A Green Deal for implementing agroecological systems: Reforming the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union

Abstract

The authors recommended four key measures which will be updated and presented to representatives of the EU institutions on several occasions. The four recommendations are:
1) The phasing out of current subsidies by agricultural area and livestock head, and on energy, large equipment and external inputs. Such subsidies create a strong bias in the productive model at a massive environmental and social cost. The EU should be consistent with its own Green Deal cornerstone: “First do not harm”;
2) If basic subsidies are maintained, they should be paid on a full-time equivalent worker (FTE) basis and not on a hectare (or livestock head) basis anymore;
3) The main part of taxpayer’s money spent within the CAP should be allocated to the production of public goods, i.e. the provision of ecosystem services and the restoration of biodiversity and the ecological network (payment for result-oriented agro-environment and climate measures);
and 4) Although it has been shown that agroecological systems can be more profitable than conventional ones, the transition towards agroecological farming can be difficult and risky for farmers as systems are often more complex. This is the reason why it should be specifically supported by the CAP for several years. This could include specific subsidies, the implementation of a training network with well-trained advisers and a network of innovative farms that could be used as “lighthouses” from which principles may radiate out to local communities.

Full text

83
Peeters et al . (2020) · LANDBAUFORSCH · J Sustainable Organic Agric Syst · 70(2):83–93
DOI :10.3220 /LBF1610123299000
POSITION PAPER
A Green Deal for implementing agroecological
systems: Reforming the Common Agricultural
Policy of the European Union
Alain Peeters
1, 2, Olivier Lefebvre
2, 3, Lili Balogh
2, 4, Paolo Barberi
2, 5, Caterina Batello
2, 6,
Stéphane Bellon
2, 7, Tommaso Gaifami 2, 8, Vasileios Gkisakis 2, 9, Marcos Lana
2, 10,
Paola Migliorini
2, 11, Ole Ostermann
2, 12, and Alexander Wezel
2, 13
1 RHEA Rese arch Centre, Corbais, Bel gium
2 Agroecology Europe, Corbais, Belgium
3 Perma-Projects, Brussels, Belgium
4 Protect th e Future – Védegylet Egyesu let (VDG), Budapes t, Hungary
5 Scuola Sup eriore Sant’Anna, Inst itute of Life Sciences, G roup of Agroecology, Pisa , Italy
6 Former team l eader Agroecology a nd Ecosystem Servi ce, Food and Agriculture O rganization (FAO), Rome, Italy
7 French National Institute for Agriculture, Food, and Environment (INRAE), Ecodevelopment Unit, Avignon, France
8 Agroecolo gy Europe Youth Network (AE EUYN), Milan, Italy
9 Hellenic M editerranean Unive rsity (HMU), School of Ag ricultural Sciences , Heraklion, Gree ce
10 Swedish Univer sity of Agricultura l Sciences (SLU), Deptartm ent of Crop Productio n Ecology, Uppsala, Sweden
11 Unive rsity of Gastrono mic Sciences (UNISG), Bra, I taly
12 European Co mmission – Joint Resea rch Centre (JRC), Ispra, It aly
13 Isara, Ag roSchool for Life, Agro ecology and Environm ent Research Unit, Lyon, France
CONTACT: alain.peeters@rhea-environment.org
1 Reasons for a fundamental redesign of
agricultural systems
The rationale and ambition for a deep redesign
of agricultural
and food systems in Europe is developed in this paper and
based on three main documents: The Treaty on the Function-
ing of the European Union (TFEU) (EU, 2016), the priorities of
the European Commission for the future Common Agricultur-
al
Policy (CAP) (EC, 2018) for the 2021–2027 period, and the
European “Green Deal” (EC , 2019). The major issues we hereby
address are climate change adaptation and mitigation, man-
agement of natural resources, conservation and restoration
of biodiversity and enhancement of ecosystem services, and
economic and societal aspects. Then we outline essential
components for an agroecological Green Deal in Europe.
1.1 Environmental dimension
Three major documents frame the future of farming and its
relationships with environment in the European Union.
First, Article 191 of the TFEU states that “Union policy on
the environment shall contribute to pursuit of the following
objectives:
ypreserving, protecting and improving the quality of the
environment,
Received: M ay 16, 2020
Revised: D ecember 8, 2020
Accepted: Decemb er 9, 2020
KEYWORDS
agroecology, biodiversity, climate change, ecosystem service,
food system, policy, public good, redesign, subsidy, transition
Alain Peeters Olivier Lefebvre Alexander Wezel
© private
© private
© private

84
Peeters et al . (2020) · LANDBAUFORSCH · J Sustainable Organic Agric Syst · 70(2):83–93
yprotecting human health,
yprudent and rational utilisation of natural resources,
y
promoting measures at international level to deal with
regional or worldwide environmental problems, and in
particular combating climate change”.
Second, the European Commission summarised its prior-
ities for the future CAP for th e 2021–27 period in nine general
objectives reecting the economic, environmental and social
importance of the policy:
1. Support viable farm income and resilience across the
European Union (EU) territory to enhance food security;
2. Enhance market orientation and increase competitive-
ness including greater focus on research, technology and
digitalisation;
3. Improve farmers' position in the value chain;
4. Contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation,
as well as to sustainable energy;
5. Foster sustainable development and ecient manage-
ment of natural resources such as water, soil and air;
6.
Contribute to the protection of biodiversity, enhance eco-
system services and preserve habitats and landscapes;
7. Attract young farmers and facilitate business develop-
ment in rural areas;
8. Promote employment, growth, social inclusion and local
development in rural areas, including bio-economy and
sustainable forestry;
9. Improve the response of EU agriculture to societal
demands on food and health, including safe, nutritious
and sustainable food, as well as animal welfare.
Third, the European Green Deal recently recognised that
“Food production still results in air, water and soil pollution,
contributes to the loss of biodiversity and climate change,
and consumes excessive amounts of natural resources,
while an important part of food is was ted. At the same time,
low quality diets contribute to obesity and diseases such as
cancer”
(EC, 2019).
Reaching the objectives of the TFEU and the priorities
of the future CAP for the 2021–27 period requires a major
change in the way agriculture is practiced and a reform of
current policies for reducing the negative impacts identied
in the European Green Deal.
Conditioning the level of nancial support to European
farmers to the area they use for their crops or grasslands and
the animals they raise, from the budget of the 1st pillar of the
CAP, while encouraging them to invest in power ful machinery
and large infrastruc ture on the basis of the 2nd pillar budget,
is far from being neutral with regards to the management of
natural resources.
The agro-environmental and climatic measures of the
2nd pillar mitigate these eects, but in a very limited way
(Kleijn et al., 2006; Pe’er et al., 2017, 2019, 2020). The nal
results remain largely negative for environmental quality and
bio di ver sity. Biodiversity indicators, e.g. the common farm
-
land bird index, continue to decline while the common forest
species index is stable or increases (Pan-European Common
Bird Monitoring Scheme, 2020; Pe’er et al., 2014). This situation
is hardly surprising as these measures are applied to a mod-
est part of the agricultural area (17 % of the agricultural area
in EU27 excluding UK in 2018) (Agri-Food Data Portal, 2018)
and only a limited part of these measures eciently restore
biodiversity, while the vast majority of the agricultural area
remains hostile.
In the current “CAP vehicle”, the 1st pillar acts like an
accelerator of environmental degradation, while the 2nd
pillar acts partially as a brake. As the 1st pillar benets from
more fuel (budget) than the 2nd, the vehicle continues to
move very quickly towards soil degradation, greenhous e gas
emissions, loss of biodiversity and destruction of habitats.
