ClieNFarms 1st Public Policy Workshop Report

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020
research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 101036822
REPORT
1st
ClieNFarms public policy workshop
Climate-neutrality and food security
8 July 2022, online
Authors: Bram Moeskops (IFOAM Organics Europe), Lisa Sinnhuber (IFOAM Organics Europe)
Contributor: Daniel Zimmer (Climate-KIC)
ClieNFarms has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation
programme under grant agreement No 101036822. This communication only reflects the author’s
view. The Research Executive Agency is not responsible for any use that may be made of the
information provided.

Page
2
Table of Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................3
Objectives ...........................................................................................................................................3
Participants .........................................................................................................................................3
Agenda ................................................................................................................................................4
Overview of presentations and policy debate....................................................................................4
Setting the scene.............................................................................................................................4
Achieving climate-neutral farms: the contribution of ClieNFarms.................................................6
Policy debate...................................................................................................................................6
Conclusions .........................................................................................................................................9

Page
3
Introduction
On July 8, 2022, the first public policy workshop of the Horizon 2020 project ClieNFarms took place
online. The workshop aimed to discuss how solutions for climate-neutral farming could be
implemented while ensuring food security in the current context of the war in Ukraine.
ClieNFarms started in January 2022 and tests solutions for climate-neutral farms. In Work Package 5
“Synergies with other EU projects, policies and initiatives” of the project, Task 5.1 aims to ensure
strong connections between the project and the Farm to Fork Strategy (F2F) and related policies.
Therefore, a series of public policy workshops will be organised to stimulate a dialogue between
scientists and policy makers and raise awareness about the outcomes of the project. This workshop
was the first one of this series.
The online workshop was recorded, and the recording is available here.
Objectives
The war in Ukraine has put food security at the centre of the political debate. While availability and
affordability of food is a top priority for all, increasing production at the expense of the environment
is not the solution. We need to make our food production systems less reliant from external inputs
(fossil fuel, fertilisers, imported feed, etc.) and more resilient. In this workshop, we shed light on this
debate and discussed solutions for climate-neutral farming while ensuring food security.
Participants
173 people registered and indicated their interest for the online workshop. In total, 55 participants
connected to the workshop. Moreover, three speakers, four panellists, two moderators and one
person responsible for the technical aspects of the event participated in the workshop.

Page
4
Agenda
First, the ClieNFarms project coordinator Jacques-Eric Bergez welcomed the audience and introduced
the topic. Then the two keynote speakers, Alexander Müller and Nathalie Bolduc, set the scene
followed by a discussion with the audience. After the presentation of ClieNFarms, the policy debate
with representatives of the EU Commission, IFOAM Organics Europe, COPA-COGECA and EEB took
place. The detailed agenda is shown below.
10.00-10.10 Welcome and introduction
Jacques-Eric Bergez, INRAE, ClieNFarms coordinator
10.10-10.50 Setting the scene
Alexander Müller, TMG Think Tank for Sustainability
Nathalie Bolduc, Research Fellow, Iddri
10.50-11.10 Q&A – discussion with the audience
11.10-11.20 Achieving climate-neutral farms: the contribution of ClieNFarms
11.20-12.20 Policy debate
• Herwig Ranner, Unit Environmental Sustainability, DG Agriculture and Rural
Development
• Eric Gall, Deputy Director, IFOAM Organics Europe
• Patrick Pagani, Senior Policy Advisor, COPA-COGECA
• Célia Nyssens, Senior Policy Officer for Agriculture and Food Systems, EEB
• Moderator: Daniel Zimmer, Climate-KIC
12.20-12.30 Conclusions and wrap-up
Bram Moeskops, Research & Innovation Manager, IFOAM Organics Europe
Overview of presentations and policy debate
Setting the scene
Alexander Müller, TMG Think Tank for Sustainability
Alexander Müller highlighted that we have to deal with four big “Cs”: Climate, Conflict, Covid and now
high food Costs. He explained the factors that led to a crisis of very high food prices. First, the supply
chains are still struggling with the COVID-19 restrictions. Second, the energy prices and thus also the
fertiliser prices were already soaring before the war in Ukraine. Third, Russia and the Ukraine are two
of the largest food exporters, especially for wheat, maize and sunflower oil. Moreover, Russia is the
largest exporter of fertilisers. Since the start of the war in Ukraine, there are uncertainties whether
Russia will halt agricultural exports and whether Ukraine can harvest and export its crops as its ports
in the Black Sea are blocked. Consequently, other producing countries are imposing export restrictions
and hoard their harvests, which in turn leads to increased speculations. A lot of countries depend on
the import of crops from Russia and Ukraine (especially Eritrea, Kazakhstan and Mongolia) and of
fertiliser from Russia (especially Mongolia, Belarus and Finland). These countries are hit the most by
the disruptions of the supply chains and the high food prices. Furthermore, the climate crisis and the
degradation of nature is impacting food production worldwide. In order to tackle the 4 Cs and their
impact on food security we need a combination of short- and long- term solutions. The short-term
responses like Food Import Facility for vulnerable countries should avoid food shortages but must not
have adverse effects on the transformation of the food system. Such a transformation is urgently
needed in the long-term. Therefore, the dependency on fossil fuels of our food system has to be
reduced. Moreover, we need to change our agricultural practices to bring nitrogen back into the soil.
Furthermore, food losses and waste have to be tackled. Finally, true cost accounting for our food
system and price adjustments are needed.
The presentation of Alexander Müller can be found here.

