The European Commission has unveiled its new “vision for agriculture and food,” aiming to create a “competitive, resilient, future-oriented, and fair agrifood system.” This shift in strategy comes after the failure of the “farm to fork” initiative, which faced criticism for prioritizing environmental concerns over farmers’ economic stability. Recent farmer protests across Europe have also influenced this new approach, which places farmers at the center of decision-making.
Farm Commissioner Christophe Hansen emphasized that while farmers play a key role in combating climate change, they should not be burdened with excessive regulations. The new vision favors a more flexible regulatory framework, focusing on collaboration rather than rigid targets. Hansen also distanced the Commission from previous ideas like an agricultural emissions trading system, instead advocating for technological innovation to drive sustainable progress.
The plan includes incentives rather than penalties, encouraging farmers to adopt eco-friendly practices while maintaining their competitiveness. Carbon farming, along with carbon and nature credits, is proposed as an additional income stream. The strategy also seeks to attract younger generations to farming through innovation and new business models. Another key aspect is ensuring farmers receive fair prices for their products, with plans to review the Unfair Trading Practices Directive and introduce a Generational Renewal Strategy in 2025.
Food security and trade protection are also central to the strategy. The Commission intends to safeguard European farmers in trade negotiations and align import standards with EU regulations. While the plan supports reducing pesticide use, it stresses that bans should only be introduced when viable alternatives exist. Additionally, a Water Resilience Strategy is set to be released before summer, and an annual “food dialogue” will be launched to address food affordability and innovation.
Critics argue that the vision overemphasizes competitiveness while failing to address biodiversity loss and climate risks. Some believe that relying on technology and risk adaptation rather than implementing systemic changes weakens the strategy’s environmental impact. The potential use of carbon and nature credits as income sources has also drawn skepticism, with concerns about their effectiveness and the risk of greenwashing.
The plan has been criticized for not addressing the high density of livestock farming, which contributes to climate change and environmental degradation. Some voices stress that reducing the number of farmed animals and phasing out subsidies for intensive livestock farming would be more effective in cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The omission of wetland and peatland restoration from the vision has also been noted as a missed opportunity to enhance natural carbon sinks.
Additionally, doubts remain about the long-term credibility of nature credits, as they could allow companies to offset their environmental impact without implementing real changes. While high-quality certification schemes for carbon, water, and biodiversity credits could improve accountability, some argue that large-scale agricultural operators must lead the shift toward regenerative farming for meaningful progress.
Others caution that without a concrete action plan, investment, and regulatory simplification, the strategy may remain an aspirational vision rather than a transformative framework. The need for bold policy decisions to unlock investment and drive innovation across the food value chain remains a critical factor in determining the success of the initiative.
