EN EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Strasbourg, 7.7.2026 COM(2026) 576 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN

PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL

COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

EU strategy on livestock

{SWD(2026) 576 final}

1. INTRODUCTION

Livestock farming is one of humanity’s oldest activities. Since animals were first

domesticated over 10.000 years ago, it has played a pivotal role in the social and economic

development of civilisations. Across the centuries, livestock farming has not only been an

indispensable part of our food system. It has also sustained European livelihoods, has

become a backbone of rural economies and a defining element of our landscapes.

In today’s Europe, livestock farming is a diverse and complex economic activity which

represents about 40% of EU agricultural added value and generates EUR 400 billion in

turnover per year. It has a strong social and territorial impact: it employs around 7 million

people and relies on 4 million farms distributed across the whole European geography,

often in areas with few alternative economic activities. From the Alpine pastures to the

Eastern border regions, from the Arctic areas to the Southern dehesas and the EU

outermost regions as well as Mediterranean islands, Europe rural areas need livestock for

their survival. With its crucial role in keeping population in rural areas and their economic

vitality, it provides a strong contribution to EU security and preparedness objectives. The

European Eastern border flank is at high risk of land abandonment, accompanied by fast

reducing livestock population, which further reduces the resilience of these regions to

respond to crisis and security risks (1).

The EU livestock farming sector plays a crucial role in contributing to food security by

providing high quality protein, not only in the EU but also at global level, with a positive

EU trade balance and a growing demand for EU products thanks to world-leading

standards, quality and sustainability (2), which allow them to carry the flag of European

excellence across the globe.

As a key strategic sector for the Union competitiveness and open strategic autonomy, this

strategy sets out actions to tackle its existing vulnerabilities and increase its resilience in a

world of growing market competition. At the same time, the sector needs to better respond

to the increasing societal expectations, in particular on animal welfare, turn its

environmental footprint into positive externalities and strengthen its territorial anchorage.

Improvements in the food chain integration and taking a full circular approach would

enable the valorising of all by-products and biomass to generate additional income for

farmers, while reducing the carbon footprint of livestock production.

As announced in the Vision for Agriculture and Food (3), the EU livestock sector deserves

a long-term strategy that respects the diversity and specificities of livestock production

across Europe. Continuing the transition towards a resilient, competitive and sustainable

livestock sector in the EU is key to fighting depopulation in the most vulnerable territories

while at the same time contributing to the goal of reaching climate neutrality by 2050. Such

transition will be among the objectives supported by the CAP post-2027, thereby

(1) Communication on the EU’s eastern regions bordering Russia, Belarus and Ukraine COM(2026) 82

final

(2) Globally, meat consumption is expected to still grow due to rapid population and income growth. The

Union is a leading global trader in animal products. In 2025, the EU exported EUR 53 billion worth of

animal products, while imports amounted to EUR 16 billion. Dairy products are leading: in 2025 they

were worth EUR 20.7 billion with a net trade surplus of EUR 18 billion. The EU’s trade balance in

animal products has been positive over the past decade.

(3) A Vision for agriculture and food: Shaping together an attractive EU farming and food sector for future generations,

COM/2025/75 final

2

underpinning the implementation of the Generational Renewal Strategy (4), the EU

Bioeconomy Strategy (5), the forthcoming new rural action plan (6), the Fertiliser Action

Plan (7) and the communication on wildfire risk management (8). At international level, the

Commission engages with multilateral bodies to accompany that transition through the

alignment of international standards, notably the FAO in the framework of the Global Plan

of Action for Sustainable Livestock.

To ensure the long-term viability of the EU livestock sector, a strategy is needed to:

− Advance towards a resilient livestock system that withstands crisis and is better

adapted to climate stress,

− Strengthen its competitiveness at EU and global level,

− Future-proof the sector by strengthening animal welfare conditions and minimising

its climate and environmental footprint,

− Ensure that livestock production systems continue to fit the unique characteristics of

different regions, sustain rural economies and traditions across Europe and continue

to contribute to the maintenance of their rich biodiversity,

− Foster excellence in livestock production as a distinct European approach to livestock

farming that is recognised and valued by consumers, in particular when it comes to

animal welfare.

The strategy builds on extensive stakeholder engagement, framed by the Livestock

Workstream, including more than one year of dialogue with Member States, farmers,

industry representatives, and civil society, including the European Board on Agriculture

and Food. It is accompanied by a protein plan to make the EU protein system more resilient

and sustainable. This Communication, based on a diagnosis of the sector’s strengths and

weaknesses presented in the accompanying Commission Staff Working Document, takes

account of the European Parliament’s own initiative report ´How to secure a sustainable

future for the EU livestock sector in light of the need to ensure food security, farmers’

resilience and the challenges posed by animal diseases?´(9).

2. THE EU LIVESTOCK SECTOR TODAY

2.1. Challenges and opportunities

The EU livestock sector is facing a combination of structural and day-to-day pressures.

These pressures are already contributing to farm exits in some regions, particularly in

cattle, sheep and goats, and raise concerns about the long-term continuity of livestock

(4) Strategy for generational renewal in agriculture, COM (2025) 872 final

(5) A Strategic Framework for a Competitive and Sustainable EU Bioeconomy, COM(2025) 960 final

(6) Reviewed EU rural action plan Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the

European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee

of the Regions The long-term vision for the EU’s rural areas: key achievements and ways forward,

SWD/2024/451 final

(7) Fertiliser Action Plan: Partnership for ensuring the availability, affordability and strategic autonomy in

home-grown EU fertilisers, COM (2026) 310 final

(8) Communication on integrated wildfire risk management, COM (2026) 330 final

(9) 2025/2053(INI)

3

activity in parts of the Union. For example, France lost 16% of its bovine population in the

last decade and, in the same period, Germany lost 22% of its pig population.

A central challenge is profitability. High input costs, market volatility, and exposure to

price fluctuations in feed and energy continue to compress margins. At the same time,

compliance with high EU standards necessary to protect animal welfare, food safety,

climate and environmental protection may generate production costs that are not always

reflected in market prices. Farmers also face weak bargaining power towards the buyers.

The EU livestock sector also faces sustainability challenges. It is a major source of

agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, ammonia and nutrient pollution, affecting climate,

air, water quality and biodiversity. While emissions have been consistently declining, the

pace is slow. The concentration of livestock production in some EU areas creates nutrient

imbalances, resulting in nutrient pollution. At the same time, extensive grazing livestock

is essential to maintain grasslands that support biodiversity, rural biotopes, conserve nature

and help prevent land abandonment and depopulation of rural areas.

Several structural vulnerabilities further shape the sector’s outlook. An ageing farming

population, insufficient generational renewal, labour shortages—including in rural

veterinary services— and demanding working conditions threaten its future capacity.

Climate change impacts and animal disease outbreaks weigh on economic results.

The future of the EU livestock sector must build on its important strengths and

opportunities. The EU livestock sector is rooted in tradition but underpinned by innovation

and entrepreneurship. Its diversity of production systems, species, and territories enhances

resilience and adaptability. High EU standards fortify consumer trust and enable strong

positioning in premium markets. In several sectors, efficient production systems, advanced

veterinary services and well-developed supply chains support productivity and export

performance. Innovation and the adoption of circular bioeconomy approaches are

improving both the competitiveness and environmental outcomes. Increasingly, farmers

are not only food producers, but also guardians of nature, tourism accommodation

providers and “energy-farmers”, producing renewable energy for on-farm purposes and in

many cases for wider consumption, reducing EU dependencies on fossil-based

alternatives.

3. THE STRATEGY

The Union of 2040 must be a place where sustainable livestock farming not only survives

but thrives.

The sector must be supported by a coherent policy framework that is simple, predictable

and takes farming realities into account. In the next programming period and without

prejudging ongoing MFF negotiations, the CAP will continue to be the key pillar of

support, both for income, investments and incentives, within the future National and

4

Regional Partnership plans, complemented by the proposed Horizon Europe

Programme (10) and European Competitiveness Fund (ECF) (11) to stimulate innovation.

This strategy delivers a long-term direction for the sector's competitiveness and

sustainability, in a context of increased preparedness. It translates into operational

action points at EU, Member-State and stakeholder level, with an emphasis on targeted,

territorial solutions adapted to different production systems and regions, taking a holistic,

coherent, cross-policy approach.

The Commission intends to maintain the livestock workstream as a forum for discussion

and further development of certain initiatives identified below, as it provides an inclusive

way of delivering the Strategy.

3.1. A resilient livestock sector that withstands crisis

A resilient livestock system is essential for the Union’s food security, strategic

autonomy and rural vitality. Resilience means more than the capacity to recover after a

shock. It also means being able to anticipate risks, reduce vulnerabilities, adapt to structural

changes and continue to provide safe, sustainable and affordable food under increasingly

difficult conditions. For the livestock sector, this is now a pressing priority. Producers face

growing pressure from volatile markets, rising input and fixed costs, climate change, water

scarcity, animal diseases, labour shortage and lack of skilled workers, geopolitical

instability and unfair global competition. A stronger and more resilient sector is therefore

necessary both to protect farmers’ livelihoods and to preserve the Union’s capacity to

produce.

A first priority is to strengthen the framework for risk management. Livestock

farmers need better access to finance, insurance, reinsurance, mutual funds and income

stabilisation tools that reflect the specific risks of the sector, including climate events,

market disruption and animal diseases. Future policy should improve coherence between

risk management and crisis management so that emergency support does not substitute for

preparedness but complements it.

In this context, the Commission is preparing the groundwork with financial institutions,

including the European Investment Bank, to explore the possibility of developing a

dedicated risk-management financial scheme under the post-2027 Multiannual

Financial Framework, covering climate-related insurance and reinsurance needs and

extending support to risks linked to animal diseases, to complement existing

instruments (12).

(10) Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

establishing Horizon Europe, the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, for the period

2028-2034 laying down its rules for participation and dissemination, and repealing Regulation (EU)

2021/695, COM/2025/543 final

(11) Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on

establishing the European Competitiveness Fund ('ECF’), including the specific programme for defence

research and innovation activities, repealing Regulations (EU) 2021/522, (EU) 2021/694, (EU)

2021/697, (EU) 2021/783, repealing provisions of Regulations (EU) 2021/696, (EU) 2023/588, and

amending Regulation (EU) [EDIP], COM/2025/555 final

(12) fi-compass, 2025, an overview of agricultural climate risk trends across Europe under the current climate

and in 2050 - Insurance and Risk Management Tools for Agriculture in the EU (https://www.fi-

compass.eu/sites/default/files/publications/EAFRD_AGRI_Insurance_Risk_MA.pdf)

5

The risk management toolbox under the current and future CAP is already quite

comprehensive (13), giving Member State options to choose and adapt those tools to their

needs. The Commission will prepare a manual with practical orientations on risk

management, drawing on EU and international expertise, so that Member States can better

reflect these needs in their future NRP plans. This will complement CAP

recommendations that will also cover risk management aspects. The Commission will

also assess and reduce, where relevant, administrative barriers in the setting-up of specific

risk management tools, as mutual funds, to address low uptake, particularly by small farms.

A second priority is to strengthen disease prevention and response. Animal diseases

including zoonoses remain among the most serious threats to livestock resilience,

biodiversity and potentially human health. Recent outbreaks, which have intensified

strongly in their frequency, have shown the scale of the economic and social damage they

can cause, including the destruction of large numbers of animals and disruptions to trade

and rural activity. Strong biosecurity measures remain a first line of defence and are an

essential element of prevention. Furthermore, the evaluation of the Animal Health Law

will provide a basis for updating the Union’s One Health approach to disease management,

including a broader and science-based use of preventive vaccination where appropriate. To

reinforce adaptability to emerging risks and diseases, the Commission will review

whether the current disease categorisation system remains fit for purpose and whether

the categorisation criteria adequately address specific challenges. To strengthen

harmonised disease control measures across the EU, the Commission will continue to

propose updates to legislation in line with the latest scientific developments and

international standards as laid down by the World Organisation for Animal Health

(WOAH) and will adopt implementing rules to clarify roles and responsibilities more

clearly. To support a wider and science-based use of preventive vaccination, the

Commission will also assess whether the current vaccination rules and principles

remain appropriate.

This work should be based on the latest scientific advice from the European Food Safety

Authority (EFSA) and supported by stronger international engagement to promote

acceptance of EU sanitary measures. To address the uneven recognition by third countries

of regionalisation, the Commission will further support Member States by developing

guidance on the application of vaccination coupled with regionalisation and

compartmentalisation, while continuing to advocate recognition of the EU’s

regionalisation approach including vaccination with trading partners in bilateral and

multilateral fora.

Continued research and innovation in animal health and vaccination, including DIVA

vaccines (14), remain essential, including on potential vaccines for major transboundary

diseases. The proposed dedicated window under the Horizon Europe framework will

support this work.