Page
5
Nathalie Bolduc, Iddri
Nathalie Bolduc showed how the current food security problems caused by the war in Ukraine
illuminate structural vulnerabilities within EU food systems. The EU is a net importer of synthetic
nitrogen fertiliser while the main trade partner is the Russian Federation. Moreover, plant products
are mainly used as animal feed in the EU. The EU depends on imports for calories and proteins,
including from Ukraine.
The Farm to Fork Strategy (F2F) can help address the current crisis because it promotes a systemic
approach to food system sustainability. Its targets are ambitious but coherent with the need to foster
the resilience of our food system. The main criticisms towards the F2F, namely that it will reduce
agricultural production and raise the cost of food, do not look at the whole picture. A systemic
transformation of the food system should look at the role of diets, address animal feed consumption
and reduce food loss and waste. Additionally, promoting agroecology under the F2F will reduce
greenhouse gas emissions of agriculture. Moreover, a transition to a more sustainable agricultural
production is necessary to ensure productivity and resilience of the EU food system on the long-term.
Farm yields may decrease if we continue degrading our ecosystem. Nathalie Bolduc concluded with
some policy recommendations. In the short-term, the EU should support developing countries to get
access to food and maintain robust social safety nets at home while avoiding measures with potential
negative long-term effects. In the medium- to long-term, the EU needs to transition towards
sustainable agriculture in order to make the food systems resilient and productive far into the future.
The presentation of Nathalie Bolduc can be found here.
Questions and Answers
Moderator: Bram Moeskops, IFOAM Organics Europe
Andreas Gattinger asked whether we should also look at other crops besides of wheat and keep
nutritional aspects of food in mind. For example, legumes are nutritious and their cultivation has
benefits for the soil. Alexander Müller emphasised that we first have to make sure that people do not
starve because of the current situation. But in parallel the food system has to be transformed which
includes nutritional quality of food. Nathalie Bolduc highlighted the importance of diversity in
agricultural production. Moreover, she stated that legumes are a good replacement for animal protein
whose consumption is too high in the EU.
Daniel Zimmer asked whether speculations of the global food market are aggravating the current
situation. Alexander Müller replied that food market speculations are not the driving force of the
current situation, but they are one aspect of it. Nathalie Bolduc added that governments have not
properly dealt with food market speculations after the financial crises of 2007 and 2008. She
explained, there is a difference between economic accessibility and physical availability of crops. Right
now, availability of crops is not an issue, but it may become one and then it will be a global governance
problem.
Jones Zachary asked whether the speakers think that their policy recommendations will be
implemented in the necessary timeframe. Nathalie is rather pessimistic on the short-term. But
hopefully the activism from academics, citizens and NGOs will foster the necessary policy changes on
the long-term. Alexander Müller added that the food system is full of vested interests of big,
multinational, and powerful companies. Thus, we have to present a comprehensive solution for
tackling the acute hunger crisis and transforming the food system to show that the solutions of the
big companies are not sound. As the multilateral system is blocked, the EU has to make a strong call
for an integrated solution.

