A Sustainable Food System needs to be implemented through a legal framework balancing measures concerning all the aspects of sustainability (the social, economic and environmental ones), as defined by the Farm to Fork strategy.

Since environmental issues are considered a structural part of CAP regulations, a special attention shall be paid both to social and economic sustainability of agricultural and food system, as fundamental pillars for a resilient and competitive development of the primary sector.

A new “social” approach of agricultural policy takes into consideration the position of farmers (in particular, a fair revenue of their activity) and workers involved in the agricultural sector (in particular, the rights to protection and safety at work). It also involves the comprehensive rural areas, ie the social context that represents the premise to reach environmental goals of sustainability in rural territories, realised by the farmers themselves as main actors of the rural economy.

Therefore, for the future of food law, a strategic consideration of the legal framework related to people working in agriculture and agri-food sector should concern two main aspects.

On one hand, the introduction of social conditionality, establishing compliance with labour law rules, including work safety and transparency of employment conditions in agricultural labour contracts in order to receive CAP subsidies – becomes a component of the process for “safe food” through an “ethical and legal food production.”

On the other hand, it is important to consider the improvement of life conditions and services in rural areas in favour of resident citizens, the attractiveness of young farmers as well as the implementing measures for an inclusive growth.

These aspects, which make up a “social sustainability model” in the agri-food chain are strongly linked together and require a comprehensive policy regulation. This policy perspective includes a new perception of entrepreneurs and workers employed in rural areas intended for the production of food and related to the environmental protection.

In Europe, uptake of multi-peril crop insurance remains limited, leading to discussions on premium subsidies. A study of 228 Saxony farmers investigated their attitudes and willingness to pay for a multi-peril crop insurance in 2022. Using a cluster analysis based on farmers’ satisfaction with current risk management as well as market supply of tools, perceived benefits of the insurance, and views on governmental intervention, four farmer segments were identified. Each showed varied attitudes toward insurance subsidies, willingness to pay, and farm characteristics. As an initial ex-ante study on this topic, the insights are invaluable for insurance providers and policy makers.

In search of a climate-neutral Europe, the EU Green Deal presented agroecology as an alternative guide for food system transitions through explicit policy and regulatory actions. While the term agroecology is used in Green Deal policy documents, its meaning remains elusive in both policymaking and academic legal research. To explore existing regulatory frameworks’ potential to align with agroecological perspectives for food system transitions, this article analyses pesticide regulation, a core area of agricultural governance, using an agroecological framework. This article aims to contribute to the current legal debate in two ways: it presents agroecology as a framework capable of guiding and assessing law and regulation and illustrates, via a study of EU pesticide regulation, how this framework can be deployed in practice to evaluate legal frameworks.

Agriculture provides many benefits to people, such as producing food and creating jobs in rural areas, but it can also have negative impacts on the environment. We analysed existing monitoring indicators for the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) to evaluate whether the CAP is effectively achieving multiple social and environmental goals. We found that the current CAP monitoring system is unable to balance many potentially competing goals because its indicators are biased towards a few objectives. We suggest the European Union and its Member States adopt a broader set of indicators covering clear targets when the policy is reformed after 2020.

This article assesses current and proposed European Union (EU) climate and environmental law, and the legal instruments associated with the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), to see whether soil carbon sequestration is sufficiently promoted as a promising example of ‘climate-smart agriculture’. The assessment shows that current and proposed policies and instruments are inadequate to stimulate large-scale adoption of soil carbon projects across Europe. Given the identified structural flaws, it is likely that this is true for all climate-smart agricultural practices. An alternative approach needs to be developed. Under EU climate policy, agriculture should be included in the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) by allowing regulated industries to buy offsets from the agricultural sector, following the examples set by Australia and others. The second element of a new approach is aimed at the CAP, which needs to be far more focused on the specific requirements of climate change mitigation and adaptation. Yet, such stronger focus does not take away the need to explore new income streams for farmers from offsets under the ETS, as the CAP will never have sufficient funds for the deep and full transition of Europe’s agriculture sector that is needed.