As part of the preventive measures, the Commission will continue to support and

strengthen Member States’ capacity in the surveillance of the relevant animal diseases,

(13) World Bank: Solutions for Better Agri-Risk Management in the European Union

(https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-

reports/documentdetail/099032326044016306)

(14) DIVA (Differentiating Infected from Vaccinated Animals) vaccines are a specialised type of vaccine

designed to distinguish between animals that have been vaccinated and those that have been naturally

infected with a disease. This distinction is crucial for effective disease control, surveillance, and trade

regulations in livestock and other animal.

6

ensuring early detection and early action. Early warning mechanisms are very important.

The Commission will assess how to finance the improvement of existing systems, better

integrate digitalisation in detection and warning, as well as how to improve information

dissemination to the farmers across the EU (apps, hotlines).

At the same time, adequate EU financing is key for prevention, surveillance, control

and eradication, especially for emergency measures in the event of outbreaks. The EU

facility proposed under the MFF enables a common policy in the areas of health and safety

(including for animals) and can provide dedicated support in case of animal diseases,

subject to annual budgetary procedures. Member States could also provide within their

NRP plans enhanced farmers’ access to and uptake of preventive tools, including

biosecurity and vaccines and ensure adequate advisory services and sufficient veterinary

staffing by introducing financial incentives for veterinarians in rural areas, while

stakeholders are expected to enhance on-farm biosecurity measures and mainstream best

practices to prevent animal diseases.

A third priority is to invest more in climate change adaptation, mitigation and

innovation. This could include support for innovations that reduce emissions intensity,

improve nutrient management and strengthen the contribution of livestock systems to

circular economy, alongside adaptation measures. Resilience depends increasingly on the

sector’s ability to cope with climate stress and use resources more efficiently. Increasing

water use efficiency can contribute to both water and farmers’ resilience. This includes the

preservation and sustainable use of genetic resources and breeding strategies that improve

resilience traits such as drought tolerance, heat resistance. Cutting-edge genomic and

animal breeding techniques are a win-win for both economic and environmental outcomes.

They lead to lower feed use and reduce emissions, meaning savings for the farmers and

less exposure to volatile price fluctuations. Better resilience also requires improved

housing and ventilation, flood protection and other climate-resilient infrastructure.

Research and innovation on sustainable practices and technology are essential enablers

of a more resilient EU livestock sector (15). The EU should also focus on scaling up and

deploying solutions. This should comprise support for a stronger and more coordinated

R&I effort on sustainable livestock systems, the development and uptake of practical

tools such as decision-support systems, sensors, big data applications, robotics, early-

warning solutions and precision livestock farming, while promoting a systems-based and

place-based approach. To accelerate the impact on the ground, innovation should be more

closely aligned with farmers’ needs, so that resilient solutions are tested, scaled up and

deployed more rapidly across regions and production systems. This will be supported by

the upcoming new strategic approach to research and innovation AgRI 2040 and Food

2040. This new approach identifies livestock as a key area of action for research and

innovation and puts emphasis on the better valorisation of research and innovation results

into startups, scaleups and full industrial deployment.

Resilience also requires that the livestock sector must become less dependent on

imported inputs and more capable of relying on domestic and circular resources, as

developed in the Protein Plan and the Fertiliser Action Plan. At the same time, closer

integration with candidate and partner countries offers opportunities to strengthen the

(15) Different financial instruments under the MFF post-2027 could support a stronger and more coordinated

R&I effort on sustainable and resilient livestock systems, covering animal health and welfare, disease

prevention and vaccines, mixed systems, climate adaptation and mitigation, environmental impact

reduction, feed and nutrient efficiency, genetic resources and breeding for resilience traits, circular

bioeconomy solutions, social innovation, and digital technologies.

7

Union’s resilience and strategic autonomy by gradually developing more integrated and

sustainable agri-food value chains.

Example of cooperative investment projects for resilience:

• Installing on-farm solar panels and a shared biogas unit using manure, reducing dependence

on external energy and fertilisers.

• Building a water storage and recycling system to cope with droughts and heatwaves.

• Joining a mutual fund and climate insurance scheme supported by Member State policies to

stabilise income during extreme weather events.

Member States should continue supporting agricultural practices that integrate

resilience and sustainability into their business models, such as organic farming, and

incentivise transition to long-term resilience through transition payments. Generational

renewal measures should better reflect the specific situation of livestock farming.

Better cooperation along the supply chain can help reduce price volatility and improve

access to inputs, while participation in knowledge-sharing platforms and innovation

partnerships can speed up the spread of good practices.

Example: In an area vulnerable to bluetongue, lumpy skin disease or avian

influenza, authorities and stakeholders ensure a coordinated disease prevention

system:

• Member States through NRP plans co-fund biosecurity upgrades (disinfection stations,

controlled farm access, separation zones).

• Farmers receive, through NRPP funds, training via advisory services and EIP-AGRI

groups on disease prevention and contingency planning.

• Member States and livestock value chain embark on a cost-sharing framework to jointly

fund responses to disease outbreaks, including compensation for affected producers,

based on pre-arranged financial mechanisms (costs for eradication, containment and

recovery are split between public and private levies/insurance pools).

• A public-private vaccination and surveillance programme is rolled out as new vaccines

become available through EU-supported R&I.

Member States have a central role in turning these objectives into practical support on the

ground:

- by including resilience investments in their NRP plans and improving farmers’ access

to disease prevention tools,

- promoting insurance and mutual funds tailored to livestock sectors,

- ensuring that training and farm advisory services include strong expertise on livestock

resilience,

- supporting investments and agri-environmental and climate actions (AECAs),

including efficiency schemes, that help preserve and sustainably use livestock genetic

resources that strengthen resilience of the livestock sector and support biodiversity,

healthy soils and water resilience as a basis for livestock sector resilience,

- considering measures to address shortages in rural veterinary services, for example

through targeted incentives or digital consultations, and support digital skills,

connectivity and investment at farm level,

8

- supporting producer organisations, cooperative models and CAP sectoral interventions

can help strengthen farmers’ bargaining power and capacity to manage risk

collectively.

3.2. A competitive livestock sector at EU and global level

To effectively compete in the global market, the livestock sector needs a more predictable

long-term framework for investments, use the leverage of advanced technologies and

innovative practices, while benefitting from a level playing field and reduced regulatory

burden. The current trend of decapitalisation needs to be halted, and profitability increased,

if the European value chain for livestock is to remain competitive and attract new entrants

into the profession. The maintenance of high EU food safety and animal health, animal

welfare and environmental standards must allow the sector to respond robustly to the

pressure of global competition.

The priority is to help the sector close the investment gap, boost its uptake of

innovation and digitalisation to modernise, bolster competitiveness and

sustainability. For many livestock farmers, and in particular young and new ones,

significant upfront capital is needed for modern infrastructure, machinery and manure

management systems. The Fi-Compass estimates a financing gap for livestock sector of

over 18 billion EUR (16).

While the Commission is assessing the impact of its animal welfare review, certain studies

estimate that the transition to cage-free systems entails significant investment needs (17).

Such financing needs cannot be met from a single source but require a combination

of instruments and measures by both the EU and Member States. Those include better

market remuneration, public support, access to financial instruments and private

investments, as well as tapping into the potential of new circular business models and better

valorising by-products. It requires also skills, financial literacy and adequate advice as well

as more stable and clearer legal framework.

The CAP remains a key tool to support farmers’ income, incentivise them to make

sustainability efforts and provide investment support, and the next financing period offers

opportunities tailored to different needs, from small to large farms. With a combination of

various measures, including investments in infrastructure and support for innovative

projects, the proposed NRP plans and the ECF could help scale up investments in

sustainability, competitiveness and resilience.

(16) https://www.fi-compass.eu/library/market-analysis/financial-gap-eu-agricultural-sector?page=1

(17) Studies commissioned by farmers organisations to estimate the impact of transitioning to cage-free

systems in the laying hens and pig sector indicate investment needs at EU level of some €6.7 billion for

the pig sector1(EUR 0,02 per kg of pig meat for a 15 year depreciation period), and €2.6 billion for the

laying hen sector2 (EUR 0,0017 per egg for a 15 year depreciation period). Costs arise primarily from

the need to convert or replace existing housing facilities and install the infrastructure and equipment

required for cage-free production. These data are cited by way of example only. The Commission is

preparing an impact assessment analysing all relevant data and issues linked to its planned proposals.

1 Potori et al. (2024). An Assessment of the Impacts of the Phasing Out of Cages in EU Livestock

Farming: The Pig Sector. Agriculture, 14(1), 111.

2 Majewski et al. (2024). An Assessment of the Impacts of the Phasing Out of Cages in EU Livestock

Farming: The Layer Sector. Agriculture, 14(2), 187.

9

The Commission will consider all options, including exploring a potential dedicated

financial instrument for the livestock sector to bridge the financing gap for

investments in the transition to higher levels of sustainability and animal welfare.

Member States should also consider other initiatives, such as better access to loans, state-

guaranteed loans, public procurement instruments, market measures and more favourable

loan conditions for all farmers, in particular young and new entrants. The Commission will

explore with the European Investment Bank preferential access to loans for farmers

engaged in a transition to cage-free systems based on the outcome of the legislative

revision. In parallel, schemes rewarding carbon farming and nature credits could provide

additional value to farms investing in more sustainable livestock systems.

In addition to funding, it is critical to ensure a stable, predictable and clear legal

framework that allows for long-term planning and investments. This will boost investors’

confidence and facilitate investment decisions which often take decades to repay. Permit

granting procedures by national, regional and local authorities are driving some of this

uncertainty and need to be addressed as a priority. To increase legal certainty for both

economic operators and public authorities, at the end of 2025, the Commission made a

proposal on acceleration of permit-granting procedures (18) and a proposal on speeding up

environmental assessment. A stress test of the Birds and Habitats Directives is ongoing

and the Commission will follow it up as appropriate with further actions.

To stimulate better reward from the market, it is necessary to work on better informing

consumers, aligning consumer expectations with fair pricing mechanisms and

pursuing market diversification to benefit from high value markets.

Enhanced competitiveness must be fair. Strengthening the position of farmers in the

food chain and protecting them against unfair trading practices is a long-standing priority

that will be strengthened with the review of the Unfair Trading Practices (UTP)

Directive (19), building on experience to date. Farmers must get better remuneration,

including from emerging economic activities linked to the development of the

bioeconomy and by-product valorisation. The Commission will assess how best to

integrate these aspects in the work of the EU agri-food chain Observatory to provide

market transparency along the value chain and build trust.

Sustainability and circularity are a strong business case for the farmers. Circular

practices and the bioeconomy enhance feed autonomy and maximise biomass valorisation

(including animal by-products), which in turn reduce waste, and provide more predictable

income for farmers. By-products such as wool or manure are not a waste but rather a

resource that has value and serves multiple purposes in a circular bioeconomy, and

legislation should recognise their characteristics and potential. Downstream actors (e.g.

dairy or meat producers) increasingly see the business case for offering rewards to farmers

that reduce on-farm emissions, making sustainable livestock operations more competitive.

Competitiveness must also be enhanced by better food chain integration, and the

development of meat quality standards. The potential of dairy-beef integration should

(18) Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives (EU)

2018/2001, (EU) 2019/944, (EU) 2024/1788 as regards acceleration of permit-granting procedures –

COM(2025) 1007

(19) Directive (EU) 2019/633 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on unfair

trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain. ELI:

http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/633/oj

10

be further promoted. Better alignment across the supply chains could improve both

economic and environmental performance of dairy and beef systems. High quality value

chains in rural areas and infrastructure are equally important. Experience with the

development of producer organisations and cooperatives shows how tools embedded in the

Common Market Organisation (CMO) Regulation (20) help strengthen farmers’ position in

the value chain and increase their share of the value created.

Fairness is not only internal, but also external. Fostering reciprocity and greater

alignment in production standards across the globe requires appropriate controls,

effective safeguards and a continuous drive for high standards. This is ongoing work and

a clear priority. Import of products produced to lower standards not only disadvantage EU

producers commercially but also displace rather than reduce global emissions. The

enhancement of controls on food, animal and plant products entering the EU is under way

and has been significantly strengthened (21). Safeguards are standard practices in

agreements concluded by the Union, and they protect European farmers against any

harmful imports. This includes well-calibrated quotas with volumes linked to EU market

conditions and automatic safeguard clauses for certain agreements that provide an

additional layer of protection. High food safety standards, especially on antimicrobial and

hormone usage, are rigorously enforced. Animal welfare rules are being reviewed to

ensure better alignment of standards for imported products. For the future financial

period, the proposal to establish a Unity Safety Net with substantial budget will equip the

Union to better protect the farmers in times of market volatility. At the same time, the

Commission will engage in a dedicated agri-food diplomacy, step up its high-level

missions and promotion measures to open new market opportunities for European

exports.

