5 Developing sustainable solutions

Key messages

• Food and Energy systems are important drivers of the agricultural production. Demands within these systems has a large influence on specific choices of farmers, and ultimately on our ability to reach environmental targets.
• Managing sustainably in this context requires balancing the need for affordable products, social wellbeing and fairness, and the protection of the natural resource base, which in return will require explicit acknowledgement of systemic trade-offs.

The newly adopted farm to for strategy provides leverage for changing systemic drivers such as consumer preferences and diets, but further attention is needed on other drivers linked  to developing more sustainable agricultural systems, food supply chains, and to reduce food loss and waste.

5.1       More systemic responses are needed

Agricultural water problems have been resistant to policy interventions not only because of challenges in the implementation of environmental and agricultural policies, but also because the underlying drivers of agricultural production have been insufficiently tackled. These drivers are diverse, and include demand for food, energy and fibre. Without addressing these drivers, and the social, economic, political, institutional and technological systems that shape consumption patterns, it is likely that policy interventions will continue fixing the symptoms rather the roots of environmental degradation, which is most likely going to increase under a changing climate if no adaptation measures are taken.

5.1.1        European food systems and their pressures on the water environment

Food systems and water

A food system can be defined as all the elements (environment including climate, people, inputs, processes, infrastructures, institutions, etc.) and activities that relate to the production, processing, distribution, preparation and consumption of food and to the outputs of those activities, including socio-economic and environmental outcomes (HLPE, 2014).

European food systems today exhibit diverse characteristics across the continent. Small-scale family-based producers supplying short supply chains operate alongside large-scale globalised food companies and suppliers. However, European food systems have also evolved greatly during the 19^th and 20^th century, from predominantly local systems of exchange into complex international networks of production, consumption and trade.

Food systems create pressures on the water environment during the production of agricultural commodities, and along the whole processing, distribution and consumption chain. Assessments suggest that most pressures, through emission of nutrient and chemical pollutants and freshwater use, arise during the production of agricultural commodities, followed by industrial processing into food and drink products (Castellani et al., 2017). Water is also lost through food waste. In the EU, most food waste occurs at the distribution and consumption stage, totalling around 88 million tonnes of food along the supply chain, including the household level, with corresponding estimates as high as EUR 143 billion (Stenmarck et al., 2016).

Drivers in food systems

Demography and diet are central drivers of the food system, and therefore influence significantly the overall impact of food consumption on the water environment, sometimes calculated as the land or water footprint of specific products. Europe is a major player in the global agricultural commodity market (Chapter 2) and therefore a major driver of consumption patterns.

 Between 1950 and 2015, the EU-28 population increased from 380 million to 505 million (EEA, 2019c). while the average per capita consumption of animal protein is 50% higher than 1950 and double the current global average (Westhoek et al., 2011). Estimates suggest that the EU agricultural land footprint, i.e. the area of cropland and grassland necessary to produce the EU’s food requirements, is about 203 million ha, of which 76% is associated with livestock production (Fischer et al., 2017). Not all of this area is in Europe, a large share of European consumption stems from outside the EU.  The EU-28 food consumption footprint was equivalent to 17 million ha of cropland and 21 million ha of grassland outside the EU (Fischer et al., 2017).

European demand for food products, in particular meat and dairy, plays a role in agricultural production in Europe and worldwide. Dairy and meat production lead to large emissions of nutrients and chemicals (Chapter 3), but also results in water consumption, due to the large water quantity needed for animal feed. For instance, the production of bovine meet has the highest water footprint (i.e. 15,415 liters per kg of meat), compared with sheep and goat meat (i.e. 8,763 liters per kg), pig meat (i.e. 5,988 liters/kg) and chicken meat (i.e. 4,315 liters per kg), largely due to the difference in animal size and life span. Nearly 98% of the above water footprints for livestock refers to the water demand of crop production used as animal feed and grazing lands. In Europe, a large proportion of animal feed is imported, driving unsustainable water use in export countries (Rosa et al., 2019).

Overall, animal products represent 53% of the EU consumptive water footprint in food, followed by cereal and beer (11%) and vegetables, fruits nuts and wine (9%) (Vanham et al., 2013). Diets vary between European countries; thus the significance of different food products in the water footprint vary across Europe. The highest water footprint arising from food consumption is by southern countries, followed by eastern countries (Vanham et al., 2013).