However, the CAP is not the only mechanism that fuels the
intensication of agriculture. The clos e relationship between
input retailers and farmers is ambiguous. The main farmers’
advisers are indeed also the sellers of commercial inputs
despite the existence in some countries of ad vi sory services
nanced by the State. This has led to excessive use
of these
products (Eurostat, 2013). Input trade and agricul tural advice
should be separated. Despite of policies to reduce pesticide
use there is even an increase as illustrated for example with
France which has an increased consumption in the last years
by about 14 % (Lamichhane et al., 2019), and has had the high-
est
ever consumption of pesticides in 2018 (Eurostat, 2019).
By exerting a strong pressure on product price, super-
market chains encourage farmers to prioritise yields at the
expense of food quality (Mayer, 1997; Marles, 2017). This also
leads to excessive input use.
Farmers are currently part of a long industrial chain that
starts from a fossil fuel pit and includes also notably the
agro-industries that produces inputs, input retailers, agro-
food industries that processes agricultural products, and
food retailers. It is therefore justied to qualify this agriculture
as industrial.
The following sections (1.1.1 to 1.1.4) develop a diagnosis
of the current situation regarding the environmental EC prior-
ities
for the future CAP.
1.1.1 Climate change mitigation and adaptation,
and sustainable energy
Soils managed under industrial cropping systems los t a large
part of their natural fertility since the early 1960s (Bellamy et
al., 2005; Goidts and Van Wesemael, 2007; Gobin et al., 2011;
Jones et al., 2011).
The specialisation of farms has led to dramatic simpli-
cation of cropping systems, in which crops, livestock and
forestry, once integrated, have become separated and
intensied, leading to a very high level of specialisation and
dependence on external, synthetic inputs (Peeters, 2012). As
a consequence, arable land under current industrial systems
receive now much less inputs of carbon in the form of farm-
yard manure or organic residues.
Moreover, deep ploughing and other intensive soil tilla ge
techniques have destroyed soil structure and, together with
the intense use of synthetic nitrogen fertiliser, degraded and
oxidised soil organic matter, releasing huge amounts of CO2
into the atmosphere (Krištof et al., 2014; Reicosky, 1997).

85
Peeters et al . (2020) · LANDBAUFORSCH · J Sustainable Organic Agric Syst · 70(2):83–93
1.1.3 Protection of biodiversity, enhancement
of ecosystem services and preservation of
habitats and landscapes
Sixty years of industrial agriculture have had a huge and
unprecedented negative impact on the dierent forms of
biodiversity in rural areas. In fact, overexploitation and agri-
culture have been recently recognised as the most prevalent
threats for several species , especially endangered ones (Max-
well et al., 2016). The mechanisms that explain this biodiver-
sity decline var y by organism and habitat. They can be either
physical (e.g. homogenisation of habitat and landscape;
elimination of ecological infrastructures; changes in grass-
land cutting frequencies and stocking rate; ploughing and
other intensive tillage practices in arab le land), chemical (e.g.
application of synthetic nitrogen in grasslands that favours a
small number of fast-growing plant species compared to
all
other species, agrochemicals that directly suppress target
and
non-target plants, insects or fungi), or mechanical through
the trac of heavy agricultural machinery and the tools used
for tillage, weeding and harvesting (e.g. tillage done quickly
after harvest thanks to the increasing power of tractors buries
fallen grain that become inaccessible to birds that once used
them to build up pre-wintering or migration body reserves)
(Henle et al., 2008; Pe’er et al., 2014).
These physical, chemical and mechanical mechanisms
can be direct or indirect. The use of herbicides, for example,
has a direct eect in eliminating or drastically reducing the
abundance of dicotyledonous plant species and an indirect
action in reducing the abundance of pollinating insects for
which these plants are a food source, and that of birds feed-
ing on these insects. The application of pesticides eliminates
many of the needed benecial insects that can reduce crop
pests, but also pollinators necessary for the production of
fruits and vegetables (Ndakidemi et al., 2016).
Land use change imposed a drastic change in agricultur al
landscape, generating several detrimental eec ts to habitats
and biodiversity; a main example is the large proportion of
hedges and hedgerows networks that have been removed
or degraded, to facilitate the movements in the elds of
machines of increasing size. Additionally, drainage of wet-
lands, for “enhancing” the areas and providing new agricul-
tural land, has led to drying of several important biotopes.
As a result, many habitats have disappeared from landscapes
and been replaced by large, much more uniform blocks of
land (Stoate et al., 2001, 2009).
What is now becoming dramatically evident is also that
the loss of habitat and biodiversity are contributing to the
emergence of diseases in wildlife that may be sources of
new severe infections in humans (Sattenspiel, 2001; Johnson
et al., 2020)
1.1.4 Response of EU agriculture to societal
demands on safe, nutritious and sustainable
food, as well as animal welfare
The diversity of food products, especially fruits and
vegeta bles, has increased in Europe in recent decades, mainly
thanks to the import of tropical products or products long
consumed in Europe but produced today in countries of the
In addition, the produc tion of soluble nitrogen fertilisers,
which are applied widely and in high quantities, requires
very large amounts of fossil energy for the industrial xation
of atmospheric nitrogen through the Haber-Bosch process.
This process therefore contributes to further signicant
emission
of greenhouse gases (Kyriakou et al., 2020).
Since highly simplied agroecos ystems are also very like-
ly to suer from weeds, pests and diseases outbreaks, agro-
chemical use, which requires intense use of fossil energy for
their production and application), is stable or still growing in
some countries (Eurostat, 2020a).
The total energy ecie ncy of agricultural production has
declined considerably in recent decades, being now inverse-
ly
proportional to the amount of fossil energy injected into
the agricultural and food systems. Pimentel and Heichel
(1991) calculated for instance energy ows in hand-powered
sustainable agricultural systems, in draf t animal agricul tural
and agroforestry systems, and in contemporary intensive
agriculture which provides an idea about the historical evo -
lution of energy ecienc y of agricultural systems in Europe.
It is now estimated that “every calorie of food energy pro-
duced and brought to the table represents an average of
7.3 calories of fossil energy inputs” (Heinberg and Bomford,
2009).
Climate change mitigation and adaptation in industrial
production sys tems pose a signicant challenge, since the use
of few species grown in monocultures with low genetic diver-
sity are much more vulnerable to climate and biotic stresses
(Altieri et al., 2015). When combined with low levels of organic
matter in soils
– that reduces soil water holding capacity and
nutrient cycling – it results in strongly decreased resilience of
farming systems towards disturbance from climate change
(Lal, 2004; Iglesias et al., 2012).
1.1.2 Sustainable development and ecient
management of natural resources such as
soil, water and air
The recent development in agri culture has not led to sustain-
able and ecient management of natural resources, but
rather the contrary. Soils have been heavily degraded since
the 1960s, mainly because of the processes referred to in
section 1.1.1. They have lost a signicant portion of their
natu ral fertility. Their structure has deteriorated, resulting in
signicant
erosion and lower water holding cap acity. Soil life
has been greatly reduced in biomass and in diversity espe-
cially with regard to fungi and earthworms (Hiederer, 2018;
Mission Board for Soil health and food, 2020).
The overuse of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilisers and
agrochemicals such as herbicides, pesticides and fungicides
used in industrial agriculture have polluted many surface and
ground water (European Environment Agency, 2018).
The atmosphere has been polluted not only by CO
2
emissions caused by the processes described in section
1.1.1, but also by N
2
O emissions from synthetic and organic
nitrogen fertiliser use. The atmosphere has also been conta-
minated by some agrochemicals, especially at the time of
application to crops, harvest operations and by the excess
and improper use of these chemicals (Dubus et al., 2000).

86
Peeters et al . (2020) · LANDBAUFORSCH · J Sustainable Organic Agric Syst · 70(2):83–93
South, for example in the counter season. These products do
not always meet the Applicatio n of Sanitary and Phytosani tary
Measures (the “SPS Agreement” of the WTO) (EU, 2000). The
production of such fruits and vegetables in these countries
can have disastrous consequences. For example, the rapid
development of avocado cultivatio n in Mexico has led to mas-
sive deforestation in the wooded mountains of Michoacan
14
.