Simplification is an essential component of competitiveness. Important work has been

launched but further effort is needed to enable agri-food sector to benefit from a legal

framework that is conducive to innovation and competitiveness, while respecting animal

health, welfare and food and feed safety standards. The ongoing discussion on the food

and feed safety omnibus will provide much needed simplification. There is a need to make

EU hygiene legislation more agile and to make better use of the flexibility provisions

therein, allowing adaptations to the structure and layout of low-capacity slaughterhouses,

while respecting food safety and animal welfare standards and effectively combining them

with operational practicality. The proposed amendment to the feed additives regulatory

framework in the food and feed omnibus will provide a favourable environment for the

development and availability of new innovative feed additives, while the work on further

simplification needs is on-going, including as part of the broader implementation dialogues

as well as Food Dialogues. In addition, the animal by-product rules require

adjustments to better facilitate circular economy, without jeopardising animal health, food

and feed safety standards.

3.3. A sustainable livestock sector

Investing in sustainability is an investment in farming’s long-term future. Higher

animal welfare standards can deliver improved economic results, reduced disease risk and

(20) Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013

establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council

Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007. ELI:

http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/1308/oj

(21) Commission announces reinforcement of controls on products imported into the EU

11

broader-support, provided that welfare gains translate into measurable health, productivity

or premium price benefits – a net effect that varies depending on the sector and market

conditions. Nitrogen use efficiency in food and bioeconomy systems (22), including

through fertiliser efficiency, protects water and soils while reducing input costs. Climate-

resilient infrastructure can withstand the impacts of extreme weather events and provide

long-term return on investment.

Success depends on the ability of farmers to invest. This is why the transition to address

sustainability challenges must be fair and balanced. Raising sustainability ambition

brings questions about how the costs are distributed along the value chain. In some

cases, transition to sustainability improvements can entail higher production costs for

farmers, lower yields or reduced stocking densities. Some agricultural practices like

organics allow to maintain high-environmental and animal welfare ambition with

profitability for farmers. For other systems, when these costs cannot be fully absorbed by

farmers or the rest of the supply chain, they are ultimately reflected in higher food prices,

borne by consumers, without increasing producers’ income and possibly leading to falling

demand. This underlines the need for a carefully calibrated transition that delivers

sustainability gains for farmers and society, while managing trade-offs and maintaining

social acceptability.

The Union and Member States should enable the farmer to choose measures supporting

the transition best suited for their individual farms and practices and facilitate the decision

on how to make their business more sustainable.

Value chain sustainability agreements in which all actors, including the intermediary

and retail sectors, assume part of the responsibility are promising tools for supporting a

fair transition. They allow, for example, the retail sector to reward higher standards

undertaken by the farmers. The Commission, Member States and private actors should

further promote such form of cooperation.

Any long-term vision for the livestock sector needs to start with leveraging its

diversity. The rich EU mosaic cannot be sustained through a one-size-fits-all approach. It

requires tailored, place-based solutions that reflect local realities and build on regional

strengths.

Building on progress already made, which cements the European livestock sector among

the most productive and environmentally efficient (23) in the world, the design of the

new programming period is an opportunity to transform this diversity into tangible

interventions that give long-term direction.

Animal welfare is at the heart of citizens’ concerns when it comes to livestock farming.

As stated by the European Parliament, “the expected global increase in animal protein

consumption represents an opportunity for the EU to position itself as a global leader in

climate- and animal-friendly agriculture”. Enforcement of existing rules and a progressive

follow-up to the European Citizens’ Initiative “End the Cage Age” is needed to address

citizens’ concerns, focusing on sectors where a transition to non-confined housing system

(22) The EU Bioeconomy Strategy “A Strategic Framework for a Competitive and Sustainable EU

Bioeconomy. COM/2025/960 final” will work on assessing best bioeconomy practices and innovations

to increase nitrogen use efficiencies in bioeconomy systems and value networks

(23) FAO: Greenhouse gas emissions from agrifood systems, Global, regional and country trends, 2000–

2022

12

is feasible, is evidence-based and accompanied by sufficient transition periods and

financial support allowing farmers to adapt. Given the scale of the investments needed, the

transition will require support that spans the next financing period and beyond.

High welfare standards improve resource efficiency for example by reducing mortality

rates, extending animals' productive lifespans and improving feed conversion. While today

the laying hens’ sector mainly relies on the killing of male day-old chicks, citizens’ ethical

demands can be addressed by stopping this practice by relying on in-ovo sexing

technologies, which are now available. They can strengthen the EU’s egg sector’s

reputation for premium, ethically produced goods. While being available and used in

certain Member States, the technology is not yet fully accessible and affordable for small

and medium-sized hatcheries across the EU. This requires further efforts to bring down the

costs and scale up the deployment. By the end of 2026, the Commission intends to propose

a targeted revision of animal welfare rules for laying hens and broilers, focusing on

the phasing-out of cages, practical on-farm welfare indicators, ending the systematic

killing of male chicks and equivalent import requirements. To valorise the transition away

from male day-old chick killing, the Commission will explore the possibility to update egg

marking rules to better inform consumers, including in third countries, about

improvements made by farmers. By Q2 2027, a similar proposal will address pig welfare,

including the transition from crates to pen systems.

The debate around the export of live animals to third countries, especially for immediate

slaughter, has become pivotal in recent years. New outbreaks and reoccurring animal

diseases in EU Member States result in – sometimes unjustified – frequent trade barriers.

At the same time, natural disasters and fluctuating security situations around destination

countries threaten the plannability of such practices both on road and on sea. These may

also raise animal welfare concerns. Therefore, the Commission will closely exchange with

relevant stakeholders, civil society and destination third countries, and depending on the

outcome of these exchanges, will consider further steps, including possible alternatives to

the export of animals for slaughter from the EU to third countries, while maintaining the

market positions of European livestock producers.

These high standards for EU producers must be met with reciprocal requirements for

imported products, with adequate enforcement tools. Third countries may have lower

animal welfare practices while EU citizens expect all products on the EU market to follow

high welfare standards. The modernisation of EU’s animal welfare rules and the EU’s

Trade agreements provide an essential opportunity to introduce equivalent animal

welfare requirements for imported products, in line with WTO standards.

Sustained efforts to reduce emissions from livestock remains one of the priorities. While

EU enteric methane emissions from livestock represent a small share at the global level,

they represent the largest source (24) of agricultural emissions in the EU. Addressing these

emissions requires a science- and systems-based approach, building on existing good

practices and further supported by innovation and technology. Different livestock

productions have different climate externalities and potentials to address them, which must

be taken into account too.

(24) BOSCO, S., CHEN, M., BIELZA, M., MONTERO CASTAÑO, A., SCHIEVANO, A. et al., Livestock

Feeding and Sustainability: Mapping Environmental, Climate, and Productivity Outcomes, Publications

Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2025, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/3398918 (online),

JRC143817.

13

First and foremost, effective methane reduction policy requires accurate measurement.

Certain existing methodologies for estimating livestock emissions do not fully reflect the

actual variation in emissions across diverse production systems, breeds and feeding

regimes. The IPCC methodology Tier 1 and Tier 2 approaches could underrepresent the

value of on-farm improvements and genetic diversity. At the same time, discussions are

on-going to explore the need to take account of the biogenic nature of methane emissions

as part of a short-term carbon cycle. More refined approaches are needed to better reflect

real management practices and ensure a more accurate and fair assessment of livestock’s

climate performance.The Commission will therefore work on a harmonised

methodology for livestock GHG emissions at farm level and will promote monitoring

tools that better reflect measures implemented at farm level and are more adapted to the

needs of EU livestock sector. It will build on the work started by certain Member States (25)

aimed at developing Tier 3 emissions that enable more accurate and differentiated

emissions accounting. This work will link to the further development of production

methods under the marketing standards and the EU excellence approach (see point 3.5

below). Results should also help to improve the accuracy of Member States’ national GHG

inventories. The EU also stands ready to exchange on measurement and mitigation

practices with global partners in accordance with its global leadership on methane

abatement through the Global Methane Pledge and related initiatives. In close cooperation

with farmers representatives and stakeholders of the food value chain, the Commission is

developing a voluntary, on-farm sustainability compass for farmers. This science-

based framework will enable practical and comparable assessment of the key dimensions

of sustainability across diverse farming systems. The compass can also be used as a

management tool to guide decisions, track progress, and report performance transparently

over time, and to engage in premium schemes or contracts that reward verified emission

reductions, improved animal welfare, and the delivery of ecosystem services. It will enable

the assessment of performance based on results achieved on the ground, gradually

moving away from a requirements-based approach. In addition, based on a pilot

certification methodology, the Commission is assessing the inclusion of livestock emission

reductions in the scope of the Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming (CRCF) Regulation.

It also needs to take into account the fact that food production is inherently rooted in natural

biological processes and that in spite of complying with high EU standards causes

unavoidable endogenic emissions that entail certain trade-offs that cannot be entirely

eliminated. Demand is an important driver of transition, as explained in the protein Plan,

and it is important to acknowledge that reduced EU production could lead to increased

imports and higher emissions in non-EU regions.

Further advances in reducing GHG emissions must be based on a combination of effective

policy measures and incentives, the potential of genetic improvements, innovation and

technology including in feeding strategies. The Commission will provide

recommendations to the Member States in the context of the future CAP and provide

them with a toolbox of most effective practices. Member States can design their strategies

based on their specific situations, as reflected in the 2020 EU Methane Strategy taking into

consideration investments in efficiencies that reduce emissions, including methane-

reducing breeds, precision feeding, and advanced manure management such as biogas and

improved treatment technologies, as well as emission-reducing solutions in indoor farming

systems. Furthermore, technological solutions offer significant mitigation potential that

(25) Irish Cattle Breeding Federation (ICBF): https://www.icbf.com/methane/

14

could lead to at least a 16% decline of GHG emissions by 2040 (26). Therefore, a

combination of ambitious measures and incentives from the CAP, together with

technology and innovation, could deliver very significant emissions reductions and

contribute to the 2040 climate target.

Member States have the opportunity to include biogas and biomethane investments in

their future NRPPs and/or support them through other national programmes. The State Aid

Framework also offers various options for such support. Biogas installation transforms

manure and agricultural residues into renewable energy, digestate for fertilising and in

some cases dewatered digestate in bedding material for livestock. The produced energy

can be used on-farm or even sold on the market, notably by using the EU biomethane

mechanism, thus creating complementary income, enhancing resilience and business

viability of agricultural holdings while reducing reliance on imported fossil fuels and

synthetic fertilisers.

Protection of natural resources against pollution and ensuring good soil health are

essential attributes of a long-term strategy for the future of livestock farming. Considering

its wide diversity, certain livestock practices have a significant impact on the environment

linked to negative externalities (such as nutrient losses, air emissions...), in particular in

areas with high livestock concentrations, while other practices like extensive grazing and

organic farming positively contribute to nature management and conservation. Therefore,

environmental challenges must be addressed in a tailored way and in partnership with

farmers.

The future CAP is an opportunity to make advancements towards higher

environmental performance.

Member States should promote cooperation across the value chain and could provide

support, particularly in high livestock density areas, to improve manure and nutrient

management and reduce pressure on natural resources, including by making use of the new

interventions that the Commission has put forward in its CAP proposal. Member States

have tools at their disposal to provide enhanced support for grazing-based systems based

on their needs. They are also encouraged to expand the use of cover crops, diverse crop

rotations and alternative feed sources, grant support to increase manure storage capacities,

and to simplify procedures for investments in renewable energy, nutrient recycling

infrastructure and precision farming. Continued support for organic farming is important

for the delivery of these objectives.

The Commission, assisted by the Livestock Workstream, will promote the exchange of

knowledge and best practices, with the objective of building a Livestock Platform with a

comprehensive repository of proven solutions for climate, environment and animal

welfare by 2027. This repository will identify effective mitigation measures, showcase

successful on-farm approaches, and provide guidance on the CAP instruments and support

mechanisms available to facilitate their uptake.

EU farmers already respect high environmental standards laid down in different pieces of

legislation, some with significant impact on farmers’ operations. The Commission is

evaluating and stress-testing some of these rules in the context of wider simplification

effort.

(26) DG AGRI estimation based on own calculations and scenarios described in the 2022 agricultural outlook

report 

15

The evaluation of the Nitrates Directive (27) will be published shortly. As a follow-up to

the report, the Commission will continue to work together with Member States to identify

best practice and simplification potential on how to improve nutrient management at farm

level, calendar farming, record keeping and fertilisation for small farms. It will aim at

optimising the implementation of rules reflect technological pressures and climate change,

while both minimising unnecessary burden and ensuring that measures are proportionate

and effective in reaching EU water quality standrads. The Commission will advise Member

States about the possibilities to simplify the implementation of the Directive, for

example for certain sustainable livestock practices, and will also exchange with the

Nitrates Committee on the evaluation report.

