Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee – Regenerative agriculture as a target towards enhancing sustainable food production, supporting climate and biodiversity objectives (own-initiative opinion)
Date: 2025-06-18
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: adaptation to climate change, agricultural productivity, agricultural situation, biodiversity, food production, organic farming, soil protection, sustainable development, twin transition








C_202504207EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4207


20.8.2025






Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee
Regenerative agriculture as a target towards enhancing sustainable food production, supporting climate and biodiversity objectives
(own-initiative opinion)
(C/2025/4207)


Rapporteur: 
Stoyan TCHOUKANOV






Advisor


Simon KRAEMER (for the rapporteur)




Plenary Assembly decision


23.1.2025




Legal basis


Rule 52(2) of the Rules of Procedure




Section responsible


Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment




Adopted in section


3.6.2025




Adopted at plenary session


18.6.2025




Plenary session No


597




Outcome of vote
(for/against/abstentions)


142/2/11




1.   Conclusions and recommendations









1.1.


The EESC acknowledges the existence, and growing number, of European farmers (1) and agri-food operators (2) committed to regenerative forms of agriculture, representing an innovative movement of farmers building on nature through accountable ecological regeneration.












1.2.


The EESC considers that regenerative forms of agriculture can enhance sustainable food production, supporting climate, soil health and biodiversity objectives, while increasing both income for farmers as well as agricultural productivity and resilience to extreme climate events. Regenerative agriculture promotes a new narrative for agriculture that can drive the renewal of the sector, attracting young people and new entrants, and underpin sustainable business models and financing, highlighting the fact that agriculture is part of the solution towards fighting climate change and biodiversity loss, enhancing the interconnection between healthy and resilient ecosystems and prosperity.












1.3.


The EESC therefore calls for a common understanding of the terms ‘regenerative agriculture’ (RA) and the benefits of such practices for society as a whole, as well as for a better alignment of the EU regulatory framework to recognise and support these practices.












1.4.


The EESC proposes a definition highlighting the positive outcomes of RA for the three pillars of sustainability: ‘Regenerative Agriculture is an adaptive, outcome-based farming approach applying practically proven and science-based methods with positive impacts on the environment, on farming communities’ livelihoods and on public health, ensuring resilience of yields, competitiveness and efficiency, and social outcomes’.












1.5.


As regenerative forms of agriculture are driven by results which can be defined, measured and verified, rather than a list of prescribed practices, the EESC proposes short-term and long-term result and performance-based indicators derived from existing control or measurement systems, to be used to align policy instruments, financial mechanisms, regulatory frameworks and supply chains standards. The EESC is convinced that measuring these indicators will help make progress, motivate farmers and allow them to be rewarded based on those measurements and the positive results they achieve, without penalising in case of failure. The specific application of these indicators in the local context should be agreed with farmers.












1.6.


The EESC stresses the importance of establishing indicators based on existing data collected by regional/national/European authorities or through satellites (avoiding an administrative burden for farmers), of centralising data without duplicating it, and of ensuring data protection for farmers. Policy consistency across land-use related legislation must be ensured.












1.7.


The EESC considers that the current EU framework does not sufficiently promote regenerative forms of agriculture, in particular with regard to soil health, which has to be considered a public good.












1.8.


The EESC therefore urges the European Commission and EU Member States to scale up regenerative forms of agriculture by aligning funding (CAP and beyond, including circular economy and bioeconomy), considerably expanding soil health/soil cover measures in the CAP strategic plans, enhancing or activating independent advisory services and peer support networks, supporting changes of mindset, carrying out dedicated research and innovation projects, increasing investment support, enhancing public-private collaboration to encourage investments and facilitating cooperation between farmers and the business sector to increase demand (e.g. through co-creation and/or redesigning product portfolios), simplifying and aligning existing regulatory frameworks and proposing a favourable incentive environment (particularly in the first years of conversion), supporting context-specific transition insurance, ensuring fair prices for quality products thanks to a better share of value in the agri-food chain, and ensuring better land transfer conditions. The EESC is convinced that such measures will further contribute to generational renewal in agriculture.




2.   Introduction









2.1.


