does not reflect ecological reality or fair support from a social perspective. The EESC believes that the next CAP should take this even further, stepping up environmental and social requirements that must obligatory be duly rewarded and safeguarded from unfair competition.












1.3.2.


European agricultural activity could have, depending on the kind and intensity of the production, positive externalities for the landscape and biodiversity, the environment and the climate. Since the market fails to put a price on them, the most practical way for society to keep these externalities being produced in the required amounts is to incentivise farmers through public funding. Merely covering the costs incurred and income lost is no incentive for farmers to work towards long-term sustainability and autonomy (including on the basis of voluntary eco-schemes). The EESC asks EU taxpayers to be ready to make a fair additional contribution to the provision of a valuable environmental service that otherwise would not be delivered. Therefore, the CAP reform should do more to support farmers committing to eco-schemes or to other environmental services such as biodiversity preservation, and gradually replace the present basic income support based on surface with financial incentives instead of compensations.












1.3.3.


Therefore, surface-based payments should be repurposed towards incentives for services benefiting the environment and society, with a reasonable transition period that may go beyond the scope of one single multiannual financial framework (MFF). Small family farms should have the opportunity to choose to maintain an income support based on surface payments and labour units on the farm, letting Member States define the criteria in the strategic plans. During the transition period, the CAP should provide redistributive mechanisms and degressive payments or mandatory capping for all Member States.












1.3.4.


In order to stop the further drop in the number of farms in the EU due to the lack of generational renewal, action needs to be taken on increasing average earnings from farming, access to land (through investment grants, preferential credit, national legislation regarding land transfer), favourable investment conditions under the second pillar (bringing additional private money), upskilling (of farmers, farm workers and advisors), empowerment of women, good labour conditions, improvement of long-term prospects for farmers (pensions etc.) as well as the overall attractiveness of rural areas.












1.3.5.


The CAP must preserve the access to and sustainable use of agricultural land across the whole of the EU by avoiding land abandonment and promoting the sustainable exploitation of marginal land for extensive livestock breeding through targeted annual payments (e.g. payments for areas with natural or other area-specific constraints) as well as specific investment support targeting new entrants. Preserving sustainable agricultural production throughout the EU is a principle that should be included in the common agricultural policy in the future.












1.3.6.


The CAP must contribute to promote consumer demand in the EU for healthier and more sustainable diets, decrease food waste and regulate food markets to address the financialisation of the food sector that drives severe speculation, as huge profits are being made while Europeans are struggling to deal with rising food prices.












1.3.7.


Despite the fact that the share of the EU budget going to the CAP has fallen constantly over the past 40 years, from 65,5 % in 1980 to just under 25 % in 2021, while requirements for participating farmers have become ever more extensive and costly, the EESC strongly believes that CAP funding must be commensurate with its ambition to support a just transition (1). In comparison, the share of the EU budget for functioning has increased by 36 % between 1980 and 2021 (2). Every euro devoted to effectively ensuring the EU’s food security, food quality, protecting the natural environment and preserving rural areas and landscapes is money well spent.












1.3.8.


Hikes in energy prices and risks of disruption in the supply of energy and fertilisers are part of the new normal, and the CAP should consider including counter-cyclical components and provide investment support schemes dedicated to improving the production and distribution of renewable energy at farm and local level in rural areas.












1.3.9.


The EESC suggests that the Commission consider reinforcing public/private partnership insurance schemes — voluntary in the individual Member State — in the CAP instruments after 2027 in response to the consequences of extreme climate conditions (droughts, freezing, floods, etc.).












1.3.10.


Digital technologies that demonstrably contribute to the reduction of natural and environmental impacts, improvement of animal welfare or working conditions should be further developed and implemented. When considering possible CAP investment support for these technologies from public European or national funds, the focus should be given on contributing positively to employment policies and national/regional development policies in accordance to the strategic plans.












1.3.11.


The process of designing and adapting the strategic plans should be reviewed to allow for stakeholder involvement, more flexibility for Member States and faster adaptations after their initial approval.




2.   Introduction









2.1.


