Summary The Danish parliament has launched a CO 2 e‐tax on agricultural greenhouse gas emissions and an ambitious rural land use reform. The reform entails that 15 per cent or more of the agricultural land will be converted into forest, restored wetlands and semi‐natural grasslands. In the coming years, similar policies may be introduced in other countries and by the EU as a whole. With the primary aims of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the environmental impact of agriculture, 140,000 ha of drained wetlands (including buffer zones) will be rewetted, and 250,000 ha farmland will be afforested or converted into natural habitats. These land use changes will be organised through collaborative planning by 23 ‘local tripartites’, each covering a watershed. A major challenge will be to exploit the synergies between the goals in order to minimise the amount of land that must be converted. Other challenges include the financial resources available (so far, €7 billion has been allocated) and timeframe for implementation. A third critical factor is the engagement of municipalities, which are leading the planning processes, and the active involvement of stakeholders from agricultural organisations and environmental NGOs. Implementation of the reform will also be influenced by any future changes to the CAP, which in turn may benefit from the Danish experience.

Summary The paper examines the implications of the 2025 US tariff reform under President Trump for EU agri‐food exports and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Drawing on WTO trade rules and their exceptions, we show how unilateral tariff actions legally emerge within the multilateral system, leaving EU farmers exposed to external shocks. Using baseline export data and tariff‐loss simulations, we estimate that a 15 per cent tariff reduces EU exports to the US by €2–4.5 billion annually, with the heaviest impact on high‐value Mediterranean products such as wine, olive oil and spirits. These results confirm that current CAP instruments – particularly the Unity Safety Net (€0.9 billion/year) – are insufficient, covering less than one‐third of the central‐case export losses. While the proposed post‐2027 CAP strengthens resilience through expanded risk management and sustainability measures, it lacks a dedicated mechanism for external trade shocks. The findings support three research hypotheses: Trump’s tariffs cause significant short‐term export losses; the current CAP cannot mitigate them, and future reforms, though more ambitious, remain structurally under‐prepared. Policy implications include the need for a trade‐shock resilience pillar within the CAP, stronger alignment with EU trade policy, and diversification of export markets. Overall, the study highlights the systemic vulnerability of EU agriculture to unilateral tariff measures.

SummaryUkraine's possible accession to the European Union (EU) is causing apprehension among European farmers, who fear competition from Ukrainian production. The country's agriculture is highly competitive due to the size of its territory, its fertile land, and its low production costs. Its primary exports to Europe are raw products with low added value, mainly cereals and oilseeds used as feed. While Ukraine's accession does represent a challenge for EU arable producers (and to a lesser extent poultry), sectors and industries, it does not break from the current situation. It rather strengthens ongoing trends that have been in place since the mid‐2010s, namely an increase in trade, particularly in agri‐food products, following the signing of the EU‐Ukraine Association Agreement in 2014. Furthermore, the future of relations between the two regions and its implication for their respective agricultural sectors are not yet defined. They will be shaped by a set of regulations – and therefore political choices – currently being drawn up: the Treaty of Accession, the CAP and Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) reforms. They will also depend on the outcome of the war and its consequences for the Ukrainian agricultural sector, as well as the direction chosen for this sector as part of the country's reconstruction process.

SummaryThis study offers valuable insights into farmers’ perspectives on the use of feed additives (3‐NOP) in reducing methane emissions, and highlights associated obstacles that may prevent the accelerated uptake of GHG mitigation measures. Our data originate from a survey of 239 Finnish dairy farmers. While most farmers acknowledge the importance of climate issues, only a small percentage consider the reduction of the environmental impact of milk production to be the responsibility of the producer. Still, the farmers would prefer to decide for themselves how to reduce emissions, which demonstrates that resistance toward external directives might exist. In addition, there is a discrepancy between economically viable and environmentally responsible management, and this makes farmers more preoccupied with profitability. Furthermore, most farmers consider the feed additives to be safe. However, their efficiency in emission reduction remains unclear to many which contributes to hesitation in adoption. Thus, improved communication and education towards sustainable practices is needed. Strengthening dialogue among researchers, advisors, policymakers and farmers can help clarify the environmental purpose of feed additives and address uncertainties about their effectiveness and safety. Targeted educational efforts should focus on practical, science‐based methods for methane reduction and build confidence through transparent information and real‐life examples.

SummaryFarm digitalisation is revolutionising European agriculture, offering enhanced productivity, resource efficiency and sustainability. Technologies like sensors, robotics and data‐driven tools enable precise decision‐making thereby reducing time and resource use. This article draws on insights from 18 focus groups in European living labs, engaging farmers, policymakers and advisors to explore the trade‐offs of digital adoption.Key benefits include time‐saving tools that streamline operations, promote sustainability and support innovative business models. Digital platforms improve traceability, reduce chemical inputs and enhance food safety. Farmers also value how technology attracts younger generations and fosters inclusivity. Examples from France, Germany, Hungary and Italy illustrate region‐specific applications, such as real‐time data use and soil‐scanning technologies.However, significant challenges accompany digitalisation. Farmers cite high costs, a steep learning curve and infrastructure gaps like limited internet connectivity. Trust issues persist among farmers, governments and technology providers, while concerns over data ownership and governance hinder adoption. Small farms face disproportionate burdens due to financial constraints and skill shortages.This study underscores the need for equitable support systems, transparent governance and tailored solutions to bridge gaps. By addressing these challenges, Europe can ensure farm digitalisation fosters sustainability and benefits all stakeholders, aligning with broader goals like the European Green Deal.