In the context of the current triple planetary crisis (climate change, pollution and biodiversity loss), we urgently need a reversal of many trends, including in the agricultural sector to ensure yields for future generations (60-70 % of soils in the EU are affected by one or more soil degradation processes (3), the EU is falling behind biodiversity targets (4) and water cycling and quality management are growing concerns, leading to yield losses and affecting farmers’ incomes), while ensuring also generational renewal (the number of farms in the EU is dropping every year) and a sufficient income for farmers who still lag behind average wages in the EU economy (5). At the same time, food sovereignty and strategic autonomy remain key EU objectives, particularly in light of the latest geopolitical developments.












2.2.


Regenerating agricultural systems have proven successful in reversing trends in all contexts. The tangible benefits of regenerative forms of agriculture and regenerative agricultural systems (RA) for the agricultural sector and farming community are plenty and continue to be proven in practice (6) and science (7). The latest research shows that farmers, even in high yield regions, can increase yields by up to 15 %, decrease synthetic nitrogen use by up to 23 % and fuel use by over 75 %, while supporting the sustainable use, reduction and phase-out of pesticides (8). There is a revolution happening in soil sciences and agricultural innovation and Europe’s scientists, entrepreneurs and farmers are world leading pioneers (9). The systematic application of these innovations in regenerating forms of agriculture leads to significant reductions of inputs, increased crop and herd resilience, higher competitiveness, higher farmer income in the long-term and better worker and rural livelihoods. It also helps the business sector develop more viable business strategies (future-proofing, de-risking supply chains, improved compliance with increasing environmental, social and governance reporting requirements, etc.). For the wider society, the benefits include a significant increase in biodiversity, public health benefits, carbon capture, and fewer emissions in addition to reduced flooding and wildfires and better groundwater management through restoration of natural water cycles. This will help mitigate the effects of extreme weather events resulting from climate change.












2.3.


Barriers are currently limiting the ability of European farmers and business to fully commit to implementing regenerative forms of agriculture: a perceived and operational transition risk for farmers, limited knowledge, regulatory burdens, planning uncertainty for conversion, insufficient investment support, risk exposure and lack of targeted insurance, high bureaucratic workload, poor price recognition, lack of market demand for products coming from regenerative practices (e.g. cover crops), and difficulties in accessing land for long-term management and last but not least the relative complexity of regenerative agricultural systems by comparison to conventional farming. Unlocking change requires more coherent and harmonised public and private data, context-specific transition insurance and financial support, a predictable regulatory framework, and favourable subsidy environment, fair prices for quality products, independent advisory services and peer support networks, and better land transfer conditions to facilitate generational renewal.












2.4.


The EESC considers that regenerative forms of agriculture can build a new narrative for agriculture that is part of the solution towards fighting climate change and biodiversity loss, enhancing the interconnection between healthy and resilient ecosystems and prosperity, supporting the renewal of the sector, future-proofing supply chains and encouraging new opportunities and innovation in the business sector, unlocking private investments in agriculture and attracting young people and new entrants. Regenerative farmers contribute to European food security, competitiveness and prosperity by reversing yield stagnation, developing environmental resilience and producing good, healthy food (10), fibre and biomass, contributing to a One Health approach (11). Policies that incentivise farmers based on their performance in land-use management can reverse the perception of farming as a sector that is unrewarding and characterised by excessive bureaucracy and bereft of creativity due to current prescriptive approaches.












2.5.


The EESC emphasises that farmers should have the flexibility to apply production practices which are suited to their climate, context and farm type in order to achieve regenerative outcomes. A greater public understanding of the interconnection between healthy ecosystems, prosperity and public health can transform farmers into the core agents of European economic competitiveness and environmental restoration.












2.6.


The EESC also points out that RA can create synergies between, and make actionable, the EU Water Resilience, Soil, Climate Adaptation, Circular and Bioeconomy Strategies, and needs to be fully supported by them, further aiming at a fair transition and the adoption of sustainable circular practices, while respecting traditional practices and nature-based solutions (12).












2.7.


The EESC calls for integrated approaches, combining regenerative forms of agriculture with the circular economy and in line with the EU Clean Industrial Deal. Integrating RA, circularity and bioeconomy, in rural areas as well as in urban farming, will help better integrate farmers into the supply chain and stimulate future-proof companies, while derisking their activities. Circular food hubs and 
The Big Food Redesign Challenge
 (13) encourage the design of new products using circular design principles and create a market for many outputs from regenerative forms of agriculture (cover crops, diverse grains and agroforestry products).












2.8.


The EESC sees regenerative forms of agriculture as a way to secure a stable supply of food of high and ever increasing quality for the growing population while providing a means of achieving climate and sustainability targets and maintaining a family farming model in the EU.