Studies have shown that the nutritional values of many
foods have decreased during the 20th century, particularly
with regard to their mineral and vitamin content as a result
of the use of industrial farming techniques and new more
productive cultivars (Mayer, 1997; Marles, 2017).
In the meantime, the European Union has increased its
domestic protein produc tion decit, largely due to a signi-
cant gap in legume produc tion for food and feed compared
to what is needed, feasible and desirable (Zander et al.,
2016). This contributes to diet unbalances in both humans
and livestock.
Feeding livestock with grains (cereals, soybean) instead
of grass has not only negative environmental implications,
but also aects the fatty acid composition of meat and dairy
products. Total fatt y acids, saturated fatty acids and ome ga-6/
omega-3 levels have increased. In contrast, Combined Linoleic
Acid levels, with anti-cancer properties, have declined (French
et al., 2000; Alfaia et al., 2009; Saini and Keum, 2018; Davis et al.,
2020). A large proportion of grains in livestock diets has also
negative impacts on animal health, leading to excessive use of
veterinary medicines (EFSA, 2008). This applies to ruminants
that can potentially be fed on grass only but also to monogas-
trics that can use up to 30 to 50 % of grass in their diet (Crawley,
2015; Stødkilde et al., 2018).
However, it is mainly food processing and additions of
sugar, saturated fatty acids and salt, downstream of agricultur-
al production, that are known to cause obesity, malnutrition,
and related non-communicable diseases (Swinburn et al.,
2019). Changes in consumption habits and an increase in the
share of processed products in diets are the main cause of
major public health problems, with collective costs account-
ing for 10 to 12 % of total health care costs and that will soon
exceed those of alcohol or tobacco-related diseases (WHO/
FAO, 2002). Although this is not a direct consequence of the
CAP, it should be duly taken into account in an agricultural
and food policy approach.
Factory farming of pigs, poultry and sometimes cattle
cause
promiscuity problems resulting in the spread of dis-
eases, that are partly controlled by antibiotics. Routine and
preventative antibiotic use induce the development of
resistance phenomena, selecting also human pathogenic
bacteria and posing a threat to the e ntire society. Regarding
animal welfare, stress is permanent for these sensitive ani-
mals,
raised in conditions far from those of their wild ances-
tors and that do not allow the expression of basic social
behaviours (D’Silva, 2006; Anomaly, 2015). Moreover, factory
farming creates favourable conditions for the emergence of
future human pandemics (Anomaly, 2015).
14 www.wri.org/blog/2020/02/mexico-avocado-industry-deforestation
1.2 Economic dimensions
The importance of agricultural production in the EU, as well
as food abundance on supermarket food shelves, give the
impression that the system is highly productive. In reali-
ty,
the agricultural and food system of the EU has become
much more import-dependent
15
, more unequal, less resilient
at both the macro- and micro-economic levels, and nally
with a low level of food security and sovereignty. It has also
become less value-adding and more value-extracting out of
our collec tive natural capital. This can be reviewed against
the CAP objectives, as set out in the treaties. Article 39 of the
TFEU (EU, 2016) states that “the objectives of the common
agricultural policy shall be”:
a) “to increase agricultural productivity by promoting tech-
nical progress and by ensuring the rational development of
agricultural production and the optimum utilisation of the
factors of production, in particular labour”;
Far from being optimal, the use of production factors
has been strongly skewed by the combined impact of vari-
ous policies on their relative prices. As in other sectors, the
cost of labour, whether self-employed or salaried, is subject
to compulsory levies, taxes and social contributions, while
investment is helped by subsidies, and in many member
states, agricultural fuel oil is benetting from tax exemption.
The main CAP subsidy being paid per hectare also skews the
production mod el in favor of larger farms despite the fact that
it is often captured by landowners, not necessarily farmers
(Neill and Hanrahan, 2013; Valenti et al., 2020). Hence, labour
productivity as measured by value added (VA) per full time
equivalent (FTE) ( VA/FTE) has been maximised at the expense
of other factors of production. This model of specialisation
and monoculture has also become increasingly extractive in
value on “nature capital” through the destruction of natural
assets and the production of negative externalities.
b) “thus to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural
community, in particular by increasing the individual earn-
ings of persons engaged in agriculture”;
The increase in the income of those working in agriculture
has been the corollary of the increase in VA/FTE, with a dras-
tic reduction of the labour force in agriculture. A signi cant
segment of farmers is kept below the povert y line promoting
a continuous ow of people and families leaving the agricul-
tural sector with social deleterious consequences. This model
is economically justied by the fact that it pretends to select
the best performing players. It is now clear that rather than a
“selection of the ttest”, the system selects to a large extent
the most “extracti ve players”, in terms of tapping nature capi-
tal. The VA of agriculture is largely over- estimated as it hides
a value extracted from our collective net asset. For the US,
Muller et al. (2011) estimate the gross external damages of
agriculture up to 38 % of the VA.
15 Although, it can be argued that the EU is a net exporter of agricultural
products and food, that does not include the direct and indirect depend-
ency on fossil fuels which is nearly entirely imported.

87
Peeters et al . (2020) · LANDBAUFORSCH · J Sustainable Organic Agric Syst · 70(2):83–93
c) “to stabilise markets”;
Prices for agricultural inputs and outputs are largely
globalised,
and the CAP has little inuence on them. How-
ever, by favouring a specialised agribusiness mode l that com-
petes globally rather than favouring mixed farms to
meet
local demand and support local communities, the CAP has
exposed an increasing share of farmers to uc tuations in
world prices. Farmers nd themselves “price takers” in the
face of highly concentrated sectors upstream (seeds, fer-
tilisers, equipment) and downstream (purchasing centres
from retailers and processing industries). This has con trib-
uted to a much faster increase in input prices relative to that
of agricultural products, and thus to the erosion of farmers'
incomes. Over the last three decades, the output price indi-
ces progressed by an average of 1.1 % per year, while the
price of most of the inputs increased by around 3 % yearly
(own calculations on the basis of data from IMF, World Bank,
USDA, Eurostat, Fertilizer International). The deterioration
of the “terms of trade” for farmers is illustrated by the con-
trast between evolution of the VA in volumes which grew
steadily over the last two decades by around 0.7 % p.a.,
while the VA deated by the consumer prices declined by
around -0,8 % p.a. over the same period (Eurostat, 2020b).
It should be noted, that after a strong decline in the rst
decade it star ted to recover between 2010 and 2018, thanks
to the reduction of the intermediate consumption which
peaked at 57.7 % of the production in 2009 to decline to
54.1 % in 2018.
d) “to assure the stability of supplies”;
Supply security goes hand in hand with the resilience of
the sector. While there is a strong decline in environmental
resilience (see section 1.1), economic resilience also raises
questions both at the farm and macroeconomic levels. At
the micro level, the resilience of specialised farms (which
are by denition very simplied in terms of products, and
exposed to price uctuations as explained above), is inevi-
tably lower, as evidenced by repeated crises in multiple
sub-sectors. At the macro level, the massive dependence of
the production mo del on fossil fuels almost entirely im p ort-
ed from a limited number of non-European regions makes
security of supply very precarious in the event of geopoliti-
cal or other crises especially in the Middle East or Russia
(Darnhofer, 2014).
e) “to assure that supplies reach consumers at reasonable
pr ices”.
The CAP has certainly helped to reduce the cost of food
for consumers in the available income of European house-
holds. However, downward pressure on prices has contrib-
uted to the development of production methods that have
favoured the quantity and standardisation of products at
the expense not only of the environment, but also of the
nutrition al quality of the products (see section 1.1.4). On the
other
hand, it would be natural that farmers receive a fair
price for their products.
1.3 Social and societal aspects
Among the priorities of the European Commission for the
future CAP for the 2021–27 period (EC, 2018), priorities 1, 3, 7, 8
and 9 (see section 1.1) are related to social and societal topics.