5.1.2        Other consumption systems and water

Agricultural commodities are also used in the broader bioeconomy for the production of energy, textiles, paper, chemicals and pharmaceuticals. Bio-based products can be made from cereal, oil, sugar and fiber crops, straw and organic waste. Their production respond to different drivers than food products, and have in recent years received significant attention at EU level. Overall, the estimated cropland area for EU-28 consumption of non-food agricultural product is around 28 million ha and thus much smaller than for food products. Around 65% of the area is situated outside the EU (Fischer et al., 2017; Bruckner et al., 2019). In Europe, around 10 million Ha or 5% of the agricultural area is used for non-food agricultural products (i.e. bioenergy, textiles, chemical industry, etc).  

Bioenergy and water

Bioenergy refers to a range of energy sources based on biological matter. Bioenergy from agricultural sources are typically produced as liquid biofuels to work as substitute to diesel and petrol, from maize, rape, palm oil, sugar beet, and sugar cane. These first generation biofuels are complemented by a range of next generation, or “advanced”, biofuels and bioenergy sources which are assumed to require less input, be more resilience and produce higher yields. These energy sources draw energy from a larger range of agricultural products, such as energy crops from grasses and reeds, agricultural residues and waste streams (e.g. food waste).

Bioenergy is part of the energy portfolio of the European Union in its decarbonisation efforts and expansion in the use of renewable energy (EC, 2019d). By 2030, the EU aims to have at least 32% of renewable energy, and by 2020, it aims to have 10% of the transport fuel come from renewable sources such as biofuels. Fuel suppliers are also required to reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of the EU fuel mix by 6% by 2020 in comparison to 2010. The average share of renewable energy in transport in the EU-28 was 8% in 2018 (EEA, 2019j). which is mostly met through consumption of biofuels.

About 62% of the feedstock used in biodiesel and 79% in bioethanol originated in the EU in 2012, mostly from rapeseed, wheat, maize and sugar beet (Hamelinck et al., 2014). The remaining was imported as e.g. palm oil, soybeans and maize feedstock or as final product from various regions, including Indonesia, Argentina, US, Australia, and Malaysia.

Europe’s production and consumption of bioenergy, in particular biofuels, has raised concerns about their environmental impacts in Europe and worldwide, for example through the expansion of agricultural land into biodiversity-rich and high carbon stock lands such as forests and peatlands (EC, 2019d; Strapasson et al., 2019). Estimates put European use of land for biofuel consumption at around 8 million ha (Hamelinck et al., 2014), while global consumption is associated with an estimated total of 81 million ha in 2011.

Concern is particularly high with regards to the large water demand associated with biofuel production.  For instance, European production of bioethanol is associated with irrigated maize grown under water scarce conditions in Mediterranean regions and in France and Romania (Vanham et al., 2019). Assessments indicate that, of all energy sources used in Europe, biofuels generate the highest water footprint (Vanham et al., 2019).

However, it is also important to note that the water demand of imported biofuels is even greater, due to less efficient production methods abroad. Imports of biodiesel represent 64 billion m³ of water compared to 1 billion m³ from European sources. Overall, it is estimated that a majority of maize consumed for biofuel in Europe is produced under severe water scarcity (Vanham et al., 2019).

The wider bioeconomy amd water

Other bioeconomy value chains are based on a variety of crops and agriculture byproducts. Traditional fiber crops grown include cotton, flax, hemp, bamboo to make textile, but also building materials, cosmetics, medicines and chemicals. Cotton – a high water demanding crop- is by far the widest cultivated fibre crop worldwide, with more than 30 million ha corresponding to 80% of the global natural fibre production. Europe produces 1.2% of the world cotton. A range of new crops are being grown in Europe, such as miscanthus, giant reed, switchgrass and bamboo, which are low-input, high yields crops. They can be used for papermaking, building, biopolymers, and bioenergy purposes. Competition with synthetic material and a more favourable policy environment for food producing crops has nevertheless so far limited the growth of fiber crops.