The current CAP programming period has been marked from the very beginning by two major cataclysms: COVID-19 and Russia’s aggression. European farmers played a key role in ensuring food availability during the lockdowns in 2020 and 2021, but the war in Ukraine posed challenges and exerted huge pressure on the stability of European agricultural markets, with drastically fluctuating prices and shortages of important agricultural inputs. Agri-food systems are also increasingly vulnerable to climate change, while producing greenhouse gas emissions; it is therefore clear that climate-resilient agri-food systems are needed to meet both the global goal of adaptation and the collective temperature goal set under the Paris Agreement (3).












2.2.


Accordingly, the Belgian presidency of the Council of the EU has asked the EESC to draw up an exploratory opinion considering ways to enable strategic autonomy and sustainable food production through a new, more flexible and more efficient CAP post-2027, with a view to enhancing our ability to control our own food supply and security and reduce our dependence on less reliable, undemocratically governed partners. In terms of flexibility, the CAP should be more responsive to the evolving needs and circumstances of EU Member States and their agricultural communities, responding more adeptly to the challenges and opportunities presented by market changes and technological advancements.












2.3.


In view of the elections for the European Parliament in 2024 and the future enlargement of the EU, the EESC sees this opinion as an opportunity to set out some considerations/guidelines/ proposals from organised civil society on the future shape and direction of the CAP post-2027 with a view to achieving autonomous and sustainable food production within a more holistic and comprehensive food policy. The aim is to contribute to the Commission’s proposal for the next CAP by highlighting the needs of civil society organisations and society’s expectations.












2.4.


The EU has a high proportion of family farms (4) (94,8 % in 2020) and small-scale farms (while the average size of an agricultural holding in the EU was 17,4 ha in 2020, about 42 % of farms managed less than 2 ha and 76 % of farms less than 10 ha). Large farms cultivate the majority of the EU’s utilised agricultural area (7,5 % of the EU’s farms were of 50 ha or more and worked two-thirds of the EU’s utilised agricultural area, whereas farms of over 100 ha cultivated around 50 % of the utilised agricultural area) (5). Among the 9,1 million farms, 4,1 million kept livestock, with an average herd size of 28 livestock units (LSU); the total number of LSU is 113 million, of which 49 % were cattle, 30 % pigs and 14 % poultry.












2.5.


The current level of inflation together with unpredictable energy markets are disrupting the fair living standards of EU farmers (6), and farmers’ income is already around 40 % lower than non-agricultural income (7). Furthermore, the number of farms is constantly decreasing in the EU (9,1 million farms in the EU in 2020, 25 % fewer than in 2010) and the past decade has seen an outflow of labour from agriculture (a 23 % drop in annual work units in 10 years, with 22 million people now working regularly in the sector) (8). The number of livestock farms decreased by 40 % in the decade from 2010, a far greater drop than has been recorded for farms without animals (down by 5 %). The average farm size increased from 13,2 ha to 17,4 ha.












2.6.


Launched in 1962, the EU’s common agricultural policy (CAP) is intended to increase agricultural productivity, ensure a fair standard of living for farmers and agricultural workers, stabilise markets, ensure the availability of supplies and ensure reasonable prices for consumers. The CAP has evolved over the years to meet changing economic circumstances and Europeans’ requirements and needs, to become greener and more flexible, and to adopt a performance and results-based approach that takes into account local conditions and needs.












2.7.


The current CAP aims to enable farmers to fulfil the following functions in society: food production (the EU is one of the world’s leading producers and net exporters of agri-food products (9)), rural community development (the farming and food sectors together provide nearly 40 million jobs in the EU), and environmentally sustainable farming (producing food whilst also protecting nature and safeguarding biodiversity, using natural resources prudently) (10).












2.8.


The share of the CAP budget in the EU budget has decreased over the past 40 years, from 65,5 % in 1980 to slightly less than 25 % in 2021 (adjusted to the inflation) (11). Between 1990 and 2021-2027, the budgetary cost of the CAP, when set against EU gross national income, will have decreased from 0,54 % to a projected 0,32 % (12).