3.   Towards a common definition of the term ‘regenerative agriculture’ in the context of the CAP post-2027









3.1.


Different definitions of ‘regenerative agriculture’ exist and are used by different societal actors such as researchers, businesses, NGOs, farmers and international institutions. The EESC recognises that all serious definitions of regenerative agriculture share the deliberate choice to abstain from defining a set of practices that, when combined, could amount to a regenerative agricultural system. What matters in regenerative agricultural systems is the adherence to principles leading to measurable and verifiable results and performance of the agricultural land in a specific context (14).












3.2.


From a scientific point of view, regenerative forms of agriculture are the outcome of advances in scientific methods and in the disciplines of microbiology, life sciences, soil, biospheric studies, water and agriculture, amongst many others (15). In this context, the soil microbiome is responsible for feeding plants, which, in turn, sustain biogeochemical cycles, biodiversity, livestock, humans and our bioeconomy. All practices associated with regenerative forms of agriculture such as cover crops, undersown crops, intercropping, no-, strip- and shallow-till, biofertilisers, mulching, reduction and sustainable use of pesticides, rotational and holistic grazing management, agroforestry, no-dig market gardening, etc. all amount to increasing, relative to their specific context, whole-year photosynthesis, Net Primary Productivity (16), and soil cover and the health of the agricultural land.












3.3.


There are over 100 different definitions of RA. We have assessed those of European pioneers including Wageningen University (17), NGO NABU & Boston Consulting Group (18), SAI Industry Platform (19), One Planet Business for Biodiversity (OP2B) (20), CEMA (21), FAO (22), and the European Alliance for Regenerative Agriculture (EARA) (23).












3.4.


The EESC calls for a common operational definition accepted by all agri-food chain actors, building on the outcomes of the Strategic Dialogue, in order to prevent a possible ‘privatisation’ of the definition. The aim is also to avoid use of unfair trading practices and stimulate fair commercial partnerships. The EESC, as the home of EU organised civil society, proposes a definition structured around the three pillars of sustainability: environmental, social, and economic.












3.5.


The definition of ‘regenerative agriculture’ for the EU could be: ‘Regenerative Agriculture is an adaptive and holistic farming approach applying practically proven and science-based methods with positive impacts on the environment (including but not limited to healthy and living soils (24), reduced emissions, carbon capture, reduced pesticide risks, water management and biodiversity), on farming communities’ livelihoods and on public health, ensuring resilience of yields, competitiveness and efficiency, and social outcomes (livelihoods, attractiveness of the sector, generational renewal and rural areas)’. Regenerative forms of agriculture are driven by results and outcomes which can be defined, measured and verified rather than a list of prescribed practices. A system is considered regenerative if there is an improvement in economic, ecological and social performance over time, also taking into account exceptional circumstances.












3.6.


RA should not be understood as competing with firmly established concepts of agricultural systems (organic farming, conservation agriculture, agroecology, etc.). RA is not ‘a new umbrella’ above them. Rather, RA is an inclusive narrative shared by pioneers among all other agricultural and cross-sector agrifood movements, hosting an environment of pragmatic cooperation (25). From a governance perspective, RA enables us to understand different agricultural systems not as alternatives but in terms of the synergies between them, and as a basis for better public-private cooperation towards regenerating agrifood ecosystems (leading to positive trends for key standard sustainability indicators).












3.7.


Regeneration goes beyond sustainability in key ways, although it concerns the same content of the three sustainability pillars. RA acknowledges and appreciates the measured systematic efforts of farmers to improve from day 1 of the transition. Instead of being content with maintaining a state of predefined sufficiency, regeneration goes beyond this and incentivises continuous adaptation, innovation and improvement. Another key difference between our initial understanding of sustainability and the emerging understanding of ‘regenerative sustainability/regeneration’, is that the latter is based on a more holistic view that sees humans and economies as an intrinsic part of nature, and on a theory of change that is distinctly different from those applied today. Regenerative approaches start from potential instead of problems, because problem-solving dictates a future based on past and present problems rather than the entire ranges of possibilities (26).




4.   Criteria and measurement tools to support and incentivise the transition to regenerative agriculture systems









4.1.