The Commission is also stress-testing the rules of Birds and Habitats Directives which will

be integrated into a report due end of 2026 and will allow to inform future decisions. The

proposal on the acceleration of permit-granting procedures and the proposal for a

regulation on speeding up environmental assessments (2025/0391 (COD)) already

partially addresses some of the long-standing demands to accelerate and make more

predictable permitting process. Targeted facilitation of permitting procedures is also

important to accompany the legislative revision phasing out cages in the laying hens and

pig sectors and is justified considering that the number of animals kept would remain

constant in adapted barns. The potential for better alignment between environmental

goals and agricultural vitality lies also in innovation. In the EU, livestock farming

generated annually more than 1.4 billion tonnes of manure during the period 2016–2019.

While associated with nitrogen pollution in certain regions, using innovation, manure can

also present an opportunity. The Commission is exploring the possibility to extend the

RENURE act for certain types of liquid digestates based on manure with appropriate

environmental safeguards and will deliver a first preliminary assessment in Q3 2026.

Equally, the use of digestate from bio-waste to be used as fertilisers as such or for the

production of other bio-based fertilisers, can limit livestock negative externalities, enable

better distribution of carbon-rich bio-fertilisers, reduce dependence on synthetic fertilisers

and strengthen EU feed and food production autonomy, while contributing to the domestic

energy production (biomethane). The Commission will work on facilitating the use of

animal by-products without jeopardising animal health, food and feed safety standards

and review potential regulatory bottlenecks.

A key element is better spatial balancing and enabling nutrient transfer from surplus to

deficit regions to both optimise use and reduce local environmental pressures. Building on

this, the Commission, assisted by the Livestock Workstream, will develop a dedicated

roadmap to support practical implementation, strengthen logistics, reduce pressure, better

implement the regulatory framework in a coherent way, and regulatory coherence, and

enable a more efficient and sustainable circulation of nutrients across the EU.

3.4. A livestock sector fitting European territorial diversity

European territorial diversity requires diverse livestock production systems tailored

to the unique characteristics of different regions across Europe.

Livestock farming plays a crucial role in sustaining rural economies and supporting

employment across many regions. It is often the sole economic opportunity in certain

(27) Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against

pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources. OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, pp. 1–8 (ES, DA, DE, EL,

EN, FR, IT, NL, PT). ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/1991/676/oj

16

regions. The sector is especially important in less-favoured areas such as mountainous

regions, northern areas, grasslands and other intermediate and marginal territories where

crop production may be difficult or less profitable. Grazing animals help maintain

traditional landscapes, prevent overgrowth, limit wildfire-risk and contribute to the

preservation of biodiversity by sustaining diverse habitats (28). It helps maintain population

in rural areas and reduces the risk of land abandonment, which can lead to environmental

degradation and the loss of traditional landscapes. Innovative business models can

effectively address the current challenges by recovering the centrality of livestock farming

in these territories.

Decline in livestock farming is closely linked with land abandonment in many European

regions. The JRC estimates (29) that around 11% of EU agricultural land could be

abandoned by 2030, whilst almost a quarter (1.38 million ha) of all agricultural

abandonment in the EU will likely occur in mountain areas. This also has significant

demographic implications. These challenges should be addressed in a coherent and

integrated manner, including through our future policies on demography. Rural areas hold

incredible potential to become a powerhouse of European resilience, sustainable

growth and preparedness. Creating economically attractive and liveable rural areas will

help retain and attract people, thereby contributing to the long-term vitality of these

regions.

The opportunity to turn rural vulnerabilities into a tangible long-term asset is greater

than ever. The EU is embarking on a more coordinated and integrated planning to support

its sustainable economic growth, using the NRP as integrated planning tool.

To address this challenge, the Commission will work with the Member States to develop

a plan on how to address the specific needs of regions and rural areas at risk of

abandonment, taking into account the specific situation in the Eastern Border Region

bordering Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. The aim is to bring back sustainable livestock

production where it naturally belongs and is desirable for its environmental, social and

economic benefits, while securing the performance of more competitive regions and

communities. Such a move could be driven by attracting all actors needed for an effective

value chain to be anchored in rural communities, from farmers to consumers via

slaughterhouses, artisan processors and local markets.

The future European Land Observatory (30) will contribute to this process by

exchanging information and best practices to address land abandonment and by advancing

on the analysis on land use changes and sustainable land management.

With the future CAP, Member States have many tools at their disposal to target support to

vulnerable livestock areas. Targeted coupled income and support for areas with natural

constraints should be focused on sectors and areas where they are most needed. One of the

key tasks will be to attract a new generation of farmers in areas where livestock has left

a social gap, through start-up aid, social innovation, entrepreneurship and investment, land

access policies, income support and incentives. However, the challenge goes beyond what

the CAP alone can deliver. The development of locally integrated livestock value chains

(28) Extensive livestock systems and nature in Europe | Publications | European Environment Agency (EEA),

07/2026. EEA’s briefing states that one-third of Annex I habitats under the Habitats Directive depend

on extensive grazing

(29) https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC113718

(30) Strategy for generational renewal in agriculture. COM/2025/872 final

17

requires coordinated investments in infrastructure, processing facilities, digitalisation and

market structures, supported by social and labour policies and, where relevant, by practical

support to help farmers address wildlife-related pressure.

One example that could regenerate local economy and at the same time improve animal

welfare are investments into low-capacity and mobile slaughterhouses in remote areas. The

Commission, assisted by the Livestock Workstream , will dedicate specific resources to

developing a roadmap on slaughterhouses, examining how to foster their presence in

rural areas, whether fixed or mobile, drawing on projects already financed (31) and

taking into account animal welfare aspects.

Example: Flexible local processing network with low-capacity and mobile

slaughterhouses (rural value chain resilience model). In sparsely populated or

mountainous regions, Member States support a hybrid processing system

combining small permanent facilities with mobile slaughterhouses.

• A regional livestock cooperative is established, pooling farmers’ resources to manage

logistics and scheduling.

• The Member State co-finances mobile slaughter units that travel between farms or

designated collection points while maintaining animal health and food safety standards.

• Legislative simplification and optimisation at EU and national level, including for

registration and recognition.

• This is complemented by small cutting and packaging facilities and cold storage located in

rural towns, modernised with EU support.

• The system is integrated into a quality certification scheme reflecting EU excellence to

reinforce product identity and value.

• Digital tools (booking platforms, traceability systems) are introduced to optimise routes,

ensure animal welfare compliance and reduce waiting times. With more local slaughter,

animal welfare is improved thanks to less long-distance transport for live animals.

Modern digital infrastructure is crucial for the attractiveness of rural areas and enhancing

livestock farming's contribution to rural livelihoods. Member States should accelerate

investments in high-speed broadband, 5G, satellite and off-grid connectivity to enable

deployment of smart farming technologies, remote livestock management systems and

access to online services.

Social resilience is of critical importance too. The EU livestock farmers’ wellbeing and

mental health are influenced not only by income pressures but also by demanding working

conditions, long hours and social isolation, particularly in more remote rural areas. Access

to replacement and relief services is therefore important, as it allows farmers to take leave,

in case of illness or family responsibilities, and reduce stress and burnout. Gender-specific

needs and differences should also be adequately addressed. Skills development is another

key social factor, with farmers increasingly training in animal welfare, environmental

practices, digital tools and business management to remain resilient and adapt to changing

(31) Examples of projects funded under EAFRD for innovation and improvement of animal welfare in DE:

TadeLoS - Onfarm Slaughtering of Cattle without Stress | EU CAP Network and Fully mobile slaughter

unit in Thuringia | EU CAP Network . see also example of project funded under H2020 to implement a

mobile slaughter house in France: Practical case: Mobile Slaughter Unit | EU CAP Network

18

policy and market demands. The role of advisory services and rural development policies

is critical in this regard.

Regional feed resources enhance resilience, sustainability, and strategic autonomy while

reducing import dependencies. By integrating grasslands, co-products, and EU-grown

protein crops, these systems cut emissions, support rural economies, and align with circular

bioeconomy goals. These are key drivers of the Commission Plan for resilience, strategic

autonomy and sustainability of the EU protein system.

3.5. Excellence in livestock production

Quality is one of Europe’s strategic assets. In a context of growing societal expectations,

global competition and territorial fragilities, the European Union must maintain and

develop its ambition for excellence in livestock production.

The future of the EU livestock sector will depend not only on its capacity to remain

competitive and resilient, but also on its ability to make visible, credible and

economically rewarding what distinguishes the European model of production. It

reflects a model of livestock farming that is not based on the lowest cost, but on value

creation through good practices, quality, sustainability, ethics and responsibility.

Excellence must be understood broadly, not limited to niche or premium products. It

should progressively characterise all livestock value chains and all production models .

Every livestock farm should have the possibility to perform at its best, to improve

continuously, and to have these efforts recognised and rewarded by the market and by

public policy.

The Commission intends to develop an ambitious pathway for excellence in livestock

production with the Livestock Workstream. This pathway should allow the Union to

articulate more clearly what distinguishes European livestock production, both within the

internal market and in global competition.

A first priority is improving the market recognition and valorisation of excellence.

Farmers can sustain ambitious standards only if these are economically rewarded. Greater

transparency across the food chain, including clearer information and labelling, is

essential. The Commission will help consumers make informed choices and recognise the

value of EU livestock products.

A key element is clearer identification of EU origin. The Commission intends to

gradually strengthen the role of EU origin in livestock marketing through marketing

standards, exploring an expanded legal basis under the Common Market Organisation. It

will first build on poultry meat rules to enhance origin communication and draw lessons

for other sectors.

The Commission will work on valorising the higher standards and specific characteristics

of EU livestock production through optional reserved terms under the Common Market

Organisation. This would enable, on a voluntary basis, a clearly identifiable “European

excellence” term, supported by regulatory specifications, allowing credible and

harmonised communication of defined characteristics. The Commission will assess criteria

such as low-carbon production, environment-friendly practices, local feed use, rearing and

slaughter, and high animal welfare standards. These optional reserved terms could be used

to demonstrate compliance with the sustainability requirements requested by national or

European funds for access to investments, allowing farmers to access funding

19

opportunities without having to repeatedly submit the same evidence (‘once-only

principle’).

The Commission will also consider how existing tools can better support the valorisation

of quality in livestock production, including meat quality. The current Union carcass

classification framework is based mainly on quantitative criteria. While it ensures a

common market language and price transparency, it does not reflect the full range of

quality attributes relevant to consumers and market valorisation. The Commission will

assess whether, on a voluntary basis, it could be further developed to include certain

qualitative characteristics, such as organoleptic or production-method attributes, and

whether these could be supported by optional reserved terms to enhance differentiation,

value creation, and recognition of quality.

As a second priority, the Commission will give greater visibility to territorially

embedded livestock systems. It will use EU promotion policy to highlight the quality,

sustainability, high welfare standards, in particular cage-free farming systems and egg

production without male chick culling, and territorial anchoring of EU livestock products

in both internal and external markets. Stronger support will be directed to systems closely

linked to rural areas, improving communication of added value and reinforcing premium

positioning where justified.

To maximise market returns, stakeholders and Member States are encouraged to cooperate

notably on territorial product branding that links livestock products to the historical

identity and natural characteristics of their specific regions or breed; agri-tourism and

diversification initiatives; and collective landscape management to protect biodiversity and

manage landscapes within livestock-based ecosystems.

To support these efforts on a larger scale, the EU Agricultural Promotion Policy could

dedicate a specialised promotional window focusing on territorially embedded livestock

systems, accelerating their market penetration.

The third priority builds on the EU’s existing quality policy, in particular Geographical

Indications (GIs) and organic production. The Commission will continue to support their

uptake, promotion, and protection as key tools. To strengthen these frameworks, the

Commission will review the organic and GI action plans.

4. CONCLUSIONS

In an increasingly hard-edged global economy, the Union response is to make the

objectives of resilience, competitiveness, sustainability, territoriality and excellence

mutually reinforcing as the European way of livestock farming.

The EU livestock strategy presents a cohesive vision for the future of the livestock sector.

The Commission promotes a positive, balanced narrative on livestock, recognising both its

challenges, including the environmental and climate footprint, and the sector’s

contributions to food supply, employment, territorial cohesion, biodiversity, and cultural

value.

Resilience will be bolstered through coordinated efforts to combat climate change,

strengthen biosecurity, tackle social challenges and enhance market and supply chain

robustness.

20

Competitiveness will be enhanced by addressing the financing gap and declining livestock

situation in certain regions, fostering innovation, digitalisation, skilling and ensuring

fairness in trade.

Sustainability will be achieved by reducing environmental footprints, supporting

biodiversity, and promoting circular and animal welfare-oriented farming systems that

sustain rural vitality.

Territoriality recognises Europe’s varied landscapes and local conditions, empowering

new generations of farmers and strengthening regional economies.

Collectively, these coordinated efforts by the Commission, Member States, and

stakeholders will construct a robust framework of excellence that supports the livestock

sector in thriving amid global competition.

The Commission, assisted by the Livestock Workstream, will monitor and report on

progress. By actively engaging in these strategic initiatives, the sector can look forward to

a sustainable, fair, and prosperous future.