3.   General comments









3.1.


The EESC was the first EU institution to call for a comprehensive food policy in the EU, with the aim of nurturing healthy diets by means of sustainable food systems, linking agriculture to nutrition and ecosystem services, and ensuring supply chains that safeguard public health for all sections of European society (13). More generally, the EESC calls for action to foster the systemic change and wellbeing economy we need for the successful implementation of the European Green and Social Deal and the Sustainable Development Goals to secure a just transition, contributing, among other things, to more sustainable and fairer agri-food systems and thriving rural areas while respecting planetary boundaries (14). The EESC notes that European agriculture should be working towards agroecology: farming is dependent on natural resources and those resources must be preserved to ensure future prospects for the sector (15).












3.2.


The EESC has proposed a definition of open strategic autonomy applied to food systems based on food production, workforce and fair trade, with the overarching aim of ensuring food security and sustainability for all Europeans through fair, healthy, sustainable and resilient food supply (16).












3.3.


The EESC considers that a major challenge for the European Union will be to preserve the European multifunctional agricultural model, the rule of law and EU values, including in view of future accessions to the EU. Efforts to preserve these must be based on the principles of food sovereignty (17), sustainability and the real needs of European farmers and consumers. Preserving sustainable agricultural production throughout the EU is a principle that should be included in the common agricultural policy in the future.












3.4.


European agricultural activity could have, depending on the kind and intensity of the production, positive externalities for the landscape and biodiversity, the environment and the climate. Since the market fails to put a price on them, the most practical way for society to keep these externalities being produced in the required amounts is to incentivise farmers through public funding.












3.5.


The EESC calls for a CAP budget that is in line with its ambitions and the increased roles and responsibilities called for by EU society (achieving climate targets, safeguarding biodiversity and restoring nature, carrying out carbon sequestration, maintaining landscapes, ensuring animal welfare, reducing pesticide use, increasing quality of food, etc.). A common set of indicators should be established to track the contribution of the new CAP to the SDGs and contribute to their implementation.












3.6.


Therefore, CAP subsidies should be more conditional on respect for social (labour conditions, social security, social services and services of general interest) and environmental targets (energy transition, circular economy, sustainable water management, biodiversity, climate, etc.), bearing in mind that direct support should ensure that the income gap between farmers and farm workers and the rest of the population is compensated.












3.7.


An assessment of the current CAP shows that 20 % of farms receive approximately 80 % of agricultural support money (18), which might reflect the volumes of agricultural products produced on these farms, but not necessarily social needs or ecological services. In order to support a transition towards more sustainable production, the current basic income support could be further developed towards a system of targeted sustainability payments (including a significant incentive payment) linked to concrete actions benefitting climate, biodiversity and the environment. Small and medium-sized family farms should have the opportunity to choose to maintain an income support based on historic payments. During the transition period, the CAP should provide redistributive mechanisms and degressive payments or mandatory capping for all Member States.












3.8.


Experience of the current strategic plans shows that they lack the flexibility needed for Member States and their regions to adapt quickly to new circumstances arising after they are adopted. Therefore, the new CAP should stipulate fast-track processes to amend the plans. These strategic plans and any changes to them should be developed in consultation with the agricultural sector and other civil society stakeholders. The European Code of Conduct on Partnership should play a key role in the implementation of the future CAP, prioritising the management, monitoring and control of the future strategic plans and giving the social partners a role and responsibilities in the monitoring committees. Steps should be taken to bolster the link between the capital market and CAP funds and to make absorption more efficient and effective.












3.9.


In 2020, with only 6,5 % of farm managers under the age of 35 (19), there is a challenge on which everyone can agree: generational renewal in agriculture. The CAP is an instrument that must make this a priority. As good ideas at European level are not always taken up by Member States, a more ambitious budget for this objective with further harmonisation and an instrument for the uptake of young farmers would be positive. Generational renewal is an integral part of the horizontal, multi-level issues of access to land, access to investment (capital intensive sector), position in the value chain, development of knowledge and skills, and the attractiveness of rural areas.