While multiple studies have identified land managers’ preferences for agri-environmental schemes (AES), few approaches exist for integrating different understandings of landscape stewardship into the design of these measures. We compared and contrasted rural land managers’ attitudes toward AES and their preferences for AES design beyond 2020 across different understandings of landscape stewardship. Forty semi-structured interviews were conducted with similar proportions of small holders, medium holders and large holders in southwest Devon, UK. Overall, respondents most frequently cited concerns related to the reduced amount of funding available for entry-level and higher-level stewardship schemes in the UK since 2008, changing funding priorities, perceived overstrict compliance and lack of support for farm succession and new entrants into farming. However, there were differences in concerns across understandings of landscape stewardship, with production respondents citing that AES do not encourage food production, whereas environmental and holistic farmers citing that AES do not support the development of a local green food culture and associated social infrastructure. These differences also emerged in preferences for AES design beyond 2020. We adapted a collaborative and coordinated approach for designing AES to account for the differing interests of land managers based on their understanding of landscape stewardship. We discuss the implications of this approach for environmental policy design in the European Union and elsewhere.

The European Union budget is small and fulfils only a limited range of functions, yet it provokes regular disputes among the Member States and institutions of the Union. This paper describes the structure of the budget and shows that standard theories, such as fiscal federalism, are not well-suited to analysing how the EU budget operates or the political economy behind it. The paper then looks at how much the UK contributes towards the EU budget and explains why some of the claims made about it in the public discourse are inaccurate.

The Common Agricultural Policy increases European poultry production costs, prohibits imports, increases domestic prices, and subsidizes exports. This policy has displaced some U.S. exports. However, the net impact in the U.S. has been quite modest, even assuming poultry is homogeneous, independent of source country. Costs to U.S. producers are almost entirely offset by gains to U.S. consumers. Effects in the U.S. are even smaller when imperfect substitutability between poultry from different countries is accounted for. A retaliatory U.S. export subsidy would have more dramatic effects in U.S. markets.

Unlike most parts of the European Union (EU), Southern Transylvania (Central Romania) is characterized by an exceptionally high level of farmland biodiversity. This results from traditional small-scale farming methods that have maintained extensive areas of high nature value farmland. Following the post-socialist transition, Southern Transylvania faces serious challenges such as under-employment and rural population decline, which put traditional farming at risk. With Romania's accession to the EU in 2007, Southern Transylvania became part of a complex multi-level governance system that in principle provides mechanisms to balance biodiversity conservation and rural development. To this end, the most important instruments are the ‘Natura 2000’ network of protected areas and EU rural development policy. Structured questionnaires and semi-structured interviews with town hall representatives from 30 villages in Southern Transylvania and local EU experts revealed that EU policies are often poorly aligned with local conditions. To date, the implementation of EU rural development policy is strongly focused on economic development, with biodiversity conservation being of little concern. Moreover, relevant EU funding opportunities are poorly communicated. Bridging organizations should be strengthened to foster the implementation of a rural development strategy that integrates local needs and biodiversity conservation.

In trade policy France ranks as one of the most protectionist countries in the European Union. From an outside perspective, the French attitude is usually explained as a consequence of the strength and influence of the agrarian lobby. The article argues that farm groups in France have lost their formerly privileged position and the power to pursue their interests politically. A closer look at domestic politics shows that agricultural reforms were successfully implemented against the opposition of the farm lobby during the last ten years. But at the same time, French policy-makers were keen to create the impression that they were unable to make concessions in international trade talks due to the resistance of the agricultural sector. The EU-Mercosur negotiations demonstrate how the French government fended off demands for liberalization using farm interests as bargaining chips.

Conservation projects around the world have been impeded by conflicting land uses. In Greece, although agriculture is considered to have significant impacts on wetlands and adversely to have affected conservation, the attitudes of Greek farmers to wetlands and conservation have not been assessed. Data on demographic variables of farm operators, characteristics of the farming operation, irrigation practices, attitudes towards environment and the wetland resources, knowledge on the impact of agriculture on the local environment and opinions on the Common Agricultural Policy reform, were collected through a survey using personal interviews from a random sample of 196 farmers operating in two wetlands, Lakes Mikri Prespa and Kerkini (Ramsar sites), and 141 farmers operating in a plain, in Macedonia, northern Greece.

Analysis of the data revealed that farmers practise crop and stock agriculture more intensively in wetlands than in the plain, and exploit wetland resources excessively. Hunting, fishing and wood harvesting are practised, and lake water is used intensively for irrigation by both groups of farmers, with no care for loss of the resources. Alternative methods of irrigation for improving efficiency of water use or alleviating hydrological pressures on the wetlands are not considered. Sustainability of agriculture is at risk as present practices result in impoverished soils, salinization of the fields and waste of water resources. Wetland farmers seemed to have a more negative attitude toward the wetland resources and seemed to be more ignorant of conservation issues or the impact of their practices on the environment than plain farmers. Moreover, their awareness and willingness to adopt an environmentally-friendly type of farming was very low.