SummaryCoherence in policy approaches across countries is crucial for achieving common GHG emission reduction goals at lower costs. Agro‐economic models like Aglink‐Cosimo, including global fertiliser markets, are useful for analyzing the anticipated effects of GHG reduction policies on food commodity markets. These policies can significantly affect domestic industry competitiveness, either positively or negatively. Such assessment tools can enhance evidence‐based policy discussions and formation. We include in the baseline a EU ETS carbon price on fertiliser production in the EU as of 2026, without free allowances at 100 USD/tonne of CO2‐eq emitted. Carbon pricing is assumed to be applied by the EU, Canada and the USA to fertiliser production from 2026 onwards.The results of the analysis presented in this article indicate that a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) significantly impacts fertiliser trade. A unilateral CBAM tariff affects EU fertiliser trade more than a common CBAM tariff adopted by a coalition of countries. These effects depend heavily on the volume of bilateral trade within club countries. Fertiliser markets influence commodity production and prices modestly due to the price inelasticity of fertiliser demand by farmers and the buffering role of trade in response to price shocks. In terms of GHG emissions, a climate club scenario results in lower total world emissions compared to a unilateral CBAM scenario.

SummaryThe Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the agricultural research agenda are evolving at the same time. Although the past offers several examples of how research has influenced the CAP in terms of both objectives (progressive inclusion of environmental issues) and instruments (decoupling of income support measures, inefficiency of the ‘greening’ measure of the 2014–2020 CAP), assessing the impacts of agricultural research on the CAP is difficult for many reasons. Such an assessment requires a clear picture of agricultural research programmes, themes and results. It also calls for a robust analytical framework linking research programmes to CAP objectives and instruments in a context where both evolve simultaneously, are influenced by many other determinants, and vary over time depending on the political orientation of governments. Furthermore, European agriculture is influenced by many public policies other than the CAP, at both European Union and Member State level. Research and innovation efforts must ultimately be assessed according to their impacts not on the CAP but on agriculture, food and rural development in a context where assessment criteria must cover all sustainability dimensions, including resilience aspects. We conclude by emphasizing the need for both policy‐makers and researchers to recognise explicitly that not all policy objectives are mutually compatible.

SummaryThe economic, ecological and animal welfare impacts of fur farming in the European Union have been debated for decades, culminating in proposals for an EU‐wide ban on keeping animals solely for fur production. The Covid‐19 pandemic further intensified these discussions, particularly within individual Member States.This study analyses the economic trends, environmental consequences and disease risks associated with fur farming, providing insights to inform political and societal debate. Our findings indicate that, even before the pandemic, fur exports and consumer demand were in steady decline. This trend has been driven by shifting consumer preferences, major fashion brands phasing out fur, and growing concerns over animal welfare and sustainability. Additionally, the industry has been linked to biodiversity threats, zoonotic disease transmission, and negative environmental impacts, including a high carbon footprint.While concerns remain over the relocation of fur farming to regions with weaker regulations, the industry requires a strategic transition. Supporting fur farmers in shifting to alternative activities, for example, through training, targeted subsidies, compensation and other policy incentives, can help repurpose land and employment towards viable and sustainable alternatives.

SummaryAs one of the world's largest players in global trade, the EU pursues an open, sustainable and assertive trade strategy. The recent conclusions and ongoing negotiations of 10 European Union Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with Australia, Chile, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Mercosur bloc (comprising Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay), Mexico, New Zealand, the Philippines and Thailand are expected to diversify the EU's agri‐food trade and enhance the resilience of its food supply chain. This resilience hinges on diversifying import sources and market outlets, which can be achieved through a robust trade policy that ensures access to a sufficient supply of affordable food for citizens. A two‐step modelling approach was employed to assess ex‐ante the cumulative economic impact of these FTAs on food commodity trade, production, consumption and prices in 2032.The analysis reveals that both EU imports and exports increase in value in the simulated scenarios, with notable sectoral variations. On the one hand, exports of dairy products and pig meat exhibit significant growth. On the other hand, potential vulnerabilities of the EU beef, poultry meat, sugar and rice sectors are identified.The study also examines the impact of the United Kingdom's trade agenda on the EU agri‐food sector, quantifying the impact of the recent agreements between the UK, Australia and New Zealand, as well as the UK's future accession to the Trans‐Pacific Partnership agreement on the EU agri‐food sector.