EN EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Strasbourg, 7.7.2026 COM(2026) 576 final

ANNEX

ANNEX

to the

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN

PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL

COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

EU strategy on livestock

{SWD(2026) 576 final}

ANNEX: Commission key actions

For a successful strategy on livestock, the Commission will deliver on the following key

actions. The livestock workstream will accompany the implementation of the strategy,

continuing to act as a forum for exchanging ideas and best practices.

For the strategy to be fully realised, Member States will need to take steps to offer the

relevant tools, and stakeholders will have to seize the opportunities offered. Member

States and stakeholders need to continue investing for making the livestock sector

resilient, competitive, sustainable, territorially fitting and delivering on excellence.

Actions for a resilient livestock sector that withstands crisis

1. Work with financial institutions, including the European Investment Bank, for

exploring the possibility of developing a dedicated risk-management financial

scheme under the post-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework, covering climate-

related insurance and reinsurance needs and extending support to risks linked to animal

diseases.

2. Include relevant risk management aspects and needs in the CAP recommendations to

Member States for their National and Regional Partnership Plans.

3. Ensure adequate financing of prevention, surveillance, control and eradication of

animal diseases and zoonoses, especially for emergency measures in case of major

outbreaks.

4. Prepare a manual with practical orientations to Member States on risk

management, drawing on EU and international expertise. Through a Livestock

Platform, promote exchange of good practices to facilitate dialogue and dissemination

of lessons learned across Member States.

5. Review whether the current animal disease categorisation system remains fit for

purpose and whether the disease categorisation criteria adequately address specific

challenges. Propose updates to legislation in line with the latest scientific developments

and international standards as laid down by the World Organisation for Animal Health

(WOAH) and adopt implementing rules to clarify roles and responsibilities.

6. Support a wider and science-based use of preventive vaccination and assess whether

the current vaccination rules and principles remain appropriate. Develop guidance on

the application of vaccination coupled with regionalisation and

compartmentalisation, while continuing to advocate recognition of the EU’s

regionalisation approach with trading partners. .

7. Explore ways to improve and finance early-warning systems, digital detection tools

and farmer information channels.

8. Support research, innovation, and knowledge exchange to accelerate the

deployment of resilient farming solutions. Cover livestock-related needs in the

communication “New strategic approach to research and innovation Agri2040 and

Food 2040”.

2

Actions for a competitive livestock sector at EU and global level

9. Consider a potential dedicated financial instrument for the livestock sector to bridge

the financing gap for investments in the transition to higher levels of sustainability

and animal welfare.

10. Explore with the European Investment Bank preferential access to loans for farmers

engaged in a transition to cage-free systems.

11. Continue facilitation of permitting procedures at EU and national level, including for

enabling the phasing-out of cages.

12. Support and facilitate circularity, bioeconomy and biomass valorisation. Assess how

transparency on farmers’ renumeration for bioeconomy activities and by-product

valorisation can be integrated in the work of the EU agri-food chain Observatory.

13. Pursue alignment of standards for imported products for animal welfare and ensure

strict enforcement of EU food safety rules. Engage in a dedicated agri-food

diplomacy, enhance high-level missions and promotion measures to open new

market opportunities for European exports.

14. Pursue further simplification of agri-food legislation and make better use of exisiting

flexibility provisions, including on animal by-products legislation and EU hygiene

framework. Hold an implementation dialogue in Q4 2026 on the feed legal

framework.

Actions for a sustainable livestock sector

15. Promote value chain sustainability cooperation across the food chain to support

sustainability and socio-economic objectives.

16. By the end of 2026, propose a targeted revision of animal welfare rules for laying

hens and broilers, focusing on the phasing-out of cages, practical on-farm welfare

indicators, ending the systematic killing of male chicks and introducing WTO-

compliant equivalent import requirements.

17. By Q2 of 2027, propose a targeted revision of animal welfare rules for pigs,

including the transition from crates to pen systems, practical on-farm welfare

indicators, and introducing WTO-compliant equivalent import requirements.

18. Closely exchange with relevant stakeholders, civil society and destination third

countries and, depending on the outcome of these exchanges, consider further steps,

incuding possible alternatives to the export of animals for slaughter from the EU to

third countries, while maintaining the market positions of European livestock

producers.

19. Develop a harmonised methodology for livestock GHG emissions at farm level and

promote monitoring tools that better reflect measures implemented at farm level and

are more adapted to the needs of EU livestock sector. In addition, exchange on

measurement and mitigation practices with global partners through the Global

Methane Pledge and related initiatives. Assess the inclusion of livestock emission

reductions in the Carbon Removal and Carbon Farming regulation.

3

20. When issuing the future CAP recommendations, ask Member States to support the

reduction of environmental pressure including from nutrients in areas with high

livestock concentrations.

21. Build a Livestock Platform with a comprehensive repository of proven solutions

for climate, environment and animal welfare by 2027.

22. In September 2026, launch a process to identify best practice and simplification

potential in the implementation of the Nitrates Directive, notably on calendar farming

practices, certain sustainable livestock practices and nutrient management at farm

level, adapted to local circumstances. In the context of the future CAP, the Member

States are invited to make use of the tools available to support farmers to reduce

pressure from nutrients on the environment in areas with high concentration of

livestock.

23. By the end of 2026, publish a report stress-testing the rules of the Birds and Habitats

Directives.

24. By Q3 2026, present the first assessment of the action to extend the RENURE act for

certain types of liquid digestates based on manure with appropriate environmental

safeguards.

25. Develop a dedicated roadmap to enable a more efficient and sustainable circulation

of nutrients across the EU.

Actions for a livestock sector fitting European territorial diversity

26. Develop a plan on how to address the specific needs of regions at risk of

abandonment with the aim to bring back sustainable livestock production, in

conjunction with the work on the Land Observatory.

27. Develop a roadmap on slaughterhouses, examining how to foster their presence in

rural areas.

Actions to foster excellence in livestock production

28. Strengthen the role of EU origin information in livestock marketing standards and

labelling.

29. Develop European Excellence scheme to valorise the higher standards and specific

characteristics of EU livestock production through optional reserved terms under the

Common Market Organisation, including criteria for recognising low-carbon,

environmentally friendly, locally sourced and high-welfare livestock production

systems.

30. Explore ways to better recognise and communicate livestock quality attributes

beyond current carcass-classification criteria.

31. Consider a special window under the EU promotion policy to highlight the quality,

sustainability, high welfare standards and territorial anchoring of EU livestock

products in both internal and external markets.

4

32. Continue supporting the uptake, promotion, and protection of geographical

indications and organic production. Review the EU organic action plan and the

Geographical Indications action plan.

EN EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Strasbourg, 7.7.2026 SWD(2026) 576 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

The EU livestock sector

Accompanying the document

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN

PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL

COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

EU strategy on livestock

{COM(2026) 576 final}

EN EN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 2

CHAPTER I: An overview of the livestock sector in the EU ............................................. 3

Livestock population ................................................................................................... 3

Livestock farming ....................................................................................................... 5

Feed self-sufficiency and costs ................................................................................... 6

Organic livestock farming ........................................................................................... 7

Production and consumption of animal products ........................................................ 8

Production of organic livestock products .................................................................. 10

Trade in animal products ........................................................................................... 10

Animal health and resilience to major animal diseases ............................................. 12

Use of machineries for livestock management and digitalisation ............................. 12

Animal housing ......................................................................................................... 13

Slaughtering capacity ................................................................................................ 13

CHAPTER II: Economic and social dimensions .............................................................. 14

Livestock farms economics and income ................................................................... 14

The effect of farm size on economic results ............................................................. 15

Assets and investments in livestock farming ............................................................ 16

Economic performance of ruminant farms ................................................................ 16

Financial support ....................................................................................................... 17

Socio-economic and cultural dimensions of livestock grazing ................................. 19

Other social dimensions of livestock ........................................................................ 19

A family farm system ...................................................................................... 21

Territorial diversity.......................................................................................... 22

Food and beyond ............................................................................................. 23

Societal concerns ............................................................................................. 23

Chapter III: Environmental and climate dimensions ......................................................... 23

GHG emissions ......................................................................................................... 23

Spatial distribution of livestock installations ............................................................ 26

Nitrate pollution ........................................................................................................ 26

Ammonia emissions .................................................................................................. 27

Grassland and livestock dynamics, including biodiversity aspects ........................... 28

EN EN

Evidence on livestock-related farming practices and environmental impacts .......... 30

Key livestock practices to reduce ammonia emissions, GHG emissions and

nutrient losses .................................................................................... 30

Environmental impacts of extensive livestock systems .................................. 31

Key livestock practices with potential for co-benefits .................................... 32

Livestock value chains and bioeconomy ................................................................... 33

Possible options to reduce emissions and mitigate environmental impacts .............. 34

CHAPTER IV: The policy context ................................................................................... 35

The current CAP ........................................................................................................ 35

Measures beyond the CAP ........................................................................................ 38

The CAP post 2027 proposals ................................................................................... 41

CHAPTER V: Analysis. Strengths and weaknesses of the EU livestock sector ............... 42

Resilience .................................................................................................................. 42

Competitiveness ........................................................................................................ 43

Sustainability ............................................................................................................. 43

Territorial diversity ................................................................................................... 44

CHAPTER VI: Stakeholder’s views and consultations .................................................... 45

Annex A Synopsis Report: Public consultation on the EU livestock strategy . 50

Summary ................................................................................................................... 50

Themes and stakeholder groups ................................................................................ 50

Points of consensus ................................................................................................... 51

Points of divergence .................................................................................................. 52

EN EN

INTRODUCTION

In its Vision for the future of Agriculture and Food (the Vision) (1) the Commission considered

that, in 2040, the European Union “must be a place where farming and food production thrive

across our continent in all their diversity. A place where farming is attractive for future

generations, and the agri-food sector is competitive, resilient, future-proof and fair”. It

recognized livestock as an essential part of the EU agricultural sector and the food value chain,

competitiveness and cohesion, and that sustainable livestock is crucial for the EU’s economy,

rural viability, landscape and environmental preservation. The livestock sector is a vital part of

the European Union's agricultural framework, encompassing a diverse range of activities and

supporting rural economies.

Livestock production in the EU is diverse, ranging from indoor systems intensive in inputs such

as fertilizers, feed, machinery, and advanced technology, to extensive farming involving

cultivating larger land areas with lower inputs and reliance on natural resources. Each system

carries unique challenges as well as opportunities. As the sector navigates these challenges, the

Commission's Communication on a Union Livestock Strategy (the Strategy) intends to lay

down a path for a sustainable future for the sector offering solutions tailored to the variety of

livestock production methods across Europe considering regional differences and practices. and

emphasizing that different territories may follow differentiated pathways, in line with their own

economic, social and environmental situations.

A comprehensive approach that embraces the diversity of the EU livestock farming as well as

of its territories acknowledges that livestock farming, apart from producing quality proteins it

provides as well critical ecological and socio-cultural services (ie. habitats maintenance,

territorial identity, cultural heritage, climate risk prevention).

The Strategy is a response to ambitious goals outlined in the Vision and it recognises the need

to secure a future for the sector and meet the demands for a competitive, resilient and sustainable

European livestock sector fitting the EU territorial and social diversity.

Stakeholder engagement has been central in developing the Strategy. Consultations involved

Member States, farmers, industry representatives, civil society and academia. These discussions

ensure that the strategy reflects diverse perspectives and interests.

The Strategy represents a comprehensive approach to strengthening the sector's contributions

to agriculture, rural landscapes, the environment, climate adaptations and socio-economic

welfare. It aims to ensure that competitiveness, sustainability and fairness go hand in hand

across Europe. This Staff Working Document presents the current state of the livestock sector

in the EU and summarises the consultations and analysis carried out. As the EU adapts to a

changing global environment, the strategy will help ensure the livestock sector remains a core

component of the Union's agricultural and economic fabric.

(1) https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/overview-vision-agriculture-food/vision-agriculture-and-food_en.

EN EN

CHAPTER I: AN OVERVIEW OF THE LIVESTOCK SECTOR IN THE EU

Livestock population

In 2025, the European Union had a significant livestock population (2): 132 million pigs,

72 million bovine animals, 54 million sheep and 10 million goats, and around 1.6 billion

poultry birds (3).

Over the past two decades (2005-2025), livestock numbers across almost all species have

declined sharply throughout the EU, particularly for small ruminants. Live bovine animals

decreased by 10%, whereas domestic pigs dropped by 15%. The number of sheep has seen an

even more significant reduction of 26%, and goats have similarly declined by 26%. Poultry is

the only exception, marking an increase of 14% in the same period. However, it must not be

overlooked that behind those overall trends there is a significant territorial diversity across EU

regions with different implications as regards livestock density.

(2) Eurostat: Livestock populations (apro_mt_lscatl, apro_mt_lsgoat, apro_mt_lssheep, apro_mt_lspig,

agr_r_animal). Farm structure (ef_lsk_poultry).

