You can have your cake and eat it too, according to a leaked version of the EU’s upcoming livestock strategy, which leans on technofixes to address our biggest environmental and climate challenges while shying away from some of the meatier questions on reduction of livestock numbers. ARC2020’s Natasha Foote breaks down the key takeaways from the draft.
The strategy, which according to sources will be published on 7 July alongside a sister strategy, the new EU Protein Plan, is intended to set out a long-term vision for the livestock sector which is “predictable, simple, coherent while “tak[ing] into account farming realities”. “The Union of 2040 must be a place where sustainable livestock farming not only survives, but thrives,” the draft reads.
A leaked draft walks a fine tightrope between reassuring farmers, maintaining environmental credibility, reviving parts of the animal welfare agenda, all the while carefully tiptoeing around some of the most politically explosive questions facing the sector.
The cow in the room
Livestock farming faces mounting pressure from climate change, biodiversity loss, environmental pollution, market volatility and societal expectations around animal welfare. While a part of the “societal concerns” around livestock farming has been crossed out (see picture below), the draft text recognises that consumers expect higher standards.
It also acknowledges that livestock in the EU account for some 12% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and that achieving further GHG reductions will require “stronger and more widespread action”.
Yet, over the following twenty-plus pages, the strategy largely avoids engaging with one of the central questions hanging over Europe’s livestock future: whether livestock numbers should fall in regions where production has become highly concentrated and environmentally damaging.
Instead, the document places its faith in a “science- and systems-based approach” driven by innovation, technology and efficiency gains in hopes that this innovation can reconcile productivity, competitiveness and environmental objectives.
A hint of more fun to come?
This technological innovation includes that of a genetic flavour. “Cutting-edge genomic and animal breeding techniques are a win-win for both economic and environmental outcomes,” the draft reads, referring to genetic solutions multiple times in the text hereafter.
On the back of recently approved legislation to loosen EU rules on the use of genetic technologies in plants, it raises a question mark as to whether we can expect a proposal on the use of genetic engineering on animals in the pipeline.
Rising suspicion over this has recently prompted lawmakers to pen a letter to European Commissioner for Health and Animal Welfare, Olivér Várhelyi, and EU agrifood Commissioner Christophe Hansen, to question whether we can expect a proposal in the pipeline on this.
“The development of genetically engineered animals also raises important ethical and scientific questions,” reads the draft letter, seen by ARC2020, signed by a cross party group of MEPs and sent today, calling for the EU to approach the issue “with caution and in full accordance with the EU precautionary principle.”
Math ain’t mathing
One of the more contentious parts is the argument that existing methodologies for measuring GHG emissions do not adequately reflect the complexity of European livestock systems.
Specifically, the draft takes aim at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the leading global body established by the United Nations to assess the science, risks, and potential response strategies related to climate change, for failing to capture the “intricacies” of diverse production models.
The proposed answer is “new” accounting. The Commission intends to develop harmonised farm-level metrics and monitoring tools for livestock emissions, presenting these as a “more refined” alternative to existing approaches.
The IPCC has consistently highlighted both production-side and consumption-side measures, including dietary shifts, as part of pathways to reducing agricultural emissions. The leaked strategy, by contrast, appears more interested in refining how emissions are measured than debating the structural drivers behind them.
But the draft has left many questioning just how “new” this approach really is, with experts pointing out it actually feels very similar to the lobbying attempts by the agroindustry. This includes some striking similarities in the proposed accounting system, as well as the use of the word “biogenic” rather than “metagenic” – aka, the idea that if the gas is released by cows instead of oil and gas, then it’s different.
Ending the cage age
For animal welfare organisations, the draft contains some long-awaited good news.
For instance, the draft commits to following up on the European Citizens’ Initiative End the Cage Age, which attracted nearly 1.4 million validated signatures, pushing Brussels to respond to demands for an end to cage-based systems. The strategy explicitly recognises the need for an EU-level approach and promises a “progressive follow-up” to the initiative.
It also foresees a targeted revision of welfare rules for laying hens and broiler chickens, including measures aimed at ending the killing of male day-old chicks.
These commitments suggest that animal welfare has not yet disappeared from the Commission’s agenda despite years of delays and growing political resistance.
Strong on trade
In what will be good news to many farmers, who have long called for trade coherence, the strategy sets out measures to ensure that European meat producers are not undercut by imports produced under lower standards. It states that high requirements imposed on EU farmers must be matched by reciprocal obligations for imported products, including equivalent animal welfare standards where compatible with WTO rules.
Meanwhile, in the current draft, the Commission states that it will assess further steps concerning exports of live animals for slaughter to third countries in order to address animal welfare concerns.
Whether the sentence survives into the final version will be one of the more revealing tests of the Commission’s willingness to confront a politically sensitive issue that has generated years of controversy.
Nitrates and Nature Directives
The draft also leaves no doubt that it sits firmly within the Commission’s wider simplification and competitiveness agenda.
For instance, it signals potential movement on the Nitrates Directive, stating that Brussels will consider requests for further simplification. At the same time, the Commission is reportedly “stress-testing” the implementation of nature legislation.
The language remains vague, and several sections still contain blanks awaiting further negotiation.
Nevertheless, the direction is familiar. Across multiple policy areas, the current Commission has framed environmental legislation through the lens of competitiveness, administrative burden and implementation costs.
What now?
The Commission is gearing up to present the draft at the beginning of July, currently earmarked for 7 July, alongside a sister proposal on protein diversification.
Between now and then, some of the most politically sensitive passages could still change, with bracketed references to live animal exports, missing dates for animal welfare reforms and unfinished sections on environmental legislation suggesting that there’s still plenty to play for behind closed doors.
This article is produced in cooperation with the
Heinrich Böll Stiftung European Union.
Have thoughts to share on this topic? Join the discussion on LinkedIn!
More
The EU just opened its doors to new GMOs – but you won’t know if they’re on your plate
How Iran war exposes Europe’s dangerous dependency on fertilisers
CAP | EU Watchdog Gears Up To Fight For Fairness in Future Farming Policy
The Year of the CAP & Big Budget Overhaul – Key EU Policy Moments to Watch in 2026
Letter From The Farm | Restoring Nature, Improving Productivity