The social question in agriculture is strongly related to
the protability of farming activities and with risk percep-
tion especially by young farmers. Moreover, access to land
is dicult for young farmers. The average farmers’ age in the
EU is close to 55 years. There is a great lack of generational
renewal (European Parliament, 2020). The number of farmer s
is thus still declining very f ast (Eurostat, 2018). The number of
farms in the EU decreased for instance by about 30 % in the
short perio d between 2005 and 2016 (Eurostat, 2020c). There
is a high risk that in 5 to 10 years’ time the number of family
farms will be extremely low in the EU.
1.4 Recent developments
Compared to the former CAP, the current proposition of
the European Commission introduced the concept of ‘eco-
schemes’ on top of the existing conditionality rules of the
1st pillar. These eco-schemes complete the range of the
‘agro-environmental and climate measures’ of the 2nd pillar.
The support to organic farming is now included in the eco-
schemes. They include also supports to agroforestry, carbon
farming, precision farming, and a package of measures such
as enhanced crop rotation, bet ter fertilisation, and the imple-
mentation of an ecological network on the farm.
The new, enhanced version of conditionalit y is presented
as essential for mitigating climate change, conserving biodi-
ver sity, protecting wetlands and peatlands, improving animal
welfare and food safety.
If the reform of conditionalit y and the introduction of the
concept of eco-schemes are steps forward for more sustain-
able systems, they don’t adopt a holistic approach and are
thus not sucient for implementing agroecological sys tems.
The revival of farm independent advisory services is cer-
tainly very positive on the condition that advices stimulates
farmers to move into the right direction.
Another positive objective is the attempt to build a fairer
subsidy distribution system for reducing the inequalities of
the current system (about 80 % of the amount of subsidies are
distributed to about only 20 % of all beneciaries). The pro-
ject is to achieve this objective by the capping of subsidies at
100.000 Euro/year per farm in order to better support small
and medium-size farms. Although this objective is laudable,
it is unlikely that it will be sucient for reversing the trend of
the fast farmers’ population decline.
The CAP has to contribute at least 40 % of climate- related
expenditure. However, without a system change the con-
crete impact on the mitigation of climate change will be
modest. Without this change, fossil fuel consumption for the
synthesis of nitrogen fertiliser and for agricultural machines
for instance, will not be suciently reduced. Not enough
carbon
will be sequestered in agricultural soils. The trend of
carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions will be maintained
or even increased.
The latitude for member states to largely adapt the
European Commission proposals through their national

88
Peeters et al . (2020) · LANDBAUFORSCH · J Sustainable Organic Agric Syst · 70(2):83–93
CAP strategic plans is likely to decrease the eciency of the
CAP reform proposal given the lack of enthusiasm of certain
member states to improve the impact of their agricultural
systems on the environment.
The ‘Farm to Fork strategy’ of the Green Deal aims at
developing a fairer, healthier and more environmentally
friendly food system. With regard to food quality and the
stimulation of food processing and retailing by farmers, only
an ‘Action Plan’ has been drafted at this stage. An implemen-
tation and nanced programme has still to be designed and
adopted.
2 The principles and goals of the reform
2.1 The guiding principles
In 1992, the CAP was radically reformed to integrate the
rules of international trade and avoid the perverse eects of
the previous policy, including surplus production. Support
mechanisms through minimum prices have been replaced
by direct aid, mainly per hectare and livestock head.
The perverse eects of the current policy, despite some
corrections introduced sin ce then, must lead to a new reform
of the same magnitude. It must also be part of the Union's
objectives set out in the Green Deal in terms of carbon
neutral ity by 2050, safeguarding biodiversity, reducing the
use of agrochemicals and synthetic fertilisers, and the nutri-
tional quality of production accessible to all.
The two overarching principles of the reform proposed
in this paper should be:
First: “Do not harm”, the cornerstone of the European
Green Deal. This means that all the current measures of the
CAP that induce unsustainable production models or b ehav-
iours should be phased out.
Second: “Public money for public good”. Taxpayers’
money
should not be used for supporting the production of
marketable goods or services, as it introduces market distor-
tions and biases in the produc tion modes. Marketable goods
and services should be paid by market prices. This should be
helped by favouring production for local markets and value
added and dierentiated pro ducts. Taxpayers’ money should
be essentially, if not exclusively, used to support the produc-
tion of public goods such as biodiversity, healthy soils, clean
water and air, healthy food, diversied landscapes. A real pro-
duction of public goods by farmers, that is not remunerated
by the market, is expected. This public good production is
also a positive element for agricultural production as it con-
serves and restores agricultural biodiversity and soil fertility.
2.2 The main goals of the reform proposed
The main objectives of the CAP as stipulated in Article 39
of the TFEU remain valid and should not be forgotten. They
should be implemented with the following additional features
to fully embed the sustainability dimension.
2.2.1 Ecologically based agriculture
Climate and biodiversity crises must be taken into account in
a new European agricultural and food model. Soil will need
to be regenerated by sequestering carbon (Freibauer et al.,
2004), improving fertility and increasing their microbial, o-
ral and faunal diversity. This will have the positive eect of
controlling pathogens and reducing disease as well as better
coping with more frequent and intense weather anomalies.
Habitats and agricultural, functional and heritage biodiver-
sity will need to be restored and conserved. This will reduce
pest populations. All of this will support mitigation of climate
change and increase the resilience of agricultural systems to
extreme weather events.
Transformed as such, agriculture will become m ore resili-
ent and crop yield could be maintained. Nevertheless, agri-
culture will also have to become less reliant on fossil fuel. It
will have to reduce drastically the use of synthetic fertilisers
and agrochemicals, and of livestock feed imported from
other
continents, mostly produced in unsustainable ways. It
will have to sell most of its products in short and local food
supply chains.
2.2.2 Agricultural aid, climate and biodiversity
The time has come to no longer pay farmers to practice their
job according to a business-as-usual model because the pric-
ing mechanisms do not allow them to be paid suciently
and fairly for their work. Agricultural aids should be paid on
the basis of the production of common (or private) goods
enjoyed by society as a whole, namely ecosystem services
and biodiversity. This would make sense to taxpayers and
give agriculture new prospects.
The European Green Deal stipulates that “European
farmers and shermen are key to managing the transition.
The Farm to Fork Strategy will strengthen their eorts to
tackle climate change, protec t the environment and preserve
bio di ver sit y. The common agricultural and common sheries
policies will remain key tools to support these eorts while
ensuring a decent living for farmers, shermen and their
families”.
The Commission’s proposals for the Common Agri-
cultural Policy for 2021 to 2027 stipulate that “at least 40 % of
the common agricultural policy’s overall budget and at least
30 % of the Maritime Fisheries Fund would contribute to cli-
mate action” (EC, 2019).
2.2.3 Maintaining family farms and vibrant
rural communities
Creating new perspectives for European family farms would
require increasing their protabilit y by decreasing production
costs, especially those of commercial inputs, and increasing
revenue by targeting quality products, by processing the
products and selling them in short and local supply chains,
at least partly. Complementary activities such as agritourism
or part-time jobs are also possible solutions. Decreasing input
use is feasible by replacing fossil-fuel based products by the
ecosystem services provided by biodiversity (e.g. nitrogen fer-
tilisers by biologically xed nitrogen by legumes, in sec ti cides
by natural enemies of crop pests). This is perfectly possible
since species of the agroecosystem can biologically
x large
amounts of nitrogen, can re gulate weeds, pests and dis eas es,
support recycling of nutrients, and secure pollination and
other vital functions. This requires the strong development
of agroecological practices (Wezel et al., 2014) on large scales

89
Peeters et al . (2020) · LANDBAUFORSCH · J Sustainable Organic Agric Syst · 70(2):83–93
for the restoration of soil life with reduced or no-tillage; con-
tinu ous soil cover; direct seeding into cover crops; the devel-
opment of a dense ecological network (such as herbaceous
strips or hedges); the choice of climate-resilient crop species,
cultivars and mixtures; intercropping (including agroforestr y);
long and diversied crop rotations; crop/livestock integration;
rotational grazing; and the use of low-demanding livestock
breeds that can transform grass into meat, eggs and dairy
products.
