IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/eurcho/v20y2021i1p30-36.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How can the EU Farm to Fork strategy deliver on its organic promises? Some critical reflections

Author

Listed:
  • Heidrun Moschitz
  • Adrian Muller
  • Ursula Kretzschmar
  • Lisa Haller
  • Miguel de Porras
  • Catherine Pfeifer
  • Bernadette Oehen
  • Helga Willer
  • Hanna Stolz

Abstract

The European Commission's Farm to Fork (F2F) Strategy sets ambitious targets to transform the whole food system towards greater sustainability, but we are critical about its strong focus on technical innovations while neglecting the social and structural aspects in transforming food systems. Also, the target of 25 per cent of EU's agricultural land under organic production by 2030 can only be reached if policy measures go beyond production to include processing and retail, and develop the demand side; otherwise, we could witness collapsing markets with strongly decreasing farm prices. An Organic Action Plan needs to include flexibility for implementation, accounting for the respective national situations; and specific objectives for each farming sector should be formulated. The strategy's call for a ‘shift to healthy, sustainable diets’ needs a comprehensive approach, involving all relevant stakeholders, such as processors, retailers and consumers to identify the most suitable leverage points and support changes in consumption patterns and habits. The Member States need to equip their AKIS accordingly and educate advisors, researchers, knowledge brokers and others for the required change in attitudes and practice. With a view to the necessary comprehensive transformation, the AKIS should be extended to a Food and Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System. La stratégie de la ferme à l'assiette (F2F) de la Commission européenne fixe des objectifs ambitieux pour transformer l'ensemble du système alimentaire afin d'accroître sa durabilité. Pourtant, nous déplorons le fort accent mis sur les innovations techniques tout en négligeant les aspects sociaux et structurels de cette transformation. En outre, l'objectif de 25% des terres agricoles de l'Union européenne en production biologique d'ici à 2030 ne peut être atteint que si les mesures gouvernementales vont au‐delà de la production primaire pour inclure la transformation et la vente au détail et développer la demande; sinon, nous pourrions assister à l'effondrement des marchés avec une forte baisse des prix agricoles. Un plan d'action pour l'agriculture biologique doit inclure une flexibilité pour la mise en œuvre, en tenant compte des situations nationales respectives, et la formulation d'objectifs spécifiques pour chaque secteur agricole. L'appel de la stratégie en faveur d'un «passage à une alimentation saine et durable» nécessite une approche globale, impliquant toutes les parties prenantes concernées comme les transformateurs, les détaillants et les consommateurs, afin d'identifier les points de levier les plus appropriés et de soutenir les changements dans les modes et les habitudes de consommation. Les États membres doivent équiper leur système de connaissances et d'innovation agricoles en conséquence et former les conseillers, les chercheurs, les intermédiaires de la transmission des connaissances et autres acteurs pour permettre le changement nécessaire des attitudes et des pratiques. En vue de la transformation globale nécessaire, le système de connaissances et d'innovation agricoles devrait s’élargir pour couvrir l'alimentation en plus de l'agriculture. Die „Farm to Fork” (F2F)‐Strategie der Europäischen Kommission gibt ehrgeizige Ziele für die Änderung des gesamten Ernährungssystems in Richtung mehr Nachhaltigkeit vor. Wir sehen jedoch den starken Fokus der F2F‐Strategie auf technische Innovationen kritisch, weil die sozialen und strukturellen Aspekte der Umwandlung von Ernährungssystemen vernachlässigt werden. Auch das Ziel, 25 Prozent der landwirtschaftlichen Nutzfläche der EU bis 2030 ökologisch zu bewirtschaften, kann nur erreicht werden, wenn die politischen Maßnahmen über die Produktion hinausgehen: Die Verarbeitung und der Einzelhandel müssten ebenfalls mit eingeschlossen und die Nachfrageseite entwickelt werden, denn andernfalls könnte es zu einem Zusammenbruch der Märkte mit stark sinkenden Agrarpreisen kommen. Ein Aktionsplan für den ökologischen Landbau sollte unter Berücksichtigung der jeweiligen nationalen Situationen Flexibilität für die Umsetzung beinhalten und es sollten spezifische Ziele für jeden einzelnen Landwirtschaftssektor formuliert werden. Die Forderung der Strategie, einen “Wechsel hin zu gesunder, nachhaltiger Ernährung” einzuleiten, erfordert einen umfassenden Ansatz, bei dem alle relevanten Interessengruppen, wie z.B. verarbeitende Unternehmen, der Einzelhandel und Verbraucherinnen und Verbraucher, einbezogen werden. Dies mit dem Ziel, die am besten geeigneten Ansatzpunkte zu ermitteln und Änderungen in den Verbrauchsmustern und ‐gewohnheiten zu unterstützen. Die Mitgliedsstaaten müssen ihr AKIS entsprechend ausstatten und die in Beratung, Forschung, Wissensvermittlung und anderen Einrichtungen Tätigen für den geforderten Wandel der Einstellungen und Verhaltensweisen ausbilden. Im Hinblick auf die notwendige umfassende Transformation sollte das AKIS zu einem Wissens‐ und Innovationssystem für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft ausgebaut werden.