3.10.


In promoting independent and sustainable food production, it is important that the EU invests in science, research and innovations in the field of agriculture and food. This must be taken into account in the future by coherence between CAP and other EU research and investment policies. Advances in agricultural science lead to the development of new technologies that can enhance sustainable farming practices. Investing in agricultural science, research, and innovations is a strategic investment that benefits not only the agricultural sector but also the overall well-being of societies and the environment.












3.11.


The EESC believes that the single market has been and should remain a fundamental element of the internal EU-trade with food and agricultural goods. However, the EESC considers that the current structure of the food commodities market is not fully delivering the ‘sustainable economy we need’ (20) but in some respects actively works against it. It undermines efforts to solve hunger, foster fair income for farmers and workers and fair prices for consumers, and protect small and medium-sized food processors and the retail sector from the risks of rising inflation. It should therefore be considered to impact the situation through CAP-synchronised regulation in order to contribute to people’s wellbeing and the development of society, with a view to the delivery of the Sustainable Development Goals. Market regulation should be further reinforced to address the financialisaton of the food sector that drives severe speculation (21). Acceleration of AKIS as well as improvement of farm advisory service need to be key elements of the future CAP as improved access to research, innovation, knowledge exchange and training are essential for the sustainable development of European agriculture.




4.   Specific comments

4.1.   
Ways to enable the environmental sustainability of EU food production










4.1.1.


Food systems are affected by and contribute to climate change. The agri-food sector is and must continue to play a proactive role, with the proper support, in combating climate change in order to contribute to the broader transition to sustainable food systems while ensuring the long-term profitability of this sector. Increased policy coherence and tangible solutions to the key challenges of fighting climate change and water scarcity are needed, along with moves to promote more democratic, rights-based governance and principles and ensure that finance goes in the right — and equitable — direction. Environmental and climate policies should not be seen as a burden in the recovery from the current crisis, but rather as part of the long-term solutions and guidelines for decision-making in the future (22).












4.1.2.


The EESC emphasises the need for improved policy coherence to pick up the pace of the green and fair transition. Decarbonisation and non-fossil-based energies must be accorded greater importance in agricultural and rural policies, and other sectoral policies need to take greater account of these objectives.












4.1.3.


The new CAP should promote sustainable water management (23), with a focus on supply management, optimising efficiency, reducing losses, prioritising uses, eliminating illegal uses, adopting measures to ensure the sustainability of the whole system and, lastly, adopting a set of approaches in line with the objective of strategic food autonomy and security. Subsidies should be based on water efficiency rather than the surface irrigated, depending on water availability in the individual Member State.












4.1.4.


The EESC suggests that the Commission consider reinforcing public/private partnership insurance schemes — voluntary in the individual Member State — in the CAP instruments after 2027 in response to the consequences of extreme climate conditions (droughts, freezing, floods, etc.). As an example, since 2000, the US FCIP (Federal Crop Insurance Program) paid out 42,1 % of total indemnity payments on the basis of drought or high temperatures; excess moisture is also frequently responsible for large indemnities (27,5 % of total indemnity payments since 2000).












4.1.5.


To ensure fair competition with EU farmers, trade agreements have to set health, work and environmental standards for imports that are at least equivalent to those required in the EU.












4.1.6.


The EESC recognises the role of organic farming in achieving the objectives of the European Green Deal and therefore recommends that the CAP should continue to promote organic production, distribution and in particular consumption in the EU (e.g. through public procurements and collective catering) in order to achieve the very ambitious target of making 25 % of agricultural land in the EU organic by 2030.












4.1.7.


Current forms of livestock farming in Europe differ in terms of both demand for imports (mainly soya) and the regional impact on the environment. The CAP should predominantly support traditional or extensive, land-based farming methods that mostly use regional resources and feed and have a manageable environmental impact (24).




4.2.   
Ways to enable the social sustainability of EU food production










4.2.1.


Sustainable food production needs farmers and workers. Compliance with human and labour rights, ensuring decent living conditions, pension rights and minimum wages comparable to other sectors are the best stimulus for making the sector attractive, and prerequisites for ensuring the future of the EU farming sector.