Adopting these practices, measures and strategies would
greatly facilitate the transmission of farms to the next gen-
era tion, but would also stimulate the creation of jobs in re lat-
ed processing and marketing activities. Maintaining farms in
rural areas is also an opportunity to develop new ac tivities in
these areas if economic activities are re-localised, thus also
contributing to the social revitalis ation of rural territories and
therefore to rural development.
Since small-scale family farms get much less support
than large industrial farms while they create more jobs per
hectare, this trend should be counteracted by an adequate
mechanism, supporting people and not hectares.
2.2.4 The systemic approach of agroecology
Dealing with crises, developing a system that is truly up to
the challenge and adopting a systemic approach is essen-
tial. Only this approach can, with the support of analytical
approaches, respond to the above-mentioned stringent
issues. This approach should integrate environmental, social
and economic components while being technically realistic.
With regard to the restoration of biodiversity, this ecologi-
cally based system should provide favourable conditions for
life forms on the entire agricultural area and not only on a
limited area of land.
This system approach exists, and its name is agroecology.
It has been dened by the Food and Agriculture Organiza-
tion
of the United Nations (FAO) in its memorandum “The
10Elements of Agroecology” (FAO, 2018) and, in an even
more detailed manner, in the report of a FAO High-Level
Panel of Experts on food security and nutrition (HLPE, 2019).
Agro ecology became increasingly institutionalised within
United Nations Organizations (Loconto and Fouilleux, 2019).
The agroecological approach redesigns the conventional
agricultural system based on the principle that the role of
external inputs can be replaced, or at least strongly reduced,
by ecological processes, while production levels can be
maintained.
Thanks to its systemic approach explained above, agro-
ecological systems are often more protable than industrial
agriculture as recently shown by a panel o f around thirty Euro-
pean scientists (van der Ploeg et al., 2019).
Other agricultural systems or techniques are related to
agroecology, such as organic farming, biodynamic agricul-
ture, permaculture, conservation agriculture, agroforestry,
low- in put agriculture, carbon farming, or integrated pest
control. The most widespread and known system, organ-
ic
farming, may be represented by farms that are more or
less agro eco logi cal because they adopt agroecology prin-
ciples to a vari able extent.
Organic farms are recognised as
organic because
they respect the ocial organic specica-
tions under a label, and which gives them access to higher
subsidies and usually higher prices for their products. The
respect of these rules is certainly not always sucient for
concluding that a farm is agroecological, but it is widely
acknowledged that organic farming contributed signi-
cantly to the implementation of more sustainable agricul-
tural systems well beyond the boundaries of this system
(EC, 2019). In contrast, there is no agroecological label, yet.
Agroecology is a process of pro gress based on a progressive
adoption of the complete set of agroecological principles. It
is the systemic combination of specic practices related to
the set of principles that generates the characteristics and
results described above.
3 Measures for an agroecological CAP
3.1 Support people not hectares
Current subsidies to European agriculture have led to a very
strong distortion of the relative costs of production factors
in favour of surface, energy and capital intensity and against
labour. This distortion has led to highl y extractive and un sus-
tain able production models which also contribute to job
redundancy, unemployment and overexploitation of socially
weaker workers. That is a clear breach to the “Do not harm”
principle. Just as the energy transition begins with the phas-
ing out of fossil fuel subsidies, the new CAP must abandon
subsidies to unsustainable practices and/or conicting with
the EU's environmental and social objectives.
In general, agricultural practices compatible with
respect for the environment, the ght against climate
change, short circuit feeding, etc. are more labour inten-
sive. It is therefore counterproductive to maintain a policy
that subsidises most factors of production except the most
crucial one: labour.
The replacement of subsidies per hectare (or per live-
stock head) with a base income per FTE would correct this
dis tor tion, at least partially, given the usual social and income
tax levies. This base income would be conditional on strict
compliance with environmental rules, to a declared activity
on a farm.
This base income could be nanced n ot only by the phas-
ing out of the current pillar 1 subsidies that are distributed
on a surface basis, but also by the introduction of charges on
practices that contribute to depleting our common natural
capital (use of agrochemical or chemical fertiliser s), based on
the “polluter pays” principle.
In addition, innovative approaches could be developed
to sustain the thousands of seasonal workers employed in
agriculture that are living in precarious conditions.
3.2 Public money to produce public goods
European agriculture provides, o r has the potential to provide,
public (or common) goods that benet society as a whole.
Among these, the three main publi c goods are the sequestra-
tion of carbon in agricultural soils, the restoration of rural
biodiversity and the development of the ecological network
that structures landscapes.

90
Peeters et al . (2020) · LANDBAUFORSCH · J Sustainable Organic Agric Syst · 70(2):83–93
Ecosystem services are declining, and they are better pro-
vided by small-scale farms in a heterogeneous landscape
matrix (Perfecto and Vandermeer, 2010). However, small-scale
family farms get much less supp ort than large industrial farms.
This would be corrected by the basic farmer
income proposed
in section 3.1, strongly conditioned on good environmental
practices, including on compliance with reduction of nutrient
excess and pesticide dependency.
As a complement to the former measure (see section 3.1),
replacing EU and national current subsidies per hectare or by
livestock head by direct p ayments for the produc tion of public
goods in the context of a quali ty food production would give
meaning to the CAP. From the farmers' point of view, they
would no longer be paid to do th eir ordinary job only, as seen
to provide high yields for dierent commodities. The present
monetary supp ort is a kind of assistance because of the insuf-
cient protability of their activity. The future should be the
production of common goods that are not otherwise paid
because they are not marketable. From the citizens' point of
view, their taxes will no longer be spent to the bottom of a
prot to subsidise a declining sector but for the actual pro-
duction of public goods which they can enjoy and prot
concretely in a long-term perspective
.
The payment per ton of carbon sequestered in soils can
be based on two alternative systems: periodic an d geo-local-
ised analysis of soil carbon content or the adoption of a fairly
simple grid that assesses carbon sequestration on the basis
of agricultural practices. When these amounts of carbon are
assessed, a value must be assigned to the ton of carbon
that
is high enough to motivate farmers to opt for sustainable
practices (Eco-Logic et al., 2020). The subsidies would be
reverted in case of reversal of the practices, in application of
the polluter-payer principle.
The payment based on the length, the density and
quality of ecological networks is easy to implement. These
data can be measured by a combination of aerial detection
(remote sensing) and eld record. Then a price mus t be given
to the quantity of each type of habitat.
Several agricultural practices, in particular various agro-
ecological practices, that sequester carbon in soils are also
those that restore, conserve or enhance soil and above-
ground biodiversity. Moreover, the development of the eco-
logical network is the basis for the recovery of biodiversity
that could spread above the soil surf ace. However, addi tional
measures in favour of biodiversity are to be foreseen for the
conservation of certain habitats or species. Moreover, the
current agro-environmental schemes provide a good basis
for pricing these measures.
All these public good related measures supported by
direct payments have the potential to improve net income
of farmers and resilience of the agricultural production. The
two previous main measures, “Support people not hectares”
and “Public money for public goods”, constitute the two pil-
lars of the reform proposal. The rst one aims at stabilising
farmer’s populations and should thus be seen as transitional.
It should be abolished when the objective is reached, the sec-
ond
measure becoming the central one. The main measures
have to be completed by accompa nying measures.
3.3 Other measures supporting the transition
towards agroecology
Even if agroecological farming appears to be more pro table
than industrial agriculture on the medium-term (van der Ploeg
et al., 2019),
farmers who want to convert to agroecological
farming face diculties in the rst years. They have to make
new investments, while soil fertility restoration and adap-
tation of cropping practices take time, and new markets
have to be developed. New tools adapted to agroecologi-
cal systems
and practices are needed. Transition towards a
new system is thus dicult and risky.