(3) For poultry, latest data available is for 2023.

72

132

54

10

Bill.

1,6

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Bovines Pigs Sheep Goats Poultry

B il

li o

n s

M il

li o

n s

Chart 1: Animals (heads) in EU holdings

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

Chart 2: Evolution of livestock population

(index 2005=100)

Bovines Pigs Sheep Goats Poultry

EN EN

Looking at livestock population differentiated by farm typology, in the period 2010-2020 (4),

livestock herds decreased the most in Specialist Permanent crop farms (5) (-41%) and in Mixed

livestock farms (6) (-17%), across all livestock species. On the other hand, livestock herds

increased the most in Specialist granivores (7)farms across all livestock species by 13%.

Additionally, this farm type accounts for 82% of the livestock population in 2020 considering

all livestock species.

Table 1: Evolution of number of animals in livestock Units (LSU) (8) in EU farms

Mixed livestock farms lost, between 2010 and 2020, around 35% of their bovine herd (the

biggest decline for bovine animals across all farm typologies), 35% of their sheep population,

50% of their goat population and 40% of their swine population. In 2020, for ruminants, Mixed

livestock farms represent not more than 5% of the total population of each species. Also Mixed

cropping and Mixed crops-livestock farms were affected by high losses especially on goat herds

and swine population (more than 35%).

Apart for bovine herds, Specialist Permanent crop farms lost at least 39% of the main domestic

animal species population between 2010 and 2020 with the highest drop for goat population by

63%. On the other hand, ruminant population increased in Specialist grazing livestock farms

(9),for bovines by around 1.5 million heads, for sheep by nearly 2.3 million heads, and for goats

by nearly 620 thousand heads. In Specialist granivores farms, swine population increased by

around 7.3 million heads, and poultry population by 177 million heads (10), thus indicating an

increasing degree of farm specialisation for both grazing and granivores.

(4) Using Agricultural Census data.

(5) Eurostat glossary: a crop-specialist holding is an agricultural holding where crop production is the dominant

activity, providing at least two-thirds of the production or the business size of an agricultural holding.

(6) Eurostat glossary; Farms with different livestock species

(7) Eurostat glossary: Pig and poultry farms.

(8) The livestock unit (LSU) is a reference unit which facilitates the aggregation of livestock from various species

and age.

(9) Eurostat glossary: Ruminant farms

(10) Eurostat: Main livestock indicators by NUTS 2 region ( [ef_lsk_main]).

Number of animals (LSU) in farms in the EU

2010 2013 2016 2020 2020 vs 2010

Specialist field crops 18.912.810 25.568.890 23.575.920 19.238.770 2%

Specialist horticulture 1.625.210 1.265.090 1.222.040 1.378.350 -15%

Specialist permanent crops 5.396.470 3.924.520 3.832.820 3.188.160 -41%

Mixed cropping 7.407.980 7.524.440 6.550.390 7.133.490 -4%

Mixed crops-livestock 105.902.610 109.209.370 100.768.460 95.362.910 -10%

Mixed livestock farms 99.281.320 88.950.800 82.127.820 81.965.130 -17%

Specialist granivores 1.396.502.230 1.381.367.910 1.464.399.580 1.579.506.270 13%

Specialist grazing livestock 141.624.690 141.177.070 142.186.330 139.860.580 -1%

Total 1.776.653.310 1.758.988.100 1.824.676.060 1.927.633.670 8%

Livestock farms 1.637.408.240 1.611.495.780 1.688.713.730 1.801.331.980 10%

Crop farms and mixed crops-livestock farms 139.245.080 147.492.310 135.949.630 126.301.680 -9%

EN EN

Livestock farming

There are approximately 4.1 million farms with livestock in the EU, representing 41% of all

EU farms (2020 data) (11). In details, 21.6% of farms with livestock are classified as livestock

specialists while 19.3% as mixed farming combining crops and livestock activities.

Most farms are small, with 41% having less than 2 hectares and around 60% having fewer than

5 livestock units (LSU). It must be noted that most of the farms below 5 LSU are in mixed

farming systems and notably in two Member States: Romania and Poland (12).

Between 2010 and 2020, the number of livestock farms dropped significantly, continuing a

long-standing downward trend and at higher level than crop-related farm types.

The share of farms with livestock (specialist or not) decreased from 55.7% in 2010 to 41% in

2020. 6% of the farms (13) concentrate more than 70% of the EU's total LSU (14).

The average livestock density in the EU is 0.75 livestock units per hectare of utilised

agricultural area (LSU/ha UAA) (15). However, there are significant regional differences, with

regions (16) in Member States ranging from as low as 0.01 LSU/ha UAA to as high as

7.4 LSU/ha UAA (17).

(11) Eurostat: Main livestock indicators by NUTS 2 region ( [ef_lsk_main]).

(12) Farm Sustainability Data Network (FSDN).

(13) Farms with 100 LSU or more.

(14) Eurostat: Farm structure (ef_m_farmleg, ef_lsk_main).

(15) See footnote 2.

(16) NUTS 2.

(17) 0.01 LSU/ha UAA in AT13 (Wien) and 7.41 LSU/ha UAA in NL14 (Noord-Brabant). See also section on

Spatial distribution and hotspots in Chapter III.

0

2

4

6

8

10

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2010 2013 2016 2020

M il

li o

n h

o ld

in g s

M il

li o

n L

S U

Chart 3: Evolution of livestock farms and livestock units (LSU)

Livestock Units (LSU) Livestock Farms

EN EN

Feed self-sufficiency and costs

Livestock farms increasingly rely on livestock feed produced outside of their own farms.

Indicative figures (18) on the proportion of own-produced feed to the total cost for feed used on

farms show a reduction from about 26% in year 2010 to 21% in 2023. Those shares are higher

for feed for grazing livestock, that is cattle, sheep and goats, (36% and32%, respectively) and

lower for feed for granivores, that is pigs and poultry, (14% and 9%, respectively), but the

decreasing trend is similar. Eurostat’s EAA data (19) further indicate that livestock producers

mainly buy their feed (almost 2/3 of their needs) from outside of agriculture holdings (i.e.

compound feed from feed manufacturers), while other farms represent overall a small supplier

of feed for livestock production (below 10%). The share of the external sourcing of feed

increased over the years.

(18) FSDN public database: variables (SE310) Feed for grazing livestock (€/farm), (SE315) Feed for grazing

livestock home-grown (€/farm), (SE320) Feed for pigs & poultry (€/farm) and (SE325) Feed for pigs &

poultry home-grown (€/farm). Note that valuation of own-produced (home-grown) and used feed at farms is

difficult, so these could be underestimated. Nevertheless, evolution of these variables should be informative

of the trends.

(19) Economic accounts for agriculture - values at current prices [aact_eaa01__custom_20601979].

0,75

3,45

3,27

2,68

1,73

1,59

1,41

1,24

1,01

0,98

0,86

0,81

0,75

0,7

0,7

0,69

0,63

0,61

0,55

0,47

0,43

0,42

0,35

0,33

0,3

0,25

0,24

0,23

0 1 2 3 4

EU

Netherlands

Malta

Belgium

Cyprus

Denmark

Ireland

Luxembourg

Slovenia

Germany

Austria

Italy

France

Greece

Spain

Poland

Portugal

Croatia

Sweden

Czechia

Hungary

Finland

Romania

Slovakia

Estonia

Lithuania

Latvia

Bulgaria

Chart 4: Livestock density: LSU/ha

EN EN

Feed costs represent on average around 25%-28% of total costs for all sectors in the EU27,

making it the highest share of cost, followed by fixed capital consumption (16% in 2023) and

compensation of employees (20). However, in farms specialising in livestock production the

feed costs have a higher importance21). In specialist dairy farms the feed component represents

on average over 30% of reported costs, with an increase to 36% in 2022, the year of Russia’s

full-scale attack on Ukraine, a major feed producer, and a subsequent spike of feed prices

worldwide. Other grazing livestock specialist farms (beef cattle, sheep and goats) have similar

shares of feed in their farming costs as dairy farms, while mixed farms have the lower reliance

to purchased feed (28% of total costs). By contrast, in farms specialising in pigs and poultry

producers the share of feed costs neared 60% of all reported costs, and it exceeded that level in

2022, when feed prices soared.

Organic livestock farming

Organic farming is a production method that aims to produce food using natural substances and

processes. This means that organic farming tends to have a limited environmental impact as it

encourages responsible use of energy and natural resources, maintenance of biodiversity,

preservation of regional ecological balances, enhancement of soil fertility, maintenance of

(20) As reported in Eurostat’s EAA annual data.

(21) Data from FSDN.

26% 24% 24% 22% 21%

36% 34% 34% 33% 32%

14% 11% 10% 9% 9%

2 0

1 0 -2

0 1

2

2 0

1 3 -2

0 1

5

2 0

1 6 -2

0 1

8

2 0

1 9 -2

0 2

1

2 0

2 2 -2

0 2

3

2 0

1 0 -2

0 1

2

2 0

1 3 -2

0 1

5

2 0

1 6 -2

0 1

8

2 0

1 9 -2

0 2

1

2 0

2 2 -2

0 2

3

2 0

1 0 -2

0 1

2

2 0

1 3 -2

0 1

5

2 0

1 6 -2

0 1

8

2 0

1 9 -2

0 2

1

2 0

2 2 -2

0 2

3

All feed Grazing livestock Pigs and poultry

Chart 5: Proportion of own-produced feed in all feed used at farms

35% 36% 36% 34% 37% 36% 35% 35% 33% 34% 33% 33% 32% 31% 31% 30% 29% 28% 28% 28% 28%

8% 8% 8% 7% 7% 8% 7% 7% 7% 6% 6% 7% 6% 7% 7% 7% 7% 6% 8% 8% 8%

57% 56% 56% 59% 56% 56% 58% 58% 60% 60% 61% 60% 62% 62% 62% 63% 64% 66% 64% 64% 64%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Chart 6: Origin of feed in EU farms

Feedingstuffs purchased from outside the agricultural industry

Feedingstuffs supplied by other agricultural holdings

Feedingstuffs produced and consumed by the same agricultural holding

EN EN

water quality. Additionally, organic farming rules encourage a high standard of animal welfare

and require farmers to meet the specific behavioural needs of animals. Organic farming is

supported by the EU, which adopted an Organic Action Plan in 2021 (22).

The organic sector in the EU, in terms of organically cultivated areas, increased with an average

annual growth rate of 5% from 2012 to 2023, reaching 17.5 million ha and 10.9% of the total

UAA.

A similar increasing trend of average annual growth rate of around 4 - 4.4% depending on the

species can be seen on the number of organic live animals, with a peak in 2022-2023.

Organically reared bovines represented 4.6% of total bovines in 2016 and reached 7% of total

animals in the EU in 2024. Organic dairy cows represented 3.4% of total dairy cows in 2016,

reaching 4.9% in 2024. Sheep and goats are the species with the higher percentage of organic

animals: 9.3% for sheep and 10.2% for goats in 2024. Pigs have the lowest percentage with

only 1.1% of organic pig in 2024 (23).

It is interesting to remark that this increasing trend occurred in an overall reduction in the

population of number of animals, especially for sheep and goats which show the steepest

decline in herd (22-23%) and the highest percentage of organic reared animals compared to

other species.

Production and consumption of animal products

In 2025, the EU produced approximately 42.7 million t meat (24). Between 2015 and 2025

annual production grew by 0.3%, however it is projected to decline by 0.3% annually from

2025 to 2035. Overall, EU meat production is thus expected to decrease by 3% over the next

decade. This includes reductions in beef production by 10%, pig meat by 7%, and sheep and

goat meat by 7%. Poultry meat is the exception, with production expected to increase by

5% (25).

(22) COM(2021) 141 final

(23) Eurostat: Organic livestock statistics (org_lstspec).

(24) Eurostat: Meat production (apro_mt_pann). DG AGRI, medium-term outlook on the prospects for agricultural

markets and income (Report: EU agricultural outlook 2025-35). In carcass weight.

(25) Eurostat: Meat production (apro_mt_pann); DG AGRI, medium-term outlook on the prospects for agricultural

markets and income (Report: EU agricultural outlook 2025-35).

21,1

14,5

6,6

0,5

42,7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Pigmeat Poultry meat Beef Sheep and

goat meat

Total meat

M il

li o n

t

Chart 7: meat production in 2025

EN EN

Additionally, in 2025, the EU produced 161.8 million t milk, enabling the production of

10.8 million t cheese, 2.3 million t butter and 2.7 million t milk powder; (26) EU farms also

produced about 6,4 million t of eggs for consumption (27). Despite the decline in the number of

dairy cows thanks to the increase of milk yield, between 2015 and 2025 annual milk supply

grew by 0.8%, and it is projected to further increase by 0.1% annually from 2025 to 2035, thus

1% in total in the next decade. The production of eggs for consumption increased by 7%

between 2015 and 2025 and is projected to increase by 5% from 2025 to 2035.