4.2.2.



Social conditionality and collective agreements where wages and working conditions are agreed between the labour market parties must be reinforced and implemented rigorously and with the adequate control mechanisms to ensure decent working conditions for all and should be part of the evaluation criteria at project level, along with youth involvement and gender criteria.












4.2.3.



Short supply chains should be supported as a priority, as they generate community activity and social links in rural areas. More emphasis on local supply chains is needed, along with a special approach for small and subsistence farms. The legislators should establish appropriate accompanying measures to ensure that local and/or organic products are accessible to socially vulnerable groups and that the public sector (local, city, regional and federal authorities) makes greater use of local and regional organic food products in public procurement (e.g. in canteens) (25).












4.2.4.



Social farming and the social economy should be further supported by the CAP as it plays an important role in the wellbeing and care of people, as should agri-tourism, ‘terroir tables’, ‘healing farms’
                   and educational farms that attract the urban population (26).












4.2.5.


The CAP should also limit and simplify as much as possible the administrative burden caused by the many obligations imposed by the policy, provide more support for farmers to comply with it and support farmers in dealing with the — needed — controls. The strategic plans should also foresee sufficient time for farmers to adapt to measures such as extremely complex eco-schemes.




4.3.   
Ways to enable the economic sustainability of EU food production










4.3.1.


Food prices are the primary source of income for farmers, topped up by subsidies intended to ensure a decent standard of living, and so the CAP should endeavour to ensure that farmgate prices stay above the cost of production.












4.3.2.


The concentration of bargaining power in different players of the supply chain has led to an abuse of dominant position which transfers economic risk from the consumer market up the supply chain and has a particularly damaging impact on farmers. Besides a needed ban on all unfair trading practices, the CAP should support cooperation between farmers and/or groups of farmers in cooperatives in order to increase their bargaining power. The CAP should further promote regional cooperation across all food supply chain actors; for instance, public catering and local/regional food policy councils could be a stable market outlet for farmers. The farmer is not only a price taker, but also a risk taker. This is why the risks should be shared in the value chain, going beyond price alone.












4.3.3.


The EESC believes that organic production and marketing chains that also take account of seasonal products could be a promising way of generating more added value along the food chain, and should therefore be supported by the CAP (27).












4.3.4.


Considering regional imbalances and potential new EU Member States, the EESC recommends analysing external convergence. Fair competition between Member States and in terms of the subsidies paid out to farmers — taking differences in input and labour costs into consideration — in accordance with EU values should be taken into account. The common market must be protected or farmers will simply stop farming just as steel plants and textile mills closed down. For this reason, specific instruments similar to the CBAM should be looked into separate from or under the CAP, bearing in mind the consequences for the large export of food and agricultural goods from the EU to the rest of the world.












4.3.5.



Carbon sequestration will be a key component of European agriculture and forestry in the future, both to improve soil health and as a tool for climate action. Rewarding farmers and forest owners through carbon certificates will be important, but additional financing sources should be made available (private markets, additional budget to be added to the CAP budget) (28).












4.3.6.


The EESC suggests that the Commission consider including counter-cyclical elements in the CAP instruments after 2027 to react to the great pressure that the agricultural sector is experiencing from the markets, often through low or strongly fluctuating prices. As an option at Member State level, the CAP should also support tools for revenue support (such as insurance or risk management tools, including income stabilisation tools).




4.4.   
Ways to enable the sustainable rural-urban development of the EU in line with food production










4.4.1.


The EESC points out that the future and prosperity of rural areas is paramount for Europe’s food security, strategic autonomy and resilience, as well as for a sustainable energy mix contributing to the EU’s energy independence (including for the agricultural sector) (29). The CAP therefore needs to foster more resilient rural areas and develop their potential to produce green energy (biogas, solar and wind energy as well as biomass (wood, straw, husk, etc.), in line with the long-term vision for EU rural areas. More funds — not only in CAP but first of all in cohesion policy — for local action are needed to ensure complementarity with urban development.