Suggested Citation

  • Heidrun Moschitz & Adrian Muller & Ursula Kretzschmar & Lisa Haller & Miguel de Porras & Catherine Pfeifer & Bernadette Oehen & Helga Willer & Hanna Stolz, 2021. "How can the EU Farm to Fork strategy deliver on its organic promises? Some critical reflections," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 20(1), pages 30-36, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:20:y:2021:i:1:p:30-36
    DOI: 10.1111/1746-692X.12294
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12294
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1746-692X.12294?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bruno Basso & John Antle, 2020. "Digital agriculture to design sustainable agricultural systems," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 3(4), pages 254-256, April.
    2. Frank Eyhorn & Adrian Muller & John P. Reganold & Emile Frison & Hans R. Herren & Louise Luttikholt & Alexander Mueller & Jürn Sanders & Nadia El-Hage Scialabba & Verena Seufert & Pete Smith, 2019. "Sustainability in global agriculture driven by organic farming," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 2(4), pages 253-255, April.
    3. Gianluca Brunori & Dominique Barjolle & Anne-Charlotte Dockes & Simone Helmle & Julie Ingram & Laurens Klerkx & Heidrun Moschitz & Gusztáv Nemes & Talis Tisenkopfs, 2013. "CAP Reform and Innovation: The Role of Learning and Innovation Networks," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 12(2), pages 27-33, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Andreea-Emanuela Dragoi & Anca-Catalina Dragomir, 2022. "The Role of Common Agricultural Policy in Climate Actions," Global Economic Observer, "Nicolae Titulescu" University of Bucharest, Faculty of Economic Sciences;Institute for World Economy of the Romanian Academy, vol. 10(1), pages 80-87, June.
    2. Yaprak Kurtsal & Giacomo Maria Rinaldi & Federica Savini & Rubina Sirri & Martin Melin & Elena Pacetti & Alessandra De Cesare & Marialetizia Fioravanti & Elena Luppi & Gerardo Manfreda & Davide Viaggi, 2024. "Improving the Education and Training Policies of the Agri-Food and Forestry Sectors: Identifying New Strategies to Meet the Needs of the Sector and Farm-to-Fork Priorities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-20, February.
    3. Ana Clara Borrego & Rute Abreu & Francisco Alegria Carreira & Filipe Caetano & Ana Lúcia Vasconcelos, 2023. "Environmental Taxation on the Agri-Food Sector and the Farm to Fork Strategy: The Portuguese Case," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-18, August.
    4. Patrizia Ghisellini & Amos Ncube & Gloria Rotolo & Chiara Vassillo & Serena Kaiser & Renato Passaro & Sergio Ulgiati, 2023. "Evaluating Environmental and Energy Performance Indicators of Food Systems, within Circular Economy and “Farm to Fork” Frameworks," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-38, February.
    5. Jayson Beckman & Maros Ivanic & Jeremy Jelliffe, 2022. "Market impacts of Farm to Fork: Reducing agricultural input usage," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(4), pages 1995-2013, December.
    6. Olga M. Moreno-Pérez & Amparo Blázquez-Soriano, 2023. "What future for organic farming? Foresight for a smallholder Mediterranean agricultural system," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 11(1), pages 1-24, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lin Xie & Biliang Luo & Wenjing Zhong, 2021. "How Are Smallholder Farmers Involved in Digital Agriculture in Developing Countries: A Case Study from China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-16, March.
    2. Marcos Ferasso & Miguel Blanco & Lydia Bares, 2021. "Territorial Analysis of the European Rural Development Funds (ERDF) as a Driving Factor of Ecological Agricultural Production," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-14, October.
    3. Yu, Yanan & He, Yong & Zhao, Xuan, 2021. "Impact of demand information sharing on organic farming adoption: An evolutionary game approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    4. Bachev, Hrabrin & Koteva, Nina & Ivanov, Bodjidar & Mitova, Dilyana & Boevski, Ivan & Marinov, Petar & Sarov, Angel & Kostenarov, Krassimir & Dimova, Nadejda & Soyanova, Natalia & Terziev, Dimitar, 2022. "Въпроси На Конкурентоспособността На Земеделските Стопанства На България [Issues of the competitiveness of the agricultural holdings of Bulgaria]," MPRA Paper 116065, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Nesar Ahmed & Shirley Thompson & Giovanni M. Turchini, 2020. "Organic aquaculture productivity, environmental sustainability, and food security: insights from organic agriculture," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 12(6), pages 1253-1267, December.
    6. Reichelt, Nicole & Nettle, Ruth, 2023. "Practice insights for the responsible adoption of smart farming technologies using a participatory technology assessment approach: The case of virtual herding technology in Australia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    7. Debuschewitz, Emil & Sanders, Jürn, 2021. "Bewertung der Umweltwirkungen des ökologischen Landbaus im Kontext der kontroversen wissenschaftlichen Diskurse," 61st Annual Conference, Berlin, Germany, September 22-24, 2021 317076, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    8. Metta, Matteo & Ciliberti, Stefano & Obi, Chinedu & Bartolini, Fabio & Klerkx, Laurens & Brunori, Gianluca, 2022. "An integrated socio-cyber-physical system framework to assess responsible digitalisation in agriculture: A first application with Living Labs in Europe," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    9. Kok, Kristiaan P.W. & Klerkx, Laurens, 2023. "Addressing the politics of mission-oriented agricultural innovation systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    10. Solfanelli, Francesco & Ozturk, Emel & Pugliese, Patrizia & Zanoli, Raffaele, 2021. "Potential outcomes and impacts of organic group certification in Italy: An evaluative case study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    11. Tilman Reinhardt, 2023. "The farm to fork strategy and the digital transformation of the agrifood sector—An assessment from the perspective of innovation systems," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(2), pages 819-838, June.
    12. Veronika Hannus & Johannes Sauer, 2021. "Understanding Farmers’ Intention to Use a Sustainability Standard: The Role of Economic Rewards, Knowledge, and Ease of Use," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-21, September.
    13. Prabhu Pingali & Mathew Abraham, 2022. "Food systems transformation in Asia – A brief economic history," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 53(6), pages 895-910, November.
    14. Ingram, Julie & Maye, Damian & Bailye, Clive & Barnes, Andrew & Bear, Christopher & Bell, Matthew & Cutress, David & Davies, Lynfa & de Boon, Auvikki & Dinnie, Liz & Gairdner, Julian & Hafferty, Caitl, 2022. "What are the priority research questions for digital agriculture?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    15. Sushil Gupta & Hossein Rikhtehgar Berenji & Manish Shukla & Nagesh N. Murthy, 2023. "Opportunities in farming research from an operations management perspective," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(6), pages 1577-1596, June.
    16. Lu, Chen-Fu & Cheng, Chia-Yi, 2023. "Exploring the distribution of organic farming: Findings from certified rice in Taiwan," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    17. Nemes, Gusztáv & High, Christopher, 2013. "Old institutions, new challenges: the agricultural knowledge system in Hungary," Studies in Agricultural Economics, Research Institute for Agricultural Economics, vol. 115(2), pages 1-9, June.
    18. Kummer, Susanne & Leitgeb, Friedrich & Vogl, Christian R., 2017. "Farmers’ Own Research: Organic Farmers’ Experiments in Austria and Implications for Agricultural Innovation Systems," Sustainable Agriculture Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 6(1), February.
    19. Gackstetter, David & von Bloh, Malte & Hannus, Veronika & Meyer, Sebastian T. & Weisser, Wolfgang & Luksch, Claudia & Asseng, Senthold, 2023. "Autonomous field management – An enabler of sustainable future in agriculture," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    20. Lombardi, G.V. & Parrini, Silvia & Atzori, R. & Stefani, G. & Romano, D. & Gastaldi, M. & Liu, G., 2021. "Sustainable agriculture, food security and diet diversity. The case study of Tuscany, Italy," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 458(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:20:y:2021:i:1:p:30-36. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.