Page
6
Achieving climate-neutral farms: the contribution of ClieNFarms
Jacques-Eric Bergez presented the Horizon 2020 project ClieNFarms. It aims to co-develop and upscale
systemic locally relevant solutions (organisational, financial, technical) to reach climate-neutral and
climate-resilient sustainable farms across Europe. It is a 4-year project that started in January 2022
with 33 partners in 14 countries. ClieNFarms is based on the creation of I3S - Innovative Systemic
Solution Spaces. An I3S consists of different components and actors who will test and disseminate
tailored solutions to achieve climate-neutral farms within supply chain and local geographical extent.
Each I3S will develop business models to ensure the financial sustainability of the solutions. The
ClieNFarms project will develop a network of farmers to discuss technical aspects, promote
participation of the surrounding network (finance, agro-equipment, etc.) to stimulate investments in
specific equipment, strengthen advisory systems and provide clear policy support
The presentation of Jacques-Eric Bergez can be found here.
Policy debate
Moderator: Daniel Zimmer, Climate-KIC
How did the EU react to tackle the consequences of the war in Ukraine on food supply? What policies
does the European Commission have in place or will develop to ensure food security and climate-
neutral farming. How can they work in synergy?
Herwig Ranner, Unit Environmental Sustainability of DG Agriculture and Rural Development, stressed
that the EU has policy initiatives in place that are linked to the Green Deal like the F2F, the reform of
the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP), the work on animal welfare and biodiversity. One of the main
objectives of the CAP is to ensure food security. Right now, we do not have a problem of food
availability. In the short run, the European Commission has granted some derogations allowing
farmers to use pesticides and fertilisers on fallow land for food and feed production. This political
signal was needed because of a lot of pressure from actors that are concerned about food security. At
the same time, the president of the European Commission and the Commissioners of Agriculture and
Environment confirmed that the EU will continue with the implementation of the Green Deal. On the
long-term, the EU has to become less dependent on imported products. Moreover, we have to
become more sustainable. Yet, consumer choices and dietary changes depend on the population; a
top-down approach that tells people what to eat is probably not the right solution.
In March, the European Commission issued a Communication on food security. This Communication
allows farmers to use pesticides and fertilisers on fallow land for food and feed production. How do
you assess the negative environmental impact of that measure compared to the expected positive
effect on food security?
Célia Nyssens, Senior Policy Officer for Agriculture and Food systems at EEB, highlighted that food
security is not only about sufficient production but also about distribution, affordability as well as the
nutritional aspect of food. Therefore, producing more wheat and feedstock crops on the limited
amount of Ecological Focus Areas is not a solution. More than 500 scientists wrote a letter criticising
that this derogation is not targeting the actual problem. Ecologists warn that the one-year derogation
can have disproportional impact for some species. Furthermore, the European Commission is looking
at extending it and in cancelling the crop rotation rule in the new CAP. This is not solving the problem

Page
7
but is making the environmental crisis worse. According to the assessment of EEB, the European
Commission has given in to the political pressure and opportunism from lobbies and agricultural
ministers, and the derogation has nothing to do with food security.
The European Commission states that food supply is not at risk in the EU today. According to COPA-
COGECA, is there a role for European farmers to contribute to food security elsewhere in the world
and if yes, how can that be combined with the EU’s climate ambition?
Patrick Pagani, Senior Policy Advisor at COPA-COGECA, highlighted the geopolitical importance of
food security. Food supply is not at risk in the EU, but food affordability is an issue. For farmers, the
prices of fertiliser and feed as well as the high energy bills bring a lot of uncertainties, also for 2023.
COPA-COGECA welcomed that the president of the European Commission and the Commissioner of
Agriculture stressed the key role of food security and the message to step up production. Europe also
has a responsibility to the rest of the world in times of crisis. Helping EU farmers to produce is also
alleviating the disturbances of the food chains and is contributing to global food security and
affordability. COPA-COGECA also welcomed the quick action of the EU Commission. Farmers are the
first that feel the consequences of climate change. Food security and climate action can go together
and we can continue on the path to sustainability. But as stated in Art. 2 of the Paris Agreement,
climate action should not undermine food production.
How do you think agroecological practices, such as organic farming, contribute to resilience of food
systems, thereby achieving food security and climate resilience at the same time?
Eric Gall, Deputy Director at IFOAM Organics Europe, criticised the widespread land sparing narrative
that promotes further intensification of agricultural activity on some land while leaving lower quality
land for nature and biodiversity preservation. However, there is no contradiction between producing
in a more sustainable way and producing enough food. He stated the importance of communicating
to consumers about what they eat. Consumers should also be better informed about the benefits of
organic products. He welcomed that the European Commission increased the promotion budget for
organic products last year. Moreover, he emphasised that we have to prioritise measures in
agriculture that provide synergies. This means that measures should reduce emissions and provide
benefits for adaptation and biodiversity at the same time. Furthermore, he pointed out how organic
agriculture contributes to the resilience of food systems. First, organic agriculture is less dependent
on external inputs. Secondly, soil health is a cornerstone of organic farming and organically managed
soils have a higher carbon content. Thirdly, organic agriculture fosters genetic diversity. Finally,
organic animal production has lower stocking densities than conventional.
Comments of the panellists on the first statements
Célia Nyssens agreed with Patrick Pagani that food security and climate action can go hand in hand.
But that means, we have to change our food system and reduce the land and resource footprint of
our consumption. She disagreed with Herwig Ranner that we should rely on consumers to change their
diets. The EU does influence consumers by the promotion policy that also promotes meat. She called
for adequate policy action to make sustainable consumption the norm.