4.4.2.


The next CAP should focus more on job creation by contributing to a more diversified rural economy in rural areas; it should encourage people to settle in rural areas and promote the generational renewal of farmers, the empowerment of woman, and the arrival of people with new projects such as food processing activities or tourism (30).












4.4.3.


The CAP should provide solutions to the issue of land abandonment in the countryside (in particular for disadvantaged regions), which remains an issue in some regions. The CAP should support development projects for these regions based on the many opportunities offered by the renewable energies, bio-economy, circular economy, aquaculture (31) and algae sectors (32) (to cite just a few). The CAP must further preserve access to and sustainable use of agricultural land across the whole of the EU, through targeted annual payments (e.g. payments for areas with natural or other area-specific constraints) as well as specific investment support targeting new entrants.












4.4.4.


The CAP should also further support and promote extensive livestock farming based on permanent meadowland and pastures that helps maintain landscapes and ‘environmental services’ (such as protection of biodiversity and habitats, carbon sequestration, prevention of forest fires and soil erosion) and keeps the population in rural areas by contributing to the viability of family farms (33). The current support for those traditional family conventional farms that are increasingly socially, economically and environmentally sustainable, including on animal welfare standards, and investment in technical improvement should be continued. Farmers who are driving circular economy models (e.g. creation of organic fertilisers or production of biogas using by-products from agriculture and livestock farming) should be incentivised.












4.4.5.


On the one hand, intensive livestock farming generates a significant share of European meat production, at affordable prices; on the other hand, it is the subject of diverse criticism (such as in relation to animal welfare issues). Moreover, production can potentially put a strain on the regional environment. Around 50 % of the EU’s harvest is used as animal feed despite already high demand for arable land in the EU. Furthermore, the production uses imported feed (34) leading to possible challenges on sustainability. The CAP should therefore support extensive farming practices in particular, including the use of local hay and other protein sources in livestock farming as well as a system change from intensive to extensive breeding, using abandoned land and land recovered through the reduction of food waste (20 % of the food produced in the EU is wasted (35)). The CAP should also support livestock farming models arising from the actual work of farmers, whether through a family or professional model, in the transition towards more sustainable practices while maintaining their competitiveness.












4.4.6.


The CAP should support the production of plant-based proteins and oils and the development of regional value chains and regional processing capacities (expanding oil crop cultivation in the EU could lead to positive impacts such as self-sufficiency in terms of tractor fuel, increased availability of oil cakes supply for feed use and increased crop rotations) (36).




4.5.   
Ways to foster societal support for sustainable food systems










4.5.1.


Food prices must reflect the true cost of production for the environment and society. The EESC reiterates the importance of investing in education on sustainable diets from an early age to help young people appreciate the ‘value of food’.












4.5.2.


Information and education measures in combination with transparent food labelling practices should empower consumers to opt for healthier and more sustainable choices. The EESC recalls that a framework for sustainable food systems should be developed to address the challenges of food systems, in a timely manner (37).












4.5.3.


The CAP can help boost societal support for sustainable food systems by financing activities that foster connections between consumers and the farming community, such as commercialization in short circuits or open days for farms. Such activities enable farmers to sell identified products that ‘have a story to tell’ to consumers who are then prepared to pay a fair price, giving consumers responsibility in terms of the value of food and waste; this will help reduce the impact of food on climate change.












4.5.4.


The school scheme (funded by the CAP budget with an annual budget of EUR 250 million) should be continued and improved in order to achieve its objectives (38).




4.6.   
Youth involvement in the CAP










4.6.1.


As a general approach, the EESC considers that it is vital to promote interactive pathways for generational renewal and for a more inclusive and multi-stakeholder governance model. These pathways must involve youth organisations, organised civil society and policymakers and recognise the new ways in which young people engage through technology and social media (39). The active involvement of young people in policymaking can ensure that future policies consider the aspirations and concerns of younger generations who will inherit and shape the future of agriculture. Supporting youth involvement encompasses the provision of essential funding to bolster young farmers organisations, individual young farmers and agricultural education.