To effectively regulate and incentivise performance of agricultural systems, the EESC recommends developing result and performance-based indicators tailored to regional circumstances, as well as methodologies to link the data collected with these indicators, in close dialogue with the farming community. Data from existing sources at EU and Member State level as well as measurement and verification systems set up by private initiatives should be prioritised to develop these indicators and avoid duplication. The EESC highlights the principle that data collected should have a value for both on-farm and off-farm data needs (27). Standardised metrics make it possible to compare performance across different farms and regions. This comparability fosters competitiveness and drives continuous improvements in environmental and socio-economic outcomes. Consistent metrics also build investor and stakeholder confidence, as they provide a reliable basis for assessing the impact of regenerative practices and return on investment in sustainability initiatives (28).The availability of the data for the farmer might speed up the transition and should be linked to the sustainability benchmarking proposed in the European Commission’s Vision for Agriculture and Food (29). Aligning on metrics will also generate coordinated financial incentives and investments in agriculture.












4.2.


The EESC highlights that the implementation of a shared data language and infrastructure based on RA Key Performance Indicator (KPIs) presents a game-changing opportunity for both public and private stakeholders. By aligning policy instruments, financial mechanisms, regulatory frameworks and supply chains standards with RA KPIs, a more consistent, cost-effective, and performance-driven approach to agricultural regeneration can be achieved. Harmonising data across CAP payments, strategic planning, financial instruments, and supply chain incentives (price premiums, longer contracts, marketing support etc.) will not only streamline reporting burdens but also drive real economic, ecological and social impact. This integrated approach fosters regenerative approaches, enhances farmer resilience, and strengthens Europe’s bioeconomy and strategic autonomy.












4.3.


Key short-term result indicators to record and manage the transition towards regenerative agricultural systems annually, at lower costs, should be measured per hectare (aggregated per field and per farm) through remote sensing using Copernicus. These indicators include whole-year photosynthesis, whole-year soil cover, ecosystem structure and plant diversity.












4.4.


Key long-term result indicators to measure and manage the transition towards regenerative agricultural systems, at least once every four years or once per every crop rotation at lower costs (30), include in-situ precision (31) soil tests per hectare, such as tests for soil organic carbon (SOC) content, bulk density, pH, phosphorus, increases in macro and micronutrients content, soil biodiversity and socio-economic impact on farmers.












4.5.


The key performance indicators (RA KPIs) to measure, regulate and incentivise the transition towards regenerative agricultural systems in a strategic, integrated and optimal way, taking into account all time scales, could for example be:






—


Annual KPIs results, gathered using information from remote sensing and other sources, for specific pedoclimatic region and land use categories:






—


Absolute whole-year photosynthesis










—


Absolute whole-year soil cover










—


Relative year-on-year development of whole-year photosynthesis










—


Relative year-on-year development of whole-year soil cover














—


Annually reported or retrieved KPIs results:






—


Relative year-on-year inputs purchased










—


Relative year-on-year output in stocked or sold yields














—


Multiannual in-situ precision tested KPIs outcomes per hectare






—


Absolute total soil organic carbon (SOC% and bulk density measurement)










—


Relative year-on-year development in total soil organic carbon (SOC% and bulk density measurement)




















5.



EU strategy for steering current agri-food systems towards regenerative agriculture













5.1.


Public and private levers can work hand in hand and in sync, thus at optimal cost-effectiveness, only if the process is underpinned by one shared data language and infrastructure (RA KPIs). Farmers need meaningful guidance, and the use of a harmonised data infrastructure will help achieve this. This data will serve the purpose of contributing to performance-based incentives, financial instruments and investment mechanisms, and tailored advice for farmers. All of these together will foster better livelihoods, bioeconomic productivity and ecosystem and human health. Using a harmonised data language (RA KPIs) allows for a blended strategic approach.












5.2.


In this context, the EESC stresses the importance of centralising data without duplicating it, and of ensuring data protection for farmers. The EESC calls for an approach that cross-links the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) and data resulting from implementing the common agricultural policy (CAP) and from Eurostat.












5.3.


The EESC asks the European Commission to carry out a granular impact assessment to assess the possibility of aligning CAP Pillar I payments with RA results for KPIs gathered using remote sensing. Such an impact assessment must clearly bear in mind that performance and results of farming practices are often beyond the solely control of the farmer due to multifactorial external influences (e.g. climate, extreme weather events and pests). This alignment could be achieved through financial incentives (32) linked to photosynthesis and soil cover results, per year and per hectare, and based on absolute outcomes, benchmarked against the results of other plots from the same pedoclimatic region and land use category.












5.4.


The EESC further recommends assessing the scope for coupling CAP Pillar II payments with RA results for KPIs gathered using remote sensing.












5.5.


The EESC believes that Member States reporting in the context of the CAP Strategic Plans could move towards results-based indicators based on the economic, ecological and social impact of the actions taken. Result-based payments, as a complementary mechanism, would reward farmers for providing positive impacts, such as improvements in biodiversity and soil health, and emission reductions. Investment support or tax reductions for innovative agricultural machinery, including minimal invasive seeding, market gardening, digital fencing and on-farm biofertilisation technology, should be provided. The RA KPIs serve that purpose.












5.6.


The EESC suggests that the RA KPIs could be used to ensure policy consistency and simplification across land-use related legislation outside of the CAP framework (such as the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, Water Framework Directive, Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry Regulation, EU Taxonomy and benchmarking), rather than using different assumptions and methodologies to assess the performance. The RA KPIs should be used for that purpose as they would improve all of the current assumptions and methodologies by ensuring a robust, resolute and cost-efficient approach, while delivering key synergies through practical policy consistency across directives. It will also reduce reporting burdens on farmers and avoid the multiplication of different data sets.












5.7.


The EESC recommends that investment funds and Member States’ support should be aligned with the RA KPIs and become proactive tools to facilitate the transition to regenerative agriculture. Similarly, federal, regional and local authorities should be encouraged to use their subsidies for farmers based on the same RA KPI system.












5.8.


A blended transition and risk finance are needed to increase investments in open EU strategic autonomy and reach a high level of competitiveness. Currently, neither public crisis relief payments, reduced interest on debt payments nor crop insurance payments support any significant incentives to adapt. Bold action is required to finance and de-risk the transition, including in regenerative agriculture. The EESC further recommends that adequate insurance schemes be put in place to cover the risks during the conversion process (33).












5.9.


A transition framework that includes investment support, insurance, reduced interest on debt and restructuring mechanisms must all be anchored in the RA KPIs. This new framework should include guidance on transitioning financing for the agricultural sector, shaping how agricultural success and risks are measured and managed, through adapted credit risk management, business risk evaluation, exposure management and market risk management (including stress testing and simulation).












5.10.


The EESC stresses the critical need to incentivise the uptake of RA KPIs in supply chain contracts as secondary standards, and encourage companies across the food sector to redesign products in line with circular economy principles. This includes developing new products or redesigning existing ones to incorporate outputs from regenerative systems – such as cover crops, diverse grains and agroforestry products – that currently lack strong market demand. Without this pull effect d from buyers and retailers, farmers face significant barriers to adoption due to the absence of viable markets for many regenerative outputs. This is currently happening in private sector networks such as SAI, One Planet for Business Biodiversity (OP2B) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). By ensuring policy consistency with the RA KPIs in the legislation mentioned in point 5.6, the EU could greatly accelerate alignment with the private sector, investment and competitiveness.












5.11.


As an incentive for the food processing sector, RA KPIs could be included in the EU code of conduct on responsible business and marketing practices. The EESC welcomed the EU code of conduct, which should continue to serve as a collaborative platform for responsible and sustainable business practices. The EESC has highlighted the limitations of a voluntary approach and called for regulation and legislation to be adopted to ensure a swift transition to sustainability (34).












5.12.


The EESC emphasises the important role of the consumer in this context (35) and of green public procurement, including in the context of the upcoming EU Circular Economy Act, which might explore obligatory procurement to support the circular economy. Information and education measures in combination with transparent food labelling practices will empower the consumer to opt for the more sustainable choice, including products from RA. Here, the use of a common definition of RA will be essential. Digital food labelling might be useful in providing information to consumers in this regard.












5.13.


The EESC reiterates the need to take action on increasing access to land (through investment grants, preferential credit, and national legislation regarding land transfer) (36). Improving land access through preferred leasing and buying conditions for pioneers of regeneration, and new and young farmers, should also be supported.






Brussels, 18 June 2025.


The President


of the European Economic and Social Committee

Oliver RÖPKE
               





(1)  European Alliance for Regenerative Agriculture – EARA – https://eara.farm/.

(2)  For example, SAI Platform – Sustainable Agriculture Initiative Platform and OP2B’s Framework for Regenerative Agriculture.

(3)  
            Caring for soil is caring for life (European Commission).

(4)  
            EU Biodiversity Strategy Dashboard.

(5)  
            Mapping and analysis of CAP strategic plans.