5.2       The challenge of managing systemic trade-offs

 5.2.1 Growing demand, in an increasing resource limited world

The EU has a long-term sustainability vision of 'living well, within the limits of our planet' by 2050. This means that consumption systems driving agricultural production should optimise  outcomes between the need for affordable products, social wellbeing and fairness, and the protection of the natural resource base, maintaining and enhancing ecosystem health and resilience (EEA, 2017b). While the EU food system has been very successful in achieving its past objectives of food security and food safety, it has to date failed to deliver sustainability (EEA, 2017b; GCSA, 2020).

Globally, population growth and dietary change towards more meat and dairy based diets in emerging and low income countries are expected to increase demand for food in 2050 by 70% (FAO, 2009) or 56% more crop calories equivalent (Searchinger et al., 2018). Global cereal production would need to increase by 940 million tons to reach 3 billion tons, and meat production by 196 million tons to reach 455 million tons to meet future demand (Alexandratos and Bruinsma, 2012).  

In parallel, demand for bioenergy and fiber products will also grow in response to climate mitigation targets and the drive towards a more circular bioeconomy. Under the EU’s Bioeconomy Strategy, the Flagship initiative for a resource-efficient Europe and the Circular Economy Package, the EU’s industrial policy aims to increase the bio-based product industry share to the EU GDP from 15% to 20% in 2020, stimulating primary production and conversion of waste into value-added products. Demand is thus expected to grow for biodegradable and recyclable materials to work as substitutes for chemicals based on fossil resources.

Climate change itself will significantly impact the distribution of natural resources essential for agricultural production such as water, and will impose drastic changes in climatic conditions in many world regions. Soil erosion, land degradation and desertification rates will put further constrains on global agricultural production (Shukla et al., 2019).

Under current trends and with no policy action, many expect that growing demand would require an increase in the area of farmland to meet future demand, or an increase in agricultural productivity on existing land, achieved in part through more intensive use of inputs such as fertilisers and pesticides. A “land gap” of nearly 600 million ha (twice as large as India) would be required to meet global demand (Searchinger et al., 2018).  However, these developments would contribute to further loss of forest, wetland, peatland and other natural habitats, as well as higher pollution leaching, water consumption, soil degradation, land improvement and drainage pressures  (Wirsenius et al., 2010) If the present trend in worldwide consumption continues, it was estimated that two out of every three persons on earth will live in water –stressed conditions as soon as 2025 (WRI, 2019).

5.2.2 Trade-offs for reaching environmental sustainability

The use of nitrogen, phosphorous, pesticides and water in Europe over the last 30 years has become more efficient over the last 30 years (Chapter 3 and 4) and further efficiency gains are still possible without affecting productivity thanks to technological improvements and application of e.g. precision farming (e.g. Capper and Bauman, 2013). However, efficiency gains cannot on their own support the achievement of targets in the aquatic environment as resource use may remain too high to reduce pressure substantially (Matthews et al., 2018; Gerten et al., 2020).

The switch to more sustainable forms of agricultural production across all farming systems in Europe has large potential to reduce pressures on the water environment (Chapter 4). Modelling studies suggest that reaching a production that is sustainable with regards to nutrient flows can be achieved through adoption of agro-ecological production systems. It would also reduce financial risks to the farmers thanks to a diversification of production, and increased farm income thanks to price premiums on higher quality products. An additional benefit of these production systems is that agricultural greenhouse gas emissions are also reduced due to the lower livestock production (Poux and Aubert, 2018).

However, large scale adoption of agroecological practices would entail trade-offs. For instance, the same study it was assumed that agricultural land use would primarily be dedicated to crop production aimed at feeding humans rather than livestock, and that non-food production would be phased out. In addition, crop productivity would decline by up to 30% and livestock production by 40% (Poux and Aubert, 2018). Such levels of reduction in production and yields would disrupt existing farm systems and value chains (Chapter 5.3.1). It could also entail an increase in the price in agricultural commodities, which would impact the consumer.