The implementation of a training network with well-
trained advisers in tr ansition towards agroecological systems
is therefore essential. Their role would be to mentor farmers’
groups. They will help the majority of farmers to avoid the
mistakes of the pioneers of agroecology. They will facilitate
and speed up the transition and adaptation of agroecologi-
cal practices to the local pedo-climatic and socio-economic
context.
A network of innovative agroecological farms should be
set up and promoted. These farms could be used as “agro-
ecological lighthouses from which principles may radiate
out to local communities, helping them to build the basis of
an agricultural strategy that promotes eciency, diversity,
syner gy, and resiliency” (Nicholls and Altieri, 2018).
The reduction of current subsidies for large machines
and buildings will free nancial means for the creation of a
new fund for facilitating the development and purchase of
agroecological tools and equipment.
Creating land banks (inspired by the French “SAFER”
16
and other examples) at European scale or in all member
states would facilitate young and small f armers to buy or rent
land on the basis of a project that is relevant and consist ent
with the goals of the ‘Green Deal’ and the future ‘Farm to
Fork’ programme.
All the previous supporting measures should be co-
nanced
by member states.
In coherence with the Green Deal, the CAP should be
coordi nated with other policies. Th e context and the ration -
ale of this cross-cutting approach cannot be described and
justied in this document. It can just be said that this coordi -
nation between the CAP and other policies and the private
sector is necessary for questions of policy coherence and
eciency.
The phasing out of subsidies on fossil energy and external
inputs should be implemented in coordination with other EU
policies and the phasing out of loans to fossil fuel extraction
and to industrial nitrogen xation in coordination with the
private sector (notably banks).
The CAP should also be coordinated with public health
policies and the private sector for reducing food waste and
combat obesity, malnutrition, and relate d non-communicable
diseases.
16 www.safer.fr

91
Peeters et al . (2020) · LANDBAUFORSCH · J Sustainable Organic Agric Syst · 70(2):83–93
4 Conclusion
The policy proposed in this paper should result in a better
distribution of income for farmers and overall a better mar-
gin for their activities. The public good production would be
supported by taxpayer money, while food production mar-
gins would benet from the reduction of costly inputs while
the reorientation of the pro duction toward quality products,
local markets and value productions should result in better
prices. Increasing the share of the production devoted to the
local market and alternative distribution channels, would
increase the contractual power of farmers as relative to con-
centrated industrial buyers. Overall, the exposure to the vola -
til ity of world prices would be signicantly mitigated.
The value for the nal consumer would increase in line
with the improved nutritional quality of the products. This
should not necessarily be seen as a negative issue under-
mining people’s spending power. It should rather be seen
as an opportunity to rebalance distribution of added value
along the food supply chain, while providing consumers
with
acceptable price, better quality food which is value for
money,
empowering them, and reducing food waste. First,
fair distribution of added value and adequate remuneration
of
farmers will be favoured by short food suppl y chains typi cal
of agroecological production. Second, increased supply of
high quality, local and seasonal fo od will favour rebalancing
of food oer and supply thereby diminishing food waste
.
Third, fostering agroecological food systems will (re)educate
consumers towards values like seasonality of production or
avoidance of mass purchase of non-fresh and overly pro-
cessed food, and make them aware that they can play an
active role in fostering local socio-economic wealth, and in
sustaining their own and environmental health. In this way,
consumers will also learn what is the dark side of cheap food
(unbalanced added value distribution, unfair remuneration
of farmers, environmental degradation, borderline or illegal
exploitation of seasonal and migrant work).
Lastly, as negative externalities of the present industrial
agricultural systems are paid currently by taxpayers, re duc-
ing them will allow reducing needed taxes (to fund also the
CAP and health care systems) which could counterbalance
the potential increase of nal food prices for consumers as
mentioned above.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the LIFE Program of the European Union
and the Fondation de France which nancially supported
Agroecology Europe. We highly ackn owledge the comments
and correction of the three reviewers of this paper which
strongly helped to improve the paper.
REFERENCES
Agri-Foo d Data Portal (2018) Environment and Cl imate Action (Summary)–
(EU27) – European Unio n 27 (excluding UK ) [online]. Retrieved fro m
<https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/En-
vironment.html> [at 01 Dec 2020]
Alfaia CPM, Al ves SP, Martins SIV, Costa ASH , Fontes CMG, Lemos JPC , Bessa
RJB, Prate s JAM (2009) Eect of the fe eding system on intram uscular
fatty a cids and conjugated lino leic acid isomers of b eef cattle, with
emphasis on their nutritional value and discriminatory ability.
Food
Chem 114(3):939–946, doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2008.10.041
Altieri MA , Nicholls CI, Henao A , Lana MA (2015) Agroecology and the de sign
of
climate chang e-resilient farm ing systems. Agron Sus tain Dev 35:
869–89 0, doi:10.1007/s13593- 015- 028 5-2
Anomaly J (2015) What’s wron g with factory far ming? Public Health Eth 8(3):
246 –254, doi:10.1093/phe/phu001
Bellamy PH, Love land PJ, Bradley RI , Lark RM, Kirk GJD (20 05) Carbon losses
from all soil s across England and Wales 1978–2003. Natur e 437:245–248
,
doi:10.1038/nature04038
Crawley K (2015) Fullling 100 % organic pig diet s: Feeding roughage a nd
foraging f rom the range [online]. ICOPP Technica l note 4, 4 p. Retrieved
from <https://www.agricology.co.uk/sites/default/les/ICOPP_Techni-
cal_ Note_4.pdf> [at 23 Dec 2020]
Darnhofer I (2014) Resilien ce and why it matters for f arm management.
Eur Rev Agric Econ 41(3):
461– 484 , doi:10.1093/erae/jbu012
Davis H, Chatz idimitriou E, Leife rt C , Butler G (2020) Evidence tha t forage-
fed cows can enhance milk quality. Sustainability 12(9):3688,
doi:10.3 39 0/s u120 9368 8
Dubus IG, H ollis JM, Brown CD (2000) Pe sticides in rainfall in Eu rope. Environ
Pollut
110(2):331–344, doi:10.1016/S0269 -7491(99)00295 -X
D’Silva J (200 6) Adverse impact of in dustrial animal agric ulture on the
health
and welfare o f farmed animals. Inte gr Zool 1(1):53–58, do i :1 0 .1111/ j
.1749 -
4877.2006.00013.x
EC, Europea n Commission (2018) EU Budget: the Common Ag ricultural Policy
beyond 2020 [online]. Fac t Sheet, 8 p. Retrieved f rom <https://ec.europa.
eu/
commission/presscorner/detail/en/MEMO_18_3974> [at 23 Dec 2020]
EC, Europea n Commission (2019) The European Green D eal. Communication
from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council,
the European E conomic and Social Commi ttee and the Commit tee of
the Region s [online]. 24 p. Retri eved from <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/
legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2019:640:FIN> [at 23 Dec 2020]
Eco-Log ic, COWI, IEEP (2020) Carbon farm ing schemes in Europe – Ro undtable.