(6)  
            OP2B Five-Year Report – Demonstrating progress on regenerative agriculture, 2024; EarthWorm Foundation Regenerating Soils,
EARA Policy Paper, 2024; Manual for the design and implementation of a regenerative agri-food model: the Polyfarming system, 2021; Can potato cropping be made regenerative? Cover crops and dead organic mulch support soil microbial activity, 2025; Healthier soils, lower costs, sustainable yields: How Conservation Agriculture Reaps Benefits.

(7)  
            Aligning science and policy of regenerative agriculture, 2020; What climate and environmental benefits of regenerative agriculture practices? 2023; Regenerative agriculture: merging farming and natural resource conservation profitably, 2018.

(8)  
            https://www.nabu.de/imperia/md/content/nabude/landwirtschaft/250325-nabu-gkb-studie-konservierende-landwirtschaft.pdf.

(9)  For example in animal herd management, the two leading startups come from Europe: https://www.nofence.no/en/; https://www.collie.eu/.

(10)  
            https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35127297.

(11)  NAT/947 
Healthy planet for healthy people: towards a comprehensive ‘One Health’ approach
 (ongoing).

(12)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee – Aligning the circular economy and the bioeconomy at EU and national level (own-initiative opinion) (OJ C, C/2025/109, 10.1.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/109/oj).

(13)  
            The big food redesign: Regenerating nature with the circular economy, European Circular Economy Stakeholder Platform.

(14)  
            How to Monitor the ‘Success’ of (Regenerative) Agriculture: A Perspective, 2023.

(15)  
            Maximizing Photosynthesis and Root Exudates through Regenerative Agriculture to Increase Soil Organic Carbon to Mitigate Climate Change, 2023.

(16)  
            Net primary production (NPP), Joint Research Centre, 2019.

(17)  
            Regenerative agriculture – the soil is the base, 2020.

(18)  
            The Case for Regenerative Agriculture in Germany and beyond, 2023.

(19)  
            SAI Platform, 2023.

(20)  
            OP2B’s Framework for Regenerative Agriculture.

(21)  
            CEMA Supports Science-Based Regenerative Agriculture.

(22)  
            Regenerative Agriculture, FAO, 2022.

(23)  
            European Alliance for Regenerative Agriculture – EARA.

(24)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on EU Soil Strategy for 2030 – Reaping the benefits of healthy soils for people, food, nature and climate (COM(2021) 699 final) (
OJ C 290, 29.7.2022, p. 131).

(25)  
            https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11625-022-01281-1.

(26)  
            https://www.health.belgium.be/sites/default/files/uploads/fields/fpshealth_theme_file/study_regnerativedevelopment.pdf.

(27)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Conversion to a Farm Sustainability Data Network (FSDN) (COM(2022) 296 final – 2022/0192 (COD)) (
OJ C 75, 28.2.2023, p. 164).

(28)  
            https://www.wbcsd.org/actions/a-shared-vision-for-regenerative-agriculture/.

(29)  
            Vision for Agriculture and Food – European Commission.

(30)  New generations of precision soil testing methodologies allow for relatively fewer soil samples while increasing resolution and robustness of results, enabling amongst other things reduction of inputs and soil testing costs. (

Understanding Fields by Remote Sensing: Soil Zoning and Property Mapping, 2020

, Precision Soil Mapping Research in the

UK

, Exemplary Service Provider

AgriCircle
, Evaluating the accuracy and usefulness of commercially-available proximal soil mapping services for grassland nutrient management planning and soil health monitoring).

(31)  
            Yuzugullu et al. (2024). Satellite-based soil organic carbon mapping on European soils using available datasets and support sampling.

(32)  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) (OJ C, C/2024/2099, 26.3.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2099/oj).

(33)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee – Ensuring sustainable food production and a fair income for European farmers in the face of market, environmental and climate challenges (exploratory opinion requested by the Polish Presidency of the Council of the EU) (OJ C, C/2025/2016, 30.4.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2016/oj).

(34)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Aligning food business strategies and operations with the SDGs for a sustainable post-COVID-19 recovery’ (own-initiative opinion) (
OJ C 152, 6.4.2022, p. 63).

(35)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Towards a sustainable food labelling framework to empower consumers to make sustainable food choices (own-initiative opinion) (
OJ C 75, 28.2.2023, p. 97).

(36)  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) (OJ C, C/2024/2099, 26.3.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2099/oj).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4207/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)