Furthermore, a production system that delivers to primarily plant based diets, also requires a switch in dietary demands to one lower in meat and dairy intake. In an agroecological future, European diets would need to change significantly towards plant-based proteins, in order to avoid to further externalise meat and dairy production outside Europe (Poux and Aubert, 2018).  Modelling studies at global level also indicate that reaching key planetary boundaries in nutrient flows, freshwater use and other environmental criteria is only possible if diets also change (e.g. Wirsenius et al., 2010; Westhoek et al., 2014b; Poore and Nemecek, 2018; Searchinger et al., 2018; Gerten et al., 2020). Consequently, sustainability cannot be achieved solely by changing agricultural production, but also changing consumption patterns (chapter 5.3.2).

The global need for changes in global production and consumption patterns are at the heart of the UN sustainable development goals, which underscore the interdependencies among many different societal factors, together with the potential gains of a more sustainable development trajectory. To reduce trade-offs and manage sustainable transitions, policy action needs to be systemic across production and consumption systems. In food systems for instance, this calls for solutions that involve not only producers but also food chain actors and consumers, and reorganise the whole food value chain (Westhoek et al., 2014b). This is explored in more depth in the next chapter.

5.3        Transitioning towards sustainability in food systems

The recent EU Farm to Fork Strategy (EC, 2020c) is a first step towards tackling the impact of agricultural production and food consumption in an integrated and systemic way. It foresees action on several dimensions, focusing on enhancing the capacity of Europeans to make informed, healthy and sustainable choices in their food environment, while increasing the efficiency of the food system. The Strategy takes into account targets for sustainable water management in its overarching objectives of reducing nutrient and pesticide use and, and boost the development of sustainable agriculture, in particular organic farming.

There are potentially numerous strategies to enable a transition towards sustainability in agriculture from a food system perspective. The following sections discusses three strategies that have been highlighted in the Farm-to-Fork Strategy and other publications on reforming of food systems towards sustainability (GCSA, 2020), in light of the agricultural production and its impact on the water environment:

• Changing supply chains to promote sustainable and more resilient agricultural system;
• Stimulate more sustainable diets to reduce demand for water-intensive food products;
• Reduce food loss and waste, and encourage their reuse and recycling.

5.3.1        Changing food supply chains to promote sustainable agriculture

The structure of the value chain has important implications when designing responses to enhance the sustainability of agricultural production in Europe (Meynard and Messéan, 2014; GCSA, 2020). It also has a role to play to increase food system’s resilience to climate change by planning adaptation pathways not only for the production sector (farming systems) but also for investments into infrastructure for collecting, storing and transforming agriculture commodities (ADEME, 2019). Risks with adopting agro-ecological practices, diversifying production and adapting to climate change must be shared between farmers and value chain actors.

Value chain operators have optimised collection, storage and processing infrastructure according to cost reduction targets and economies of scale needed to compete on national, international and global markets (IPES Food, 2016; EEA, 2017b). Diversifying crops or switching to organic farming imply upfront costs to adapt and expand the specific supporting infrastructure as well as higher running costs on lower volumes of agriculture commodity. These difficulties can represent a major barrier for the expansion of organic farming or the diversification of farm production in specialized regions (Meynard and Messéan, 2014)

The importance of enabling changes in agricultural production through a value chain logic is increasingly emphasised (Meynard and Messéan, 2014; IPES Food, 2016). It calls for high level of collective action between relevant actors and better structuring between agri-food sectors (Zakeossian et al., 2018). EU Rural Development Programs have in some case supported such collective action. In Greece for example, authorities supported greater coordination between durum wheat processing plant operators and local cotton producing farms to initiate a transition from cotton production towards durum wheat production, leading to a reduction in water consumption. In Cyprus, potato farmers were encouraged to switch to less water-demanding fodder production in response to increased demand from livestock farmers faced with rising prices for imported feed.

Other strategies are possible to overcome the cost of creating the infrastructure for the collection, storage, and transformation of diversified crop production or organic farming. For example, preferential loans or subsidies for investments into infrastructure supporting diversification in specialised regions or to facilitate the development of organic farming have been provided, for example through RDPs (Zakeossian et al., 2018). Cities and municipalities have also created their own collection and storage food cooperative to supply organic food to public canteens.

The value chain can play a valuable role in changing agricultural practices in other ways. The food industry have increasingly established product specifications which farmers must follow to access markets (Fresco et al., 2016). These standards, in the form of production contracts and labels, typically include assurances that specific crop and livestock operations will be carried out and that final product delivery meet the desired quantity and quality. Integrating results-based, environmental performance in these standards, and rewarding it accordingly to account for potential higher production costs, can act as a major leverage on agricultural production. Some food operators, have integrated ambitious programmes. The CAP could support further expansion of such private schemes (Fresco et al., 2016).

CAP support schemes have encouraged adoption of more environmentally friendly practices, and such support schemes could go further in supporting the transition. However, the uptake of more sustainable farm practices will only last if the market takes over from public action. The higher costs of producing more sustainably can be covered through product differentiation, and the use of certification and labels (ADEME, 2014; Meynard and Messéan, 2014). Alternatively, the greater use of minimum sustainability standards on food products can support a broader and more systematic market uptake by levelling the playing field. The Farm to Fork Strategy (EC, 2020c) proposes to progressively raise sustainability standards of all food products placed on the EU market and support certification and labelling approaches.

A number of public and semi-public interventions are increasingly used to provide alternatives to compensation schemes provided under the CAP (Chapter 4) or overcome the lack of intervention from private food chain operators. Public and private drinking water providers across Europe have initiated schemes based on payments or the buying and leasing of agricultural land, to incentivise more sustainable forms of production on drinking water protected areas (Thomson et al., 2014; Cook et al., 2017).

Under the EU Farm to Fork Strategy, the Commission plans to determine the best modalities for setting minimum mandatory sustainability criteria in public procurement. This can represent a significant leverage for expanding supply of more sustainably produced food and promote sustainable diets in schools, public institutions and collective cantines (Renting and Wiskerke, 2010; IPES Food, 2016). Some cities seek co-benefits to preserve the quality of their drinking water supplies by targeting public food procurement contracts to producers in drinking water protected areas, and thereby incentivise uptake of more sustainable forms of agriculture.

5.3.2        Moving to sustainable diets to reduce water use and emission of pollutants

Recent years have seen an acceleration of the adoption of less water resource-intensive diets, by reducing meat consumption and increasing the share of vegetables and plant-based products. To reduce nutrient emissions and water use involved in growing feed crops and rearing livestock, diets should cut meat and dairy consumption, and increase the intake of plant-based and other protein types.

Estimates suggest that the water footprint of food consumption could be reduced by up to 41% by a switch to vegetarian diet in southern European countries and 30% for a switch to a healthy diet, and respectively 32% and 3 % in northern regions (Vanham et al., 2013). Studies on the effect of diets on nitrogen emissions suggest that halving meat, egg and dairy consumption in the European Union could achieve a 40% reduction in nitrogen emissions, assuming corresponding changes in livestock agricultural production (Westhoek et al., 2014b).

Demand from consumers is a fundamental driver in food system. However, consumer preferences are also shaped by the food system and constrained by norms and conventions, cost, convenience, and habit, and the ways in which food choice is presented (EEA, 2017b). Influencing the food environment could be an important lever for change with regard to dietary composition and supporting more environmentally sustainable production. Awareness-raising campaigns and food labelling have role in influencing choices and behaviours, but a food environment conducive to sustainable diets would shift costs on unsustainable choices and make sustainable choices the easiest option (GCSA, 2020).

The EU’s Farm to fork strategy does not commit to stop stimulating production or consumption of meat, but it offers support for alternative proteins and a move to a more plant-based diet.  It proposes to strengthen food labelling standards to support consumers in making sustainable diet choices, including most efficient meat production but also alternative protein diets based for instance on plants.

Targets can also be set to support greater adoption of sustainable diets in collective catering centres. For example, the Law for on trade relations in the agricultural and food sector in France aims for 50% of sustainable food products in collective catering centre, including 20% of organic food by 2022. Other instruments have been proposed, such as taxation of animal products (Vinnari and Tapio, 2012) or the expansion of short supply chain (Box 5.1).

Although the capacity of short supply chains and alternative food networks to meet the challenges of feeding the European population is often questioned, their role in fostering more sustainable eating habits and wellbeing is well acknowledged. Short supply chains have several advantages, from supporting the emergence of new local outlets and more diversified agricultural production, to increasing the value of agricultural products, improve producer income and enhanced social cohesion, and reducing C02 emissions because of less transport ways.  