Page
8
Herwig Ranner stated that the promotion policy promoted all kinds of products. It now is reformed
and has a stronger focus on sustainability. But there is no political push to limit the consumption of
certain products. He highlighted that besides Art. 2, there are also Art. 4 and especially Art. 4.1(d) of
the Paris Agreement stating the importance of the preservation of ecosystems and mitigation. He
agreed with Eric Gall that the EU has a lot of policies on organic farming. The EU was pushing
agroecology in the climate negotiations but received some pushback on an international level. Thus,
further communication and negotiations are needed.
Patrick Pagani emphasised that tools and time are needed for the transition of the food system.
Moreover, the three dimensions of sustainability (economic, social and environmental) have to be
kept in mind. Organic agriculture and agroecology are important, but they need the means, the market
and innovation. The food security study of the European Commission can shed more light on the food
security topic.
Questions from the audience
Clara Grebot stated that the yield gap of organic farmers is compensated by higher prices. If organic
farming develops, the premium will decrease according to the rules of supply and demand and organic
farmers would not have sufficient income. She asked for the panellists’ opinion about this. Eric Gall
stated that the price of food is relatively cheap in comparison to its negative externalities paid by
taxpayers. We do not pay the true cost of food while conventional farmers do not get a decent income.
Conventional farmers often have to sell their products under the costs of production. He therefore
called for true cost accounting. The organic sector should not reproduce the conventional system.
Public policy has a key role to play to increase the supply and demand of organic products and ensure
they are balanced.
Daniel Zimmer commented that the synergies between adaptation and mitigation could be explored
more. He asked the panellists how adaptation measures, which are often the entry point to the climate
issue for farmers, could be leveraged to transform the farming system. Herwig Ranner stated that
adaptation and mitigation measures cannot be separated in agriculture. They go hand in hand. The
political discussion about mitigation versus adaptation is not relevant for farmers. The European
Commission rather promotes sustainability in agriculture as this term is more understandable.
Referring to carbon farming, Patrick Pagani added that its development needs time and a market has
to be put in place. He welcomed the initiative for a regulatory framework for the certification of carbon
removals in the EU, but warned it remains to be seen if uncertainties for farmers will be solved. Eric
Gall stressed that the organic sector is worried that carbon farming will only focus on carbon and
carbon metrics instead of having a multi-dimensional approach. He is sceptical that farmers can
benefit from carbon farming based on a market approach. Instead, a management approach funded
by public money is needed. Célia Nyssens agreed with Eric Gall. The EEB sees a risk that a carbon
market would not deliver any climate benefits and not provide the right support for farmers.
Biodiversity is the key to store carbon in ecosystems on the long-term. Payment schemes for farmers
have to take management practices into account and not only carbon removals. Herwig Ranner added
that the regulatory framework for the certification of carbon removals is being developed and it has

Page
9
not been decided how carbon farming will look like. Moreover, in January 2023, the new measures of
the CAP will start and then they can be assessed after some time.
Conclusions
In this first ClieNFarms public policy workshop, a lot of relevant points for the project were discussed.
They merit further debate, both among the partners of the ClieNFarms project and in future policy
workshops with policy makers and stakeholders.
At the core of the debate is the question of the appropriate balance between short-term solutions to
ensure food security and longer-term measures to mitigate and adapt to climate change, maintain
farm productivity and protect our ecosystems. While this is a political question in the first place,
research can shed light on the long-term impact of measures taken now, such as the derogation
allowing the cultivation of fallow Ecological Focus Areas. Moreover, the long-term impacts of the CAP
national strategic plans have to be assessed. On the other hand, agroecology was proposed as a farm
management approach that can deliver on food security and environmental protection at the same
time. Researchers should help clarify the conditions on how that can be obtained.
The role of animal production is contentious in both the food security and climate change debate,
because of the high amounts of cereals fed to animals and the GHG emissions related to livestock
systems. The current animal production systems make the EU dependent on crop imports for animal
feed. Research should help clarify what are appropriate stocking densities in the different parts of
Europe, how these animals can be fed sustainably and what would be the consequences in terms of
the share of animal products in the human diet. At the same time, further research is needed to
increase production and consumption of plant-proteins, e.g. based on leguminous crops. The impact
of the EU’s promotion policy on consumption habits should also be assessed.
Finally, carbon farming and the regulatory framework for the certification of carbon removals of the
EU deserve more debate. A lot of uncertainties remain about how farmers will benefit from a carbon
market and how it can ensure carbon sequestration in the long-term. Research should help
understand whether payments based on carbon credits or payments for specific management
measures are more effective.

ClieNFarms 1st Public Policy Workshop Report

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to ClieNFarms 1st Public Policy Workshop Report

Similar to ClieNFarms 1st Public Policy Workshop Report (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

ClieNFarms 1st Public Policy Workshop Report