Farming activity and production in other subsectors such rabbits, horses, beekeeping, and other

species, for example reindeer, should not be neglected as there are significant in certain Member

States and their regions.

Regarding meat consumption (28), the current total per-capita apparent consumption in the EU

is about 47 kg in retail weight (29). Between 2015 and 2025 there was a 3% decrease in per-

capita consumption, and a marginal decline of 1% is expected from 2025 to 2035. However,

the situation differs among meat types. While consumption of beef and pigmeat is projected to

decline by -9% and -6% respectively to 2035, and sheep and goat meat consumption will

marginally increase (+1%), poultry meat consumption is expected to continue clearly upwards

by 9% (30).

In addition, the consumption of fresh dairy products (fresh milk, cream, yoghurt and others)

declined by -5% from 2015 and 2025 and is expected to continue declining by 7% from 2025

to 2035. The consumption of cheese (+5%) and butter (+5%) is projected to increase as well as

egg consumption (+6%).

The EU livestock sector uses around 71 million tonnes of protein as feed annually. The main

sources of feed protein are roughage (41%), cereals (21%), soya bean meal (16%), and other

oilseed meals (11%); the remaining 11% is obtained by various other sources.

(26) Eurostat: Milk and milk products (apro_mk_pobta).

(27) DG AGRI Estimation (Report: EU agricultural outlook 2025-35).

(28) DG AGRI Estimation (Report: EU agricultural outlook 2025-35).

(29) Corresponding to 66.7 kg per year in carcass weight equivalent.

(30) DG AGRI, medium-term outlook on the prospects for agricultural markets and income (Report: EU

agricultural outlook 2024-35).

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Chart 8: Evolution of meat production

(index 2015=100)

Pigmeat Poultrymeat Beef Sheep and goat meat

EN EN

Imports cover 25% of the protein used to feed EU livestock. At the same time, EU exports the

equivalent of 10% of the EU’s protein needs for animal feed in arable crop products or co-

products. Therefore, the EU’s net reliance on imported protein for its feed is about 15% of its

total feed use (or about 10 million tonnes of protein). Although the EU is largely self-sufficient

in low-protein content feed, only 25% of high-protein content feed, from oilseeds and protein

crops, used as feed in the EU is of EU origin. The EU’s low self-sufficiency in oilseeds and

protein crops is largely explained by the fact that 94% of the soya protein used in livestock feed

is imported.

Among the different protein sources, high-protein plant-based feed accounts for 30% of the

total EU feed use of protein (or 21.4 million tonnes of protein) (31).

Production of organic livestock products

The share of organic meat production out of total meat produced in the EU is lower than the

share of organic livestock. Organic poultry meat and pigmeat account for only 0.3% each of the

total pigmeat and poultry production in 2023. The share of organic beef (2.6%) and sheep

(3.9%) meat production are somewhat higher at EU level and show an increasing trend (32).

The share of organic milk production in the EU was of 3.5% in 2024, compared to 2.4% in

2016, with an average annual growth rate of 3.7% (33).

Trade in animal products

The EU is a leading global trader in animal products, with a strong and growing export-oriented

sector. In 2025, the EU exported EUR 53 billion worth of animal products, while imports

amounted to EUR 16 billion.

Dairy products are the EU’s top export: in 2025 they were worth EUR 20.7 billion with a net

trade surplus of EUR 18 billion. Pigmeat followed with EUR 12 billion in exports and a surplus

of EUR 11.6 billion. Beef and veal exports reached EUR 5 billion, with a surplus of EUR

1.6 billion. Poultry and eggs also performed strongly, with exports worth EUR 6.5 billion and

(31) DG AGRI: Oilseeds and protein crops balance sheets. Factsheet: Supply and demand of proteins for food and

feed. Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on plant proteins for a

sustainable food system.

(32) Own calculations based on Eurostat: Organic production of animal products (org_aprod) and Eurostat: Meat

production (apro_mt_pann).

(33) Eurostat: Organic production of animal products (org_aprod).

48 53 51 52 53

11 15 14 14 17

38 38 37 38 37

-30 EUR

-20 EUR

-10 EUR

0 EUR

10 EUR

20 EUR

30 EUR

40 EUR

50 EUR

60 EUR

2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

B il

li o n

s

Chart 9: Trade balance evolution (Value in billion EUR)

Exports Imports Trade balance

EN EN

a surplus of EUR 3.5 billion. Other animal products generated EUR 8.2 billion in exports, with

a surplus of EUR 2.6 billion. Sheep and goat meat, however, recorded a deficit of EUR

0.75 billion, with imports exceeding exports.

Chart 10: Products traded 2021-2025

The UK remains the EU’s largest trade partner, absorbing 28% of EU animal product exports.

China follows with 8.2%, the US with 7.8%, and Japan with 3.9%. Other regions and countries

account for around 50% of EU exports. On the import side, the UK also leads with 29% of total

imports, followed by China (9.8%), Brazil (9.7%), New Zealand (7.8%), Ukraine (6.2%) and

the US (5.8%).

Chart 11: Trade partners 2021-2025

In summary, the EU remains a key player in global animal product markets. EU trade balance

in animal products has been largely and consistently positive over the past decade. However,

the EU livestock sector shows significant export dependencies, with most of the exports

concentrated in few destinations. In particular, on UK, Switzerland, and Türkiye for beef and

veal, and UK, US, and China for dairy products. Other animal products heavily rely on UK and

US. Pigmeat exports are notably dependent on UK and China. Poultry and eggs exports are

primarily directed to UK. These dependencies highlight potential vulnerabilities if trade

relations with such partners deteriorate or demand in these key markets fluctuate.

Dairy

38%

Pigmeat

25%

Other

16%

Poultry

and eggs

11%

Beef

9%

Sheep and goat

1%

Exports

UK

26%

China

11% US

7%Japan

5%

Others

51%

Exports

UK

29%

China

10% Brazil

9% NZ

7%

US

6%

Others

39%

Imports

Dairy

16% Pigmeat

3%

Other

38%

Poultry

and

eggs 16%

Beef

18%

Sheep and goat

9%

Imports

EN EN

Animal health and resilience to major animal diseases

The EU’s harmonised animal health legal framework (34) − currently under evaluation (35) − is

designed to ensure early detection and effective control of transboundary and climate-related

animal diseases and enables the EU to manage these challenges effectively. However, the

epidemiological situation for major transboundary animal diseases (TADs) in the EU

deteriorated, in particular in 2025.

The TADs situation is driven by multiple factors, notably climate change (expansion of insect

vectors into new geographic areas) and increased global movement of people and animals.

Incomplete implementation of measures contributed to the persistence and increased circulation

of TADs. Potential negligence or intentional actions by external actors may also play a role.

These diseases pose serious risks to animal health and in some cases also human health, the

economy, food security and safety, and are causing major global market disruptions. Direct

financial losses are also high, with substantial resources needing to be mobilised for eradication.

Limited EU co-financing of veterinary measures and scarce financial resources in the Member

States, coupled with eradication fatigue, societal resistance to certain control measures, increase

uncertainty. Weak farm biosecurity further exacerbates these impacts.

Use of machineries for livestock management and digitalisation

One-quarter of farms with livestock have machinery dedicated to livestock management. These

farms account for 71% of the total LSU, suggesting that farms using such machinery tend to be

the largest in terms of livestock capacity. The share of LSU raised in farms with specific

machinery varies across countries, ranging from 20% in Greece to 91% in the Netherlands and

92% in Denmark. The most common type of machinery is grinder mixer for animal feeding,

found in 15% of farms with livestock, followed by machinery for welfare and health monitoring

of animals, present in 11% of farms. (36).

The adoption of livestock machinery is linked with the farm manager qualifications. 50% of

farms with managers having full agricultural training are using specific livestock machinery

compared to 36% of farms whose manager has basic agricultural training and just 16% of farms

where managers rely solely on practical experience. Age also appears to influence the adoption

of livestock machinery. Farmers under 40 have the highest adoption rate (40%), compared to

those aged 40 and 64 years (29%) and to farmers over 65 (12%).

In 2023, 60% of farms specialising in grazing livestock had internet access. Only one third of

grazing livestock farms had machinery for livestock management (covering 58% of LSU). One

out of five farms used management information systems and precision farming. Robotics were

the least common digital technology, found in just 16% of holdings. Granivore farms had a

higher adoption rate of digital technologies. Specifically, 59% of holdings were equipped with

machinery for livestock management and one third utilised robotics, covering 95% and 64% of

LSU respectively. (37)

(34) https://food.ec.europa.eu/animals/animal-health/animal-health-law_en#about-the-animal-health-law.

(35) https://food.ec.europa.eu/animals/animal-health/animal-health-law_en#evaluation-of-the-animal-health-law.

(36) Eurostat IFS (ef_mp_digilsk), 25/03/26. Above the threshold.

(37) Eurostat IFS (ef_mp_digi), 24/03/26. Above the threshold.

EN EN

Farms specialising in crop production exhibit a lower proportion of holdings with internet

access (37%), nevertheless, these holdings account for 68% of the total Utilised Agricultural

Area (UAA) of crop farms. Similarly, precision farming is adopted by only 17% of crop farms

yet applies to 47% of their UAA, while management information systems are used by 9% of

farms but cover 35% of their UAA. These disparities suggest that larger farms are more likely

to adopt such technologies.

Animal housing

The analysis of animal housing systems and outdoor access (38) reveals strong structural

contrasts across livestock sectors and a consistent divergence between the distribution of

practices across holdings and across animal numbers. In poultry and pig production, outdoor

access remains limited in terms of animals (around 2.2% for poultry and generally below 5%

for pigs), despite being more widespread at farm level (28% and around 10% of holdings

respectively), indicating that such systems are present but operate at smaller scale. Indoor

housing further highlights this duality: for laying hens, cage systems account for about 36% of

animals; for pigs, 85% of the sows in the EU are kept in farrowing crates during farrowing and

65% are kept in gestation crates during gestation, whereas more extensive systems are widely

adopted but involve fewer animals. This points to a strong concentration of indoor-based

production in a limited number of large farms. In contrast, bovine production is largely

characterised by outdoor-based systems, with around 78.8% of cattle and 77% of holdings

having access to outdoor areas, indicating a closer alignment between farm practices and animal

distribution. However, important differences remain across Member States, particularly in

grazing duration and housing systems, reflecting diverse production models. Overall, the results

highlight a dual structure in EU livestock production, where indoor-based systems dominate in

terms of output, while more extensive practices are more prevalent across farms, especially in

the poultry and pig sectors.

Slaughtering capacity

An exploratory analysis of slaughtering capacity based on company-level data, covering around

840 slaughter-related establishments across the EU (39), indicates a strong spatial concentration

of processing infrastructure in Western Europe, notably in France, the Benelux, Germany and

Spain, while coverage appears more limited in several Eastern and peripheral regions. The

distribution of slaughtering capacity is highly skewed, with a median capacity of approximately

16 000 head/week, compared to a 75th percentile exceeding 200 000 head/week and maximum

reported values reaching around 4.8 million head/week. This reflects the coexistence of a small

number of very large, industrial-scale facilities alongside a wider network of smaller regional

plants. Clear differences also emerge across species: poultry slaughtering is characterised by

the highest capacities and strongest spatial concentration, while pig slaughtering also shows

clustering in central-western Europe, and beef and sheep slaughtering appear more

geographically dispersed and generally associated with lower-capacity sites. Overall, these

patterns highlight a marked structural heterogeneity in slaughtering systems across the EU,

which may have implications for market organisation, supply chain resilience, and the

accessibility of processing facilities in more remote or less densely equipped regions.

(38) Eurostat IFS (ef_ah_bovt , ef_ah_pigt , ef_ah_poult), 27/03/26.

(39) The analysis is based on company-level data from the GIRA ‘Meat Company Panorama’, compiled by GIRA.

EN EN

CHAPTER II: ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DIMENSIONS

Livestock farms economics and income

The EU livestock sector accounts for approximately 40% of the total output in European

agriculture, with industries related to animal production, such as milk and meat processing and

livestock feed, generating an annual output of around 350 billion euros (40).

In addition, crops grown on 71% of EU agricultural land are used, at least in part, for livestock

feed The EU livestock sector is therefore key for the economics of the EU arable crop sector.

The EU livestock sector represents, together with arable crops production used as feed, more

than half of the total agricultural output (59% in 2024).

In 2023, latest available year, the average farm net value added (FNVA) in the EU, as reported

by the Farm Sustainability Data Network (FSDN), was EUR 49 600 (EUR 30 200 per worker).

Farms specializing in pigs and poultry reported the highest FNVA at EUR 210 000

(EUR 80 100 per worker), followed by the dairy sector at EUR 77 000 (EUR 38 500 per

worker), both exceeding the EU average. In contrast, income in grazing livestock farms (cattle,

sheep, goats, and mixed farms) was lower, at EUR 30 200 (EUR 22 300 per worker) in cattle

farms and EUR 36 800 (EUR 23 800) in sheep and goat farms (41).