4.6.2.


The EESC further stresses the importance of adopting holistic and cross-sectoral approaches that include rural proofing and the EU Youth Test to ensure long-lasting, impactful implementation of EU policies (40). The Youth Test has accordingly been applied to this opinion; it was prepared in close cooperation with several representative youth organisations (41).












4.6.3.


The EESC recommends that young people be involved throughout the development, implementation and monitoring of the CAP.






Brussels, 17 January 2024.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Oliver RÖPKE
            





(1)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Advancing the EU’s just transition policy framework: what measures are necessary?’ (exploratory opinion at the request of the Belgian Presidency) (OJ C, C/2024/1576, 5.3.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1576/oj).

(2)  https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2019-01/fin_report_08_en.pdf; https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_BRI %282021 %29690547.

(3)  EESC contribution | Towards COP 28 Implementation of climate action on agriculture and food security.

(4)  A family farm is an agricultural holding which is managed and operated by a household and where farm labour is largely supplied by that household (FAO).

(5)  https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Farms_and_farmland_in_the_European_Union_-_statistics#Farms_in_2020.

(6)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on The impact of high energy prices on the agricultural sector and rural areas (own-initiative opinion) ( OJ C, C/2024/1571, 5.3.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1571/oj).

(7)  The common agricultural policy at a glance.

(8)  Medium-term (europa.eu); agricultural-outlook-2022-report_en_0.pdf.

(9)  https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/international/agricultural-trade/trade-and-international-policy-analysis_en.

(10)  The common agricultural policy at a glance.

(11)  cap-expenditure-graph1_en.pdf.

(12)  https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/106/financing-of-the-cap.

(13)  
            OJ C 129, 11.4.2018, p. 18.

(14)  NAT work programme 2023-2025.

(15)  
            OJ C 353, 18.10.2019, p. 65.

(16)  
            OJ C 105, 4.3.2022, p. 56.

(17)  United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas.

(18)  https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-03/direct-aid-report-2021_en.pdf.

(19)  Eurostat regional yearbook 2023.

(20)  
            OJ C 106, 31.3.2020, p. 1.

(21)  
            OJ C 100, 16.3.2023, p. 51.

(22)  EESC contribution | Towards COP 28 Implementation of climate action on agriculture and food security.

(23)  
            OJ C 349, 29.9.2023, p. 80.

(24)  
            OJ C 75, 28.2.2023, p. 88.

(25)  
            OJ C 517, 22.12.2021, p. 114.

(26)  Evaluation on the CAP’s impact on territorial development of rural areas (Information report).

(27)  
            OJ C 517, 22.12.2021, p. 114.

(28)  
            OJ C 184, 25.5.2023, p.83.

(29)  
            OJ C 105, 4.3.2022, p. 49. Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on The impact of high energy prices on the agricultural sector and rural areas (own-initiative opinion) (OJ C, C/2024/1571, 5.3.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1571/oj); European Economic and Social Committee — information report on the Benefits of extensive livestock farming and organic fertilizers in the context of the European Green Deal (EGD).

(30)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on The role of youth in rural development (own-initiative opinion) (OJ C, C/2024/1570, 5.3.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1570/oj).

(31)  
            OJ C 349, 29.9.2023, p. 41.

(32)  
            OJ C 105, 4.3.2022, p. 56.

(33)  Information report on the Benefits of extensive livestock farming and organic fertilizers in the context of the European Green Deal (EGD).

(34)  
            OJ C 75, 28.2.2023, p. 88.

(35)  The Guardian.

(36)  
            OJ C 75, 28.2.2023, p. 88.

(37)  
            OJ C 293, 18.8.2023, p. 1.

(38)  Evaluation of the EU school scheme.

(39)  https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/initiatives/youth-engagement-eesc.

(40)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on The role of youth in rural development (own-initiative opinion) (OJ C, C/2024/1570, 05.03.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1570/oj).

(41)  Including CEJA, ECVC Youth, Rural Youth Europe, GCE Food Team.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2099/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)