Background document [online]. European Commission, Directorate-
general Cli mate Action, 23 p. Retri eved from <https://www.ecologic.
eu/sites/les/presentation/2019/cf_roundtable_background_041
02019_nal.pdf> [at 23 Dec 2020]
EFSA, Europea n Food Safety Autho rity (2008) Scienti c report on the eec ts
of farming s ystems on dairy cow wel fare and disease. Rep ort of the
Panel on anima l health and Welfare. Anne x EFSA J 1143)1–38,
doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1143r
EU, European Unio n (2000) Council Direc tive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 200 0 on
protective measures against the introduction into the Community of
or
ganisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread
within the Com munity (Article 35) [onlin e]. OJ L 169, 10.7.2000, 112 p. Re-
trieved fro m <http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2000/29/oj> [at 23 Dec 2020]
EU, European Unio n (2016) Consolidated ver sion of the Treaty on the Func-
tion ing of the European Un ion [online]. C 202, 7.6.2016, 388 p. Retrieved
from <http://data.europa.eu/eli/treaty/tfeu_2016/oj> [at 23 Dec 2020]
European Envi ronment Agency (2018) Chemicals in Eur opean water. Knowl-
edge devel opments [online]. EEA Rep ort 18, 76 p. Retrieved from
<https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/chemicals-in-europe-
an-waters>
European Parl iament (2020) Demographic o utlook for the Europe an Union
2020 [online]. Retriev ed from <https://www.europarl.europa.eu/Reg-
Data/etudes/STUD/2020/646181/EPRS_STU(2020)646181_EN.pdf>
[at 23 Dec 2020]
Eurostat (2013) Agri-envir onmental indicator – p esticide pollutio n of water
[online]. Retrie ved from <http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-ex-
plained/index.php/Archive:Agri-environmental_indicator_-_pesticide_
pollution_of_water> [16 March 2018]
Eurostat (2018) Agricultur e, forestry and she ry statistics – 2018 edition .
Luxembour g: Publications Oce of th e European Union, 195 p,
doi:10.2785/340432
Eurostat (2019) Agri-env ironmental indicato r – consumption of pestic ides
[online]. Retrie ved from <https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-ex-

92
Peeters et al . (2020) · LANDBAUFORSCH · J Sustainable Organic Agric Syst · 70(2):83–93
plained/index.php?title=Agri-environmental_indicator_-_consump-
tion_of_pesticides> [at 23 Dec 2020]
Eurostat (2020a) Pesti cide sales [online]. Retri eved from <https://ec.eu-
ropa.eu/euro stat/web/products-datasets/-/aei_fm_salpest09>
[at 27 Nov 2020]
Eurostat (2020b) Dat a from EU 10 western countries (BE , DK, GR, IE, SP, IT, FR,
NL, AU, PO) [online]. Retr ieved from <https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/>
[at 27 Nov 2020]
Eurostat (2020c) Farms a nd farmland in the Europ ean Union – statistics [on -
line]. Retriev ed from <https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-ex-
plained/index.php/Farms_and_farmland_in_the_European_Union_-_
statistics#The_evolution_of_farms_and_farmland_from_ 2005_
to_ 2016> [at 27 Nov 2020]
FAO (2018) The 10 elements o f agroecology. Guidin g the transition to susta in-
able
food and agr icultural systems [onl ine]. Rome: FAO, 15 p. Retrieved
from: <http://www.fao.org/3/i9037en/i9037en .pdf> [at 01 Dec 2020)
Freibauer A , Rounsevell MDA, Smith P, Verhagen J (2004) C arbon sequestra -
tion in the agr icultural soils of Europ e. Geoderma 122(1):1–23,
doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2004.01.021
French P, Stanton C, Lawless F, O’Rio rdan EG, Monahan FJ, Carey PJ, Moloney
AP (2000) Fatt y acid composition, in cluding conjugated lino leic acid, of
intramuscu lar fat from steers o ered grazed grass, gr ass silage, or con-
centrate- based diets. J Anim S ci 78(11):2849–2855, doi:10.2527/ 2000.
78 112 8 49x
Gobin A, C ampling P, Janssen L, D esmet N, van Delden H, H urkens J, Lavelle P,
Berman S (2011) Soil organic matter man agement across the EU – bes t
practice s, constraints and tra de-os. Final R eport for the Europ ean Com-
mission's
DG Environme nt, 150 p, doi:10.2779/17252
Goidts E, Van Wes emael B (2007) Regional a ssessment of soil organi c carbon
changes und er agriculture in South ern Belgium (1955–2005). Geoderma
141(3 –4): 341–35 4, doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2007.06.013
Heinberg R , Bomford M (2009) The fo od and farming transi tion: Toward a
post-car bon food system. S ebastopol, USA: Post C arbon Institute, 41 p
Henle K, A lard D, Clitherow J, Cobb P, Firbank L, Kull T, McCracke n D, Moritz
RFA, Niemelä J, R ebane M, et al. (2008) Id entifying and man aging the
conicts b etween agricult ure and biodiversit y conservation in Eur ope –
A review. Agric Ecos yst Environ 124(1–2):60–71, doi:10.1016/j.
agee.2007.09.005
Hiederer R (2018) Data eval uation of LUCAS soil comp onent laborator y 2009
to 2015 data for soil organic c arbon [online]. JRC Technical re port:
JRC1 12711.
Retrieved f rom <https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/public_
path/shared_folder/JRC112711_lucas_oc_data_evaluation_nal.pdf>
[at 01 Dec 2020]
HLPE (2019) Agroecologica l and other innovative app roaches for sustaina ble
agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition.
A report b y the High Level Panel of Ex perts on Food Se curity and Nutri-
tion of the Comm ittee on World Food Se curity. Rome: HLPE c/o FAO,
163 p. Retrieved fro m <http://www.fao.org/3/ca5602en/ca5602en.pdf>
[at 1 Dec 2020]
Iglesias A , Quiroga S, Moneo M, G arrote L (2012) From climate chang e im-
pacts
to the development of adaptation strategies: Challenges for agri-
culture in Euro pe. Climatic Change 112:143–68, do i:10.10 07/s1058 4-011-
0344-x
Johnson CK , Hitchens PL, Pandit PS, R ushmore J, Evans TS, Young CCW, Doyle
MM (2020)
Global shifts in mammalian population trends reveal key
predict ors of virus spillover ris k. Proc R Soc B 287(1924):20192736,
doi:10.1098/rspb.2019.2736
Jones A, Pa nagos P, Barcelo S, Bour aoui F, Bosco C, Dewi tte O, Gardi C, Er-
hard M, Her vás J, Hiederer R, e t al. (2011) The state of s oil in Europe.
A contributi on of the JRC to the EEA Environ ment State and Outlook
Repor t – SOER 2010, doi:10.2788/77361
Kleijn D, Baqu ero RA, Clough Y, Díaz M, De E steban J, Fernández F, Gabrie l D,
Herzog F, Holzs chuh A, Jöhl R, et al. (20 06) Mixed biodivers ity benets
of agri- environment schemes i n ve European countries . Ecol Lett 9(3):-
243–2 54, doi:10 .1111/j.14 61- 0 248.20 0 5 . 0 0 8 69. x
Krištof K , Šima T, Nozdrovický L, Findu ra P (2014) The eect of s oil tillage
inten sity on carbon d ioxide emissions rele ased from soil into the at-
mo sph ere . Ag ron omy Res ear ch 12( 1):115–12 0
Kyriakou V, Garagoun is I, Vourros A, Vasileiou E, Sto ukides M (2020) An electro -
chemical Ha ber-Bosch Process. J oule 4(1):142–158, doi:10.1016/j.
joule.2019.10.006
Lal R (2004) So il carbon sequestr ation impacts on gl obal climate change
and food se curity. Science 304(5677):1623–1627, doi:10.1126/sci-
ence.1097396
Lamichhan e JR, Messéan A, Ri cci P (2019) Research and innov ation priorities
as dened by th e Ecophyto plan to addre ss current crop protec tion
transfor mation challenges in Fran ce. Chapter Two. Adv Agron 154:81–
152, doi:10.1016 /bs .a gron. 2018.11.00 3
Loconto AM, Fo uilleux E (2019) Dening agroecolo gy: Exploring th e circula-
tion of know ledge in FAO’s Global Dialogu e. Int J Sociol Agric Food 2 5
(2 ):116 –13 7, doi:10.48 416/ijsaf.v25i2.27
Marles R J (2017) Mineral nutrient co mposition of veget ables, fruits and
grains: The co ntext of report s of apparent historic al declines. J Food
Compos Anal 56:93–103, doi:10.1016/j.jfca.2016.11.012
Maxwel l SL, Fuller RA, Brook s TM, Watson JE (2016) Biodiversit y: The ravages
of guns,
nets and bul ldozers. Nature News 536( 7615): 143–145,
doi:10.1038/536143 a
Mayer AM (1997) Historica l changes in the mineral co ntent of fruits and veg -
etables.
