EU agriculture 2040: no easy fix for environmental and socio-economic aspects – The Joint Research Centre: EU Science Hub

Analysis of EU Agricultural Policy Scenarios and their Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

A new analysis by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), titled the Scenar2040 study, evaluates future orientations for the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and their potential impacts on the agricultural landscape by 2040. The study provides quantitative insights into four scenarios: a baseline, “Productivity and Investment,” “Environment and Climate,” and a hypothetical “NoCAP” scenario. This report reframes the study’s findings through the lens of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), highlighting the complex trade-offs between economic, social, and environmental objectives.

Scenario 1: Productivity and Investment

This scenario prioritizes CAP support for interventions that enhance productivity and competitiveness. The outcomes present a mixed impact on the SDGs.

• SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) & SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): This approach yields positive results for economic and food security targets. Key outcomes include a 2.7% increase in EU agricultural output, lower consumer food prices, and an improved EU trade balance of EUR 2.7 billion.
• SDG 13 (Climate Action) & SDG 15 (Life on Land): The focus on productivity intensifies environmental pressures, creating challenges for climate and biodiversity goals. This is demonstrated by a projected 0.5% increase in agricultural greenhouse gas emissions and a 1.4% rise in nitrogen surplus per hectare.

Scenario 2: Environment and Climate

This scenario shifts CAP funding towards interventions focused on environmental and climate action, leading to significant progress on some SDGs at the expense of others.

• SDG 13 (Climate Action) & SDG 15 (Life on Land): Considerable environmental benefits are achieved within the EU. These include a 1.7% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, a 2% decrease in nitrogen pollution per hectare, and an increase in crop diversity.
• SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): The scenario projects the creation of 90,000 new jobs, contributing positively to employment goals.
• SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): Significant economic consequences pose a risk to food security objectives. Agricultural output is projected to decline by 4%, leading to higher food prices, increased imports, and a worsening of the EU trade balance by EUR 1.8 billion.

Scenario 3: No Common Agricultural Policy (NoCAP)

A hypothetical “NoCAP” scenario was simulated to serve as a benchmark, illustrating the stabilizing role of the CAP. The removal of the policy would have widespread negative consequences across multiple SDGs.

1. SDG 1 (No Poverty) & SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): Farm income would decline by an average of 11%, with vulnerable farms facing losses of up to 21%. The agri-food sector would lose approximately 250,000 jobs.
2. SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): EU food production would fall by 5%, diminishing the EU’s capacity to meet demand. This would be coupled with a rise in consumer food prices, disproportionately affecting vulnerable households.
3. SDG 13 (Climate Action): The analysis indicates a high risk of a net increase in global agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. This “emission leakage” would occur as production shifts to regions outside the EU with less carbon-efficient farming practices, undermining global climate goals.

Key Trade-offs and Global SDG Implications

The study underscores critical trade-offs between agricultural intensification and extensification, with significant implications for achieving the SDGs on a global scale.

• Intensification vs. Extensification: Productivity-focused strategies enhance resource efficiency (SDG 12) and economic performance (SDG 8) but can increase local environmental pressures. Conversely, environmentally focused strategies lower per-hectare pressures in the EU (SDG 13, SDG 15) but can reduce overall production efficiency.
• Emission Leakage: A key finding is the potential for policy decisions within the EU to have inverse effects on global SDG targets. An environmentally focused EU policy could inadvertently raise global emissions by shifting demand to less sustainable producers. In contrast, a productivity-focused scenario, while slightly increasing EU emissions, could lower total global emissions by displacing less carbon-efficient international competitors.

Conclusion: A Balanced Policy for Sustainable Development

The Scenar2040 study does not advocate for a single policy trajectory. Instead, its findings call for a smart, balanced, and nuanced approach to future CAP design. To achieve a resilient and sustainable future, policy must navigate the complex trade-offs between economic viability, food security, and environmental protection. The future of the CAP must be built on a sophisticated understanding of these competing demands to ensure a positive contribution to the Sustainable Development Goals at both the European and global levels, in line with the principles of SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger

  The article is centered on agricultural policy, directly linking to SDG 2. It discusses agricultural output, food prices, food security, and the sustainability of food production systems. The scenarios explore trade-offs between increasing production to ensure food availability and affordability versus environmental protection.

• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

  This goal is addressed through the analysis of employment and economic performance in the agricultural sector. The “Environment and Climate” scenario projects the creation of 90,000 new jobs, while the “NoCAP” scenario predicts a loss of 250,000 jobs. The article also discusses farm income, productivity, and trade balances, which are key components of economic growth.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The article touches upon this goal by highlighting the social consequences of policy choices. Specifically, the “NoCAP” scenario warns that rising consumer food prices would “disproportionally hitting food expenditures in the most vulnerable households in the EU,” thereby exacerbating inequality.

• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

  The core of the article revolves around sustainable production patterns in agriculture. It analyzes the trade-offs between intensification (enhancing resource efficiency) and extensification (lowering environmental pressures per hectare), which directly relates to achieving sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources like land.

• SDG 13: Climate Action

  Climate action is a central theme, with two scenarios explicitly measuring their impact on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The article discusses increases or decreases in agricultural GHG emissions within the EU and the concept of “emission leakage,” where reducing EU emissions could inadvertently raise global emissions, connecting directly to climate change mitigation efforts.

• SDG 15: Life on Land

  This goal is relevant through the discussion of the environmental impacts of agriculture on terrestrial ecosystems. The article mentions key environmental pressures such as “nitrogen surplus per hectare,” “nitrogen pollution,” and the potential for “boosting crop diversity,” all of which are critical to the health of land ecosystems.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 2: Zero Hunger

   • Target 2.3: By 2030, double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers. The article directly addresses this by analyzing scenarios that impact agricultural output, productivity, and farm income, noting that under a “NoCAP” scenario, “Farm income would decline by around 11%, with smaller and more vulnerable farms facing losses of up to 21%.”
   • Target 2.4: By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices. The entire study is an exploration of this target, weighing different policy pathways (“Productivity and Investment” vs. “Environment and Climate”) to achieve sustainable and resilient agriculture.

2. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

   • Target 8.2: Achieve higher levels of economic productivity through diversification, technological upgrading and innovation. The “Productivity and Investment” scenario, which “channels CAP support primarily towards interventions that improve productivity and competitiveness,” is a direct reflection of this target.
   • Target 8.5: By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all. The article’s projections on job creation (“creating 90,000 new jobs”) and job losses (“drop by approximately 250,000 workers”) in the agri-food sector relate directly to this target.

3. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all. The article implies a negative impact on this target in the “NoCAP” scenario, where rising food prices would disproportionately harm “the most vulnerable households,” thus increasing economic inequality.

4. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

   • Target 12.2: By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources. The discussion on “intensification vs extensification,” resource efficiency, and managing environmental pressures like nitrogen surplus directly addresses the sustainable use of natural resources in production.

5. SDG 13: Climate Action

   • Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning. The article is a prime example of this target in action, as it assesses different policy orientations for the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) based on their potential climate impacts, such as changes in “agricultural greenhouse gas emissions.”

6. SDG 15: Life on Land

   • Target 15.3: By 2030, combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil… and strive to achieve a land degradation-neutral world. The measurement of “nitrogen surplus per hectare” and “nitrogen pollution” is directly related to preventing soil degradation and maintaining the health of agricultural land.
   • Target 15.5: Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity. The “Environment and Climate” scenario’s outcome of “boosting crop diversity” is a measure that contributes to this target by enhancing biodiversity within agricultural landscapes.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article provides several quantitative and qualitative indicators used in the study’s scenarios to measure progress and outcomes:

• Economic Indicators:
  • Percentage change in EU agricultural output (e.g., +2.7% or -4%).
  • Change in EU trade balance (e.g., improved by EUR 2.7 billion or worsened by EUR 1.8 billion).
  • Percentage change in farm income (e.g., decline by 11%).
  • Direction of change in food prices (e.g., “lower food prices” or “food prices would rise”).
• Social Indicators:
  • Number of jobs created or lost (e.g., “creating 90,000 new jobs” or a drop of “250,000 workers”).
  • Impact on vulnerable households (e.g., “disproportionally hitting food expenditures”).
• Environmental Indicators:
  • Percentage change in agricultural greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., +0.5% or -1.7%).
  • Percentage change in nitrogen surplus/pollution per hectare (e.g., +1.4% or -2%).
  • Change in crop diversity (e.g., “boosting crop diversity”).
  • Direction of change in global emissions (e.g., “raise global emissions” or “lower total global emissions”).

Summary of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu