OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy

IATP

IATP works locally and globally at the intersection of policy and practice to ensure fair and sustainable food, farm and trade systems.

Lobbying Activity

Response to EU’s next long-term budget (MFF) – implementing EU funding with Member States and regions

3 Nov 2025

Establishing financing for transition action plans in the agri-food system as part of the next budget is a welcome development. However, in order to ensure a fair and just transition for Europes farmers, rural communities, and the broader agri-food sector away from industrial livestock production and towards food production in line with nature, further elaboration is needed in the NRP Plans as well as the CAP Regulation. Specifically, we make the following three recommendations: (1) Strengthen the specific objectives that the Fund seeks to accomplish regarding a just transition for the agri-food sector. To meet the EUs climate and methane pollution reduction targets as well as improve the blocs air and water quality, treatment of its farm animals, and those living next to factory farms, the EU needs to transition away from industrial livestock production towards raising farm animals in numbers nature can support. Such a transition will entail significant changes, not only for farmers but for rural communities and workers throughout the agri-food system. The Funds specific objective of supporting a just transition is too narrowly focused on the energy sector and does not reflect the breadth of those who will be affected as part of achieving the EUs net zero GHG emission goals. The EUs commitment to a fair and just transition to climate neutrality should include farmers and the agri-food sector. (2) Expand and elaborate on the scope of agri-food transition activities covered. A fair transition to animal farming within natures limits will not take place overnight not least of which because it takes time to establish alternative markets, supply chains, and infrastructure that will allow farmers to earn a fair living by growing more fruits, vegetables or legumes (from diversified systems), shifting to agroforestry, or even growing sustainable construction material on rewetted peatlands. The requirement for Member States to provide funding for voluntary transition plans is most welcome, though the scope should extend beyond the extensification of livestock production systems and include diversification into other agricultural, agroforestry or non-agricultural activities. While farmers are at the center of the transition away from industrial livestock production, workers in the agri-food sector especially in meat processing will also be affected as well as rural communities. Provisions should be provided for in both the NRP Plan and CAP regulations. (3) Dedicated financing for the transition away from industrial livestock production. Diversifying production away from industrial livestock production will require significant investment and a substantial commitment by farmers, both of which should be matched by a societal commitment to provide financial support. While financial resources to support transition activities are included in funds earmarked for the CAP, the co-financing rules and other spending priorities may put the level of support available for the transition at risk. The publics money should support activities that benefit society. Spending these public resources wisely and coherently to support farmers as they help society fight climate change and make their farms more resilient to its devasting impacts is key. The proposals for capping and degressivity of area-based payments should be retained and strengthened, with a goal to ultimately phase out these payments altogether. Beyond the NRP and CAP plans, strengthening the UTP Directive will help ensure farmers are fairly paid for their products and thus are better positioned financially to support the transition to more sustainable, organic, and agroecological farming practices. The next long-term budget period comes at a critical time for making the transition to climate-friendly farming a reality. By supporting farmers, workers throughout the agri-food chain, and rural communities, a fair and just transition is possible.
Read full response

Response to EU vision for enhancing global climate and energy transition

3 Sept 2025

IATP Europe submitted the following comments on 03 September 2025 to the European Commission regarding its global climate and energy transition strategy, which will guide its green diplomacy through to 2029. Tackling global methane pollution should continue to be a core element of the EUs global climate strategy, alongside supporting the transition away from fossil fuels. Methane pollution is a significant contributor to the planetary warming experienced to date. Deep and sustained cuts in this source of pollution, along with the phasing out of fossil fuels, is needed to limit warming to 1.5°C. Yet, global methane emissions are increasing at rates consistent with the hottest and most polluting scenarios considered by scientists. The EUs continued commitment to green diplomacy and leadership on international climate initiatives is vital during these challenging times. The EU has supported global methane action, like initiating the Global Methane Pledge. However, increasing methane emission levels indicate that much more work is needed. Leadership begins at home, as the Commission President herself noted in the 2024-2029 Political Guidelines. The EUs ability to lead globally on methane is being put at risk by a failure to effectively curb methane pollution within the bloc. At best, the EU is projected to cut its methane pollution by about 11-12% by 2030, a far cry from the Global Methane Pledges 30% reduction target. Meaningful action requires that the EU address agricultural methane pollution, which represents close to 60% of all methane emissions within the EU. Cattle raising for beef and dairy production are responsible for most of these emissions. A shift away from industrial animal farming particularly in high livestock density regions can contribute to cutting a significant amount of this methane pollution. Meaningful action does not include ramping up large-scale biomethane production, which is not a solution to climate change but only risks further entrenching the industrial livestock model. A fair transition to animal farming within natures limits will not take place overnight. It requires being transparent about the path forward for the sector, starting with an emissions reduction target for agriculture as part of the EUs 2040 climate target and policy package, and sufficient support for farmers and rural communities to make, and adjust to, these changes, including dedicated funding for territorial livestock transition plans in the EUs next budget. Support is also needed to create attractive alternative markets for farmers to grow more fruits, vegetables and legumes. Ambitious action to cut methane pollution domestically will help the EU leverage greater action abroad. Establishing global methane pollution reduction targets for 2035 and 2040 can help guide countries, corporations and other non-state actors to undertake the actions needed to ensure the deep emissions cuts consistent with the Paris Agreements temperature goal are achieved. The EU is warming faster than the global average. Rapidly reducing methane emissions can slow the rate of warming and lower the likelihood of record-breaking extreme weather. Taking bold action to reduce methane pollution in the EU, including from industrial livestock production, can help encourage greater action abroad.
Read full response

Response to European Climate Law amendment

3 Sept 2025

The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) Europe welcomes the EUs efforts to make its 2040 climate target legally binding. Europe is the worlds fastest-warming continent. Climate extremes, especially drought, are already costing farmers billions per year and will only get more frequent and more severe without strong action to cut climate pollution. Every 0.1°C of additional warming matters, so Europe should strive to cut its greenhouse gas emissions as fast as possible. Opening the door to international carbon offsets weakens the EUs climate action and should not be relied upon to achieve the EUs 2040 target. The qualifiers of high-quality and limited use in the proposed regulation are no comfort. History shows that offset credits have not only failed to produce genuine climate benefits, but caused grave human rights violations. The suggested limit on credit use is much larger than it first appears and may increase further during negotiations on the regulations adoption. Permitting the use of international offsets goes against the 2023 advice of the EUs own advisory body, which issued a special report earlier this year to reaffirm this point. The impact assessment evaluating credit use should evaluate both these climate and social concerns. The EUs food and farming system has much potential to deliver climate action with wider benefits for nature, human health and rural vitality than the risks associated with relying on loopholes, like international offset credits. The EUs own analysis shows that even modest shifts to healthier diets can yield substantial emission reductions, with greater pollution cuts possible with more transformational change. In preparing the post-2030 policy architecture, a sectoral target for agricultural emissions is needed for the same reasons the overarching 2040 target is important: to provide farmers and agrifood businesses with predictability and a clear indication of the transition pathway needed. The policy package to support achieving this sectoral target should focus on shifting to agroecological and organic farming practices, as these holistic approaches not only address climate pollution but increase the farming sectors resilience. A narrow focus on technological fixes to cut emissions will not deliver the system change needed, nor the level of pollution cuts required. It also risks further entrenching industrial animal farming. The entire agrifood value chain including middle of the chain actors like grocery retailers have a role to play in supporting the transition, which should be reflected in the policy design. Farmers will need new and attractive alternative markets if they are to shift to growing more fruits, vegetables, legumes and fiber crops. We support and are encouraged by the EUs commitment to a just and socially fair transition for all affected. Farmers and rural communities will need this support as they shift away from industrial animal farming particularly in high livestock density regions. Dedicated funding for livestock transition plans in the EUs next budget is needed to make this a reality. Europes farmers are already facing the adverse impacts of a warming planet. Helping them cut climate pollution helps protect the long-term viability of the sector and the resilience and prosperity of our rural communities, and can help EU meet and exceed its 90% target at home.
Read full response

Meeting with Tiemo Wölken (Member of the European Parliament) and Deutsche Umwelthilfe e.V. and

25 Apr 2023 · Aktuelle Themen der Klimapolitik

Response to Carbon Removal Certification

23 Mar 2023

The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) welcomes the opportunity to give feedback to the European Commissions proposal for a Carbon Removal Certification Framework. We would like to highlight twelve major concerns about the proposal and urge the European Commission to consider those moving forward: 1. Mitigation deterrence: Although the frameworks goal is to scale up carbon removals to counterbalance hard-to-abate emissions, the proposal fails to set conditions on removals in relation to emissions reductions. 2. Conflicts of interest: The proposal delegates central elements of the legislation to an EC-selected closed expert group with outsized corporate influence on the outcome of this legislation. 3. Greenwashing: The proposal puts no limits on how carbon removal certificates can be used, opening the door for corporate abuse and greenwashing. 4. Permanence: The CRCFs definition of carbon removals includes practices that temporarily store carbon, undermining the frameworks integrity. 5. Conflating different concepts: The proposals definition of carbon removals includes emissions reductions, confounding two very different measures in climate science. 6. Liability: The proposal fails to clarify who is liable for reversal of carbon removals. 7. Adverse social impacts: The proposal completely ignores the social dimension of carbon offsets. 8. Ecosystem restoration: Final EC proposal eliminates the requirement for ecosystem restoration and environmental sustainability criteria of land-based carbon sequestration. 9. Questionable quantification: Poor baselines are proposed to quantify land-based carbon sequestration. 10. Additionality: Proposed definition deviates from fundamental criteria required even in compliance carbon markets undermining climate ambition and could prevent an ambitious Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) reform with higher environmental benchmarks. 11. Low bar for VCMs: The voluntary nature of the proposal not only fails to regulate the wild west of voluntary carbon markets but may also further legitimize an unregulated industry. 12. Global implications: The framework is likely to become a blueprint for international carbon offset markets, with implications for climate justice in the Global South. IATP also urges the European Commission to consider an alternative approach to land-based activities, focused on building resilience of the land sector through ecosystem restoration. For more details, please refer to the documents attached.
Read full response

Response to Carbon Removal Certification

2 May 2022

Please find attached the Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy's feedback as part of the call for evidence on the carbon removals certification framework.
Read full response

Response to EU Methane Strategy

12 Aug 2020

The Roadmap states, "Existing obstacles and possible incentives for stepping up methane capture from anaerobic digestion and production of biogas should be explored" implying that capturing biogas from livestock operations is neither contested nor problematic both from an economic, but also an ecological point of view. Expanding biogas production (that is not limited to small-scale and on-farm heat generation) through livestock manure as feedstock will not only undermine efforts to limit livestock related greenhouse gases by incentivising intensive livestock production, but also create further dependency on the natural gas industry when the EU must make a dramatic transition away from fossil energy towards wind and solar. Experience from California and European countries where biogas digestors are incentivized through government programs or regulations show that the system is unsustainable and uneconomical without public subsidies. Moreover, technological fixes to address the methane problem of the livestock industry ignores transformative agricultural practices involving low stocking densities and well-managed pasture. Agroecological practices that promote soil health, air and water quality and enhance animal welfare can lead to producing less and better meat and dairy while helping to sequestering carbon. Public policies to curb over production, ensure fair prices to producers and incentivizing on-farm investments for an agroecological transition will deliver far more ambitious climate and environmental outcomes than a narrow and misguided approach that would expand the natural gas and intensive livestock industry. Shefali Sharma Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy Europe Berlin, Germany
Read full response