Brit Food J 99 (6):207–211, doi:10.1108/0007070 971018154 0
Mission Boa rd for Soil health and fo od (2020) Caring for soil is cari ng for life.
Ensure 75 % of soils are healthy by 2030 f or healthy food, peop le, nature
and climate.
Interim Rep ort, 78 p, doi:10.2777/918775
Muller NZ, Me ndelsohn R, Nordh aus W (2011) Environmenta l accounting for
pollutio n in the United States economy. Am Econ R ev 101(5):1664,
doi:10 .1257/ae r.101.5.1649
Ndakide mi B, Mtei K, Ndakide mi PA (2016) Impacts of synth etic and botanical
pesticid es on benecial insec ts. Agric Sci 7(6):364–372, doi:10.4236/
as. 2016.76038
Neill SO, Hanra han K (2013) An analysis of the cap italisation of CAP pay ments
intoland rent al rates in Ireland [online]. Fac tor Markets, Working Pa per
68, 27 p. Retrie ved from <http://aei.pitt.edu/58612/1/Factor_Markets_
68.pdf> [at 23 Dec 2020]
Nicholls C , Altieri MA (2018) Pathways for the amplic ation of agroecolog y.
Agroecol Sus tain Food 42(10):1170–1193, doi:10.108 0/216835 65.2018 .
1499 578
Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (2020) European indicators
[online]. Retrie ved from <https://pecbms.info/trends-and-indicators/
indicators/> [at 01 Dec 2020]
Peeters A (2012) Past and future o f European grasslands . The challenge of
the CAP toward s 2020. In: Golinski P, Warda M, Stypinsk i P (eds) Grass-
land – a European resource? Poznán:Polish Grassland Society, Grass-
land Science i n Europe 17:17–32
Perfec to I, Vandermeer J (2010) The agroec ological matrix as alt ernative to
the land-s paring/agriculture in tensication model . PNAS USA 107(13):
5786–5791, doi:10.107 3/pnas .0905 455107
Pe’er G, Bonn A, B ruelheide H, Dieke r P, E isenhauer N, Feindt PH, H agedorn G,
Hansjürgens B , Herzon I, Lomba  , et al. (2020) Action needed f or the
EU Common Agricultural Policy to address sustainability challenges.
People Nat 2(2):305–316, doi:10.10 02/pan3.10080
Pe’er G, Dicks LV, Visconti P, Arletta z R, Báldi A, Benton TG , Collins S, Dieterich
M,
Gregor y RD, Hartig F, et al. (2014) EU agricultural reform f ails on bio-
diversity. Science 344(6188):1090–1092, doi:10.1126/sc ien ce .1253 425
Pe’er G, Lakne r S, Müller R, Passoni G , Bontzorlos V, Clough D, More ira F,
Azam C, B erger J, Bezak P, et al. (2017) Is the CAP t for purpos e? An evi-
dence-b ased tness-che ck assessment. Leipzi g: German Centre for In-
tegrative Bi odiversity Rese arch (iDiv), 20 p
Pe’Er G, Zinng rebe Y, Moreira F, Sirami C, Schindler S , Müller R, Bontzor los V,
Clough D, Bez ák P, Bonn A, et al. (2019) A greener path fo r the EU Com-
mon
Agricultural Policy. Science 365(6452):449–451, doi:10.1126/sci-
ence. aax 3146
Pimentel D, Heic hel GH (1991) Energy ecienc y and sustainabilit y of farming
systems. I n: Lal R, Pierce FJ (eds) Soil management f or sustainabilit y.
Ankeney, USA: Soil an d Water Conservation so ciety, 113–123 ref. 42
Reicosk y DC (1997) Tillage- induced CO2 emission fr om soil. Nutr Cycl Agro-
ecosyst 49: 273–285, doi :10.1023/A:100 9766510274
Saini RK, K eum YS (2018) Omega-3 and om ega-6 polyu nsaturated fatt y acids:
Dietar y sources, metaboli sm, and signicance – A rev iew. Life Sci 203:
25 5– 267, doi:10.1016/j.lfs.2018.04.049

93
Peeters et al . (2020) · LANDBAUFORSCH · J Sustainable Organic Agric Syst · 70(2):83–93
Sattensp iel L (2001) Tropical environm ents, human activi ties, and the trans-
mission
of infect ious diseases. Am J Phys Anthr opol 113(S31)3–31,
doi:10.1002/1096-8644(2000)43:31+<3::AID-AJPA2>3.0.CO;2-Z
Stoate C, Bald i A, Beja P, Boatman ND, He rzon I, van Doorn A , de Snoo GR,
Rakosy L, Ra mwell C (2009) Ecological im pacts of early 21st century ag ri-
cultural
change in Europ e – A review. J Environ Manage 91(1):22–46,
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.07.005
Stoate C, Boat man ND, Borralho R, Rio C arvalho C, de Snoo G , Eden P (2001)
Ecologica l impacts of arable i ntensication in Europe . J Environ Manage
63(4):337–365, doi:10.1006/jema.2001.047
Stødkilde L , Damborg VK, Jørg ensen H, Laerke HN, J ensen SK (2018) White
clover frac tions as protein source f or monogastrics: d ry matter digesti -
bility an d protein digestibili ty-correcte d amino acid scores. J Sci Fo od
Agric 98(7):2557–2563, doi:10.1002/jsf a. 8744
Swinburn BA , Kraak VI, Allender S , Atkins VJ, Baker PI, Bogard JR , Brinsden H,
Calvillo A , De Schutter O, Devara jan R, et al. (2019) The global synde mic
of obesity, undernutrition, and climate change: The Lancet Commission
report . Lancet 393(10173):791–846, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32822-8
Valenti D, Bert oni D, Cavicchioli D, Olper A (2020)The c apitalization of C AP
payments in to land rental prices: a gro uped xed-ee cts estimator.
Appl Econ Let t 1–6, doi:10.1080/13504851. 202 0.1749227
van der Ploe g JD, Barjolle D, Bruil J, Bruno ri G, Costa Madureir a LM, Dessein J,
Drąg Z, Fink-K essler A, Gasselin P, Gonzale z de Molina M, et al. (2019)
The econom ic potential of agroeco logy: Empirical ev idence from Eu-
rope. J Rural St ud 71:46– 61, doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.09.003
Wezel A, Cas agrande M, Celett e F, Vian JF, Ferrer A, Peigné J (2014) Agroeco-
logical
practice s for sustainable agr iculture. A review. Agron Sust ain
Dev 34:1–20, doi :10.1007/s13 593 - 013 - 018 0 -7
WHO/FAO (2002) Diet, nutr ition and the
prevention of chronic diseases:
report
of the joint WH O/FAO expert co nsultation, Geneva . WHO technical re-
port
series 916, 149 p. Retrieved f rom <https://www.who.int/dietphysi-
calactivity/publications/trs916/download/en/> [at 23 Dec 2020]}
Zander P, Amjath-Ba bu TS, Preissel S, Reck ling M, Bues A, Schlä fke N, Kuhl-
man T, Bachinger J, Ut hes S, Stoddard F, et al.(2016) Grain legume declin e
and potential recovery in European agriculture: a review. Agron Sustain
Dev 36(2):26, doi:10.1007/s13593- 016-0365 -y
OPEN ACCE SS
This arti cle is licensed under a Cre ative Commons Attribu tion 4.0 Internatio nal
License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
© The author (s) 2020