Box 5.1 Short food supply chains

Short food supply chains, such as the direct distribution of agricultural products, collective direct sales and partnerships lead to a regionalisation of markets and can reduce the farmers’ dependence on large scale, powerful retailers. Short food supply chains can reduce competition and increase farm income. Furthermore, short food supply chains can strengthen the local economy and help to keep family operated and small farms in business.

There is a great diversity of short food supply chains and local food systems in the EU. Short food supply chains and local markets have flourished here in recent years, both in rural and urban areas. On average 15% of EU farms sell more than half of their production directly to consumers through these short supply chains in 2015. In 2015, local food systems provided food for almost half a million Europeans, in particular in France, Belgium and Italy. Short food supply chains tend to be characterised by full or partial organic farming, but they are not always certified.

The rural development program 2014-2020 puts more emphasis on short food supply chains. Several measures are co-financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development to help in setting up and developing short food supply chains and local food systems through support for investment, training, the LEADER approach and organisation of producers.

Source: Kneafsey et al., 2013; IPES Food, 2016

5.3.3        Reducing food waste to increase water use efficiency across the supply chain

An estimate 20% of food is wasted in the EU, of which as much as half is lost at household level (Vittuari et al., 2016). The remaining is lost in processing (19%), food services (12%), production (11%) and wholesale and retail (5%). Reducing food waste thus requires tackling losses that occur during separate steps of the food system involving different actors and very different waste processes. The recent Farm to Fork Strategy (EC, 2020c) calls to cut food waste at retail and consumer levels by half per capita by 2030, and reducing food losses along the food production and supply chains. Global water savings of approximately 250 km³ of water each year may be achieved by reducing food waste (FAO, 2013).

Waste reduction is tackled at EU level by the Waste Framework Directive (Directive 2008/98/EC)(EU, 2008b). EU Circular Economy policy (EC, 2020b) encourages the adoption of a circular model, which applied to food systems, would encourage not only waste reduction based on lower production and consumption levels, but also reuse and recycling of irreducible food waste. The valorisation of food waste aims to reintroduce food waste into the production cycle, which could further reduce demand for additional primary commodity.

This integrated approach to food waste management should account for a number of critical issues from a water and agricultural perspective. First, there needs to be an emphasis on the recovery of nutrients. An estimated 80% of nitrogen and 70% of phosphorus are wasted across the food system. Most of these losses occur at production level and warrants adequate measures for reducing leaching and recycling of nutrients at farm and local level. Increased efficiency in nutrient use is also possible via recycling of food waste as animal feed or as compost at the food processing and retailing stages. Wastewater reuse can exploit household losses after consumption as sewage sludge for field application and irrigation water. The Sewage Sludge Directive (EEC, 1986) and  Water Reuse Regulation (EU, 2020) encourage these practices.

Alternative approaches would enhance synergies between food and energy systems. Technologies for biogas production exist to exploit crop waste and manure, and increase nutrient recycling at farm and local level. This solution can also reduce farm energy costs and represent an additional source of income. Waste along the food chain could also be exploited by larger units.

5.4        The need for policies supporting systemic responses

To move towards sustainability, future policy responses will need to be systemic and maximise opportunities for positive environment change along the whole agricultural production and linked consumption systems (EEA, 2019h). In the past, much of the European policy framework tackling agricultural pressures on the water environment has focused on regulating agriculture, and less so on tackling drivers in food and energy systems, and the broader bioeconomy. More integrated responses would aim to align water, agricultural, food, energy, climate, trade, and other environmental and sectoral policies, considering transversal and cross-cutting dimensions (FAO, 2014; Venghaus and Hake, 2018).

In recent years, there has been a shift towards greater policy coherence and integration, and tackling Europe’s challenges in a systemic way. The Farm-to-Fork Strategy is an example for such systemic policy thinking. Decoupling environmental degradation and economic development - and moving to a greener and more resource efficient economy - has become a priority, but requires implementation and more needs to be done to become more sustainable This transformation will also be needed to adapt to the impacts form climate change.