Analysing FSDN data on the whole agricultural sector by detailed type of farming on the

average 2019-2023 to have a deeper comparison between type of farming and effects of farm

size, it is possible to further differentiate the economic results of livestock farms depending on

their specialisation and compared with the rest of the sectors.

On one hand, granivores farms reach the highest farm income at EU level with an average

FNVA/AWU above EUR 60 000 and a median close to EUR 34 000. Almost reduced by half

compared to granivores, but still at a high level compared to the other farm types, the dairy

farms have in average an FNVA/AWU about EUR 36 000 and a median of EUR 18 000. On

the other hand, cattle farms and sheep and goat farms as well as the mixed crops - livestock

farm have the lowest incomes together with the farms specialized in permanent crops other than

wine. Cattle and sheep and goat farms reach, on average, between EUR 22 000 and EUR 21 000

per AWU, with a median around EUR 13 000. The mixed crops and livestock farms have on

(40) Eurostat - Economic Accounts for agriculture (aact_eaa01).

(41) Farm Sustainability Data Network (FSDN).

30,2 38,5

22,3

80,1

23,8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

All type of farms Dairy farms Cattle farms Pigs and poultry

farms

Sheep and goat

farms

T h

o u

sa n

d E

U R

Chart 12: Farm Net Value Added (FNVA) by Annual Work Unit

(AWU) by type of farming

(2023)

EN EN

average an FNVA per AWU of EUR 20 000, but the median goes down to EUR 5 500. This

very low median is also observed in mixed livestock farms.

Table 2: Average FNVA/AWU per farm type

The differences between average and median values provide indications about the variability

among these classes, especially for mixed farms where such differences are higher. Income

levels among livestock farms vary substantially across regions and production types. Pig and

poultry farms recorded a 19% increase in income per worker in 2023 and remained the most

profitable livestock systems, with average income levels well above the EU average for

agriculture (?). In contrast, mixed farms, many of which include livestock activities, show the

lowest income levels. Geographically, livestock farms in north-western EU regions benefit

from higher income levels, while farms in eastern, Baltic, and south-eastern regions record

considerably lower results, reflecting both structural and market differences.

The effect of farm size on economic results

Farm size remains a key determinant of profitability in livestock production. Irrespective of the

agricultural sector, farm economic size plays a significant role when it comes to income,

together with the intensity of the farming system and the related livestock/land density.

Consequently, larger livestock farms generally achieve higher income per worker, as higher

productivity outweighs higher (unit) costs for land and capital. Smaller livestock farms,

particularly those focused on grazing systems, showed lower market income and stronger

dependence on policy support. Differences in income were also associated with farm

organisation, with livestock farms relying heavily on borrowed capital and hired labour,

especially in confined systems such as pig and poultry production (42).

Based on FSDN 2019-2023 average data, the dairy and the mixed crops - livestock farm types

reach similar levels of income of the other livestock farm types at lower herd sizes. Dairy and

mixed crops − livestock farms reach FNVA/AWU close to 40 000 euro with herds of 50-

(42) DG AGRI: Analytical Brief N°9: Explore Farm incomes in the EU – Key developments in 2023.

Farm Net Value Added (EUR/AWU)

Average 2019-2023

Granivores 60.742 EUR

Milk 36.054 EUR

Wine 34.221 EUR

Horticulture 31.832 EUR

Other fieldcrops 31.584 EUR

Cereals, Oilseeds and protein crops 30.657 EUR

Mixed livestock 26.321 EUR

Orchards - fruits 22.274 EUR

Cattle 21.881 EUR

Olives 21.789 EUR

Sheep and goats 21.540 EUR

Mixed crops and livestock 19.993 EUR

Mixed crops 19.216 EUR

Permanent crops combined 18.690 EUR

EN EN

100 livestock units, while for the cattle, sheep and goat as well as granivores farm types, this

level of income is reached with larger herds, about 100-250 LSU.

Traditional land management practices, including extensive grazing, transhumance with locally

adapted livestock breeds, the maintenance of permanent crops, and agroforestry systems, are

often underutilised or threatened by abandonment. Their continuation is hindered by socio-

economic difficulties and by natural or other specific constraints that limit the viability of

farming in these areas.

Looking at data on income excluding the subsidies component (other than investments’ support)

in the calculation of farm income, shows the effects of subsidies on the different farm types. In

particular the category which relies more on subsidies is cattle farms and also, to a lower extent,

the mixed crops/livestock and the sheep and goat farm types. Milk farms, as from a certain herd

size, manage to reduce their dependency to subsidies by increasing the share of income from

market. Granivores farms, often with structural higher herd sizes, are in general less dependent

on the subsidies compared to the other farm types.

Concerning mixed crops and livestock farms, FSDN data shows that the low income generated

by this type of farming is mainly due to the reduced size: more than 50% of these farms in

FSDN have less than 5 LSU and 2/3 less than 10 LSU. Two Member States, Poland and

Romania, represent more than 55% of the mixed crops and livestock farms and 66% of these

mixed farms with less than 10 LU.

Assets and investments in livestock farming

In terms of economic size expressing the scale of crop and livestock production, farms

specialising in milk, pigs and poultry are bigger than the average while beef, sheep and goat

producers as well as mixed livestock farms are usually smaller. Accordingly, the assets of milk

and granivore farms are about double the average value of assets per farm. Except for beef

cattle, sheep and goat producers, livestock farms invest more into their farms than the average.

However, in terms of economic returns to the value of engaged assets, livestock farms generally

do worse than the average. The exception is the pigs and poultry production, with varying but

often high return to assets, rivalling that in horticultural production which has the highest

returns to assets on average.

Economic performance of ruminant farms

While the previous section covers all types of livestock farms, including pigs and poultry, the

following analysis focuses specifically on ruminant systems, given their distinct production

structures, reliance on grazing-based feeding and particular environmental and territorial roles.

Income patterns in ruminant systems are closely linked to grazing intensity when measured

relative to grazable area, although relationships vary significantly across production types and

regional contexts. Analysis based on FSDN microdata (2019–2023) shows that, at EU level,

the income (i.e. farm net value added per annual work unit (FNVA/AWU)) generally increases

with stocking density, but with substantial heterogeneity across systems and Member States.

The grazable area indicator, defined as the sum of permanent grassland and temporary

grassland, provides a robust proxy for the land actually available for grazing, while excluding

cut-only fodder crops such as silage maize that are not typically grazed. Using this definition,

three intensity classes can be distinguished (<1 LU/ha, 1–1.4 LU/ha, >1.4 LU/ha), allowing

comparison between extensive, intermediate and more intensive systems, representing 1 502

796 (32.3%), 711 427 (15.2%) and 2 443 542 (52.5%) farms respectively. In scientific

EN EN

literature, 1.4 LU/ha (Livestock Unit per hectare) is commonly defining a threshold to

distinguish between extensive and intensive grazing systems (43); however, it is useful to

analyse results based on a broader range of parameters, as sometimes lower thresholds are used.

At EU level, income differences across intensity classes can be substantial in certain systems.

In specialist dairy farms, median FNVA/AWU increases markedly with stocking density, from

around EUR 8 000 per worker in low-intensity systems (<1 LU/ha) to approximately

EUR 28 000 per worker in more intensive systems (>1.4 LU/ha), reflecting higher productivity

and output levels.

By contrast, specialist beef systems show much weaker income differentiation across intensity

levels, with median income remaining broadly stable, around EUR 15 000–16 500 per worker

across classes. Mixed and diversified systems display more heterogeneous patterns, with

median income levels typically ranging between EUR 5 000 and EUR 22 000 per worker

depending on the relative importance of livestock and crops and the degree of specialisation.

Despite these differences, income gaps between extensive and intensive systems are not

systematically significant across all Member States and farm types. In many cases, once

variability within groups is considered, income levels between intensity classes are statistically

similar, highlighting the importance of structural factors such as farm size, production

orientation and regional conditions.

These results indicate that grazing intensity alone does not determine economic performance in

beef systems, while it is a very reliable indicator of economic performance in dairy systems.

Income outcomes reflect a combination of factors, including the type of production (beef or

dairy), feed systems, structural characteristics and regional market conditions. In particular,

extensive grassland-based system, often located in less favoured areas, tend to show lower

market income and greater reliance on public support, while more intensive systems benefit

from higher output but also face higher input costs and capital requirements.

Financial support

Direct payments under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) continue to play a major role in

stabilising livestock farm incomes, particularly for grazing livestock and dairy farms. On

average, these payments account for 21% of farm net value added at the EU level, but this share

rises to 43% for grazing livestock farms, highlighting their strong reliance on income support.

The relative importance of direct payments increases for livestock systems experiencing the

largest income declines, underlining their role in mitigating income volatility and supporting

the economic viability of livestock farming in the EU.

(43) Bielza, M., Weiss, F., Hristov, J., & Fellmann, T. (2025). Impacts of reduced livestock density on European

agriculture and the environment. Agricultural Systems, 226, 104299.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2025.104299

EN EN

Livestock farms, particularly those involved in granivore production (pigs and poultry), depend

heavily on borrowed capital. In 2022, the financing gap for animal production was estimated at

EUR 18.7 billion, representing about 30% of the overall financing gap for EU agriculture (EUR

62 billion)(44).

Included in the support offer for the agriculture sector, the European Investment Bank (EIB)

Group offers a range of financial instruments, including guarantees, direct lending, venture

debt, and private equity, to support investments in farming practices that reduce livestock

methane emissions. These instruments are designed to address structural financing gaps in the

agricultural sector, particularly for capital-intensive technologies such as anaerobic digestion

and manure management upgrades. However, awareness of these EIB financing opportunities

remains low among farmers (45)

Additionally, across Europe, several pilot projects are currently underway to reward farmers

for adopting practices that increase soil carbon and/or address enteric fermentation and manure

management. Beyond public support instruments, livestock farmers may access emerging

(44) EIB fi-compass Report: Financing gap in the agriculture and agri-food sectors in the EU.

(45) Report: Financing opportunities for livestock methane reduction. ECORYS

43%

33% 31%

20%

12%

6% 6% 2%

EU-27; 21%

0% 5%

10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Chart 13: Share of direct payments in FNVA by farm type (2023)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

T h

o u

sa n

d s

Chart 14: Farm loans by type of farm (2023)

EUR/farm

long-medium term Short term

EN EN

climate and environmental markets where measurable emission reductions, carbon removals,

and nature-positive outcomes are generated. These include biodiversity conservation payments

linked to grassland management, watershed protection schemes, and soil carbon crediting in

rangelands. Under the Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming (CRCF) Regulation (46),

agricultural practices that increase net carbon removals in soils—such as improved grassland

management, permanent grassland, rotational grazing, and mixed swards—can be certified. The

Commission is currently evaluating whether to extend the scope of the Regulation to include

livestock emission reductions from enteric fermentation and manure management.

In parallel, and in line with the Roadmap towards Nature Credits (47), nature credit schemes are

being developed to provide complementary financing opportunities for a wide range of

activities that demonstrably improve the condition of ecosystems or maintain them in good

condition. Livestock systems are integral to the scope of nature credits, covering both active

restoration efforts such as restoration of grasslands or peatland rewetting with adapted grazing

regimes, and the continuation of these essential management practices, such as the maintenance

of species-rich grasslands, pastoral hedgerows, and riparian buffers that would otherwise

deteriorate. Where robust methodologies and governance frameworks are developed and

implemented, nature-positive outcomes going beyond individual legal obligations can generate

nature credits, enabling private actors to invest in measurable nature-positive actions linked to

sustainable livestock systems.

Socio-economic and cultural dimensions of livestock grazing

Livestock grazing plays a crucial role in the socio-economic and cultural fabric of marginal

territories across Europe. In mountainous regions such as the Pyrenees, Alps, and Carpathians,

extensive grazing systems are integral to regional identities and cultural heritage. These systems

support food and feed production in areas with natural constraints, where economic viability is

often limited. Without viable livestock farming, large shares of these areas would be at risk of

abandonment, leading to loss of agricultural land, biodiversity and increased hazards, notably

wildfire. The management of grassland ecosystems and related cultural heritage is essential for

maintaining the socio-economic stability of these regions. The Vision emphasizes the need to

valorise the link between livestock production and the preservation of biodiversity and

landscapes, highlighting the importance of extensive livestock systems in these areas.

Other social dimensions of livestock

Jobs

The livestock-related value chain represents about one-third of all jobs and value within the

agri-food sector (approximately 7 million people) (48). Livestock farms employ roughly

4 million people across the EU, making up 42% of the EU's agricultural labour force (49).

Within aggregated EU figures, there are very varied national and regional situations.

(46) Regulation (EU) 2024/3012 establishing a Union certification framework for permanent carbon removals,

carbon farming and carbon storage in products. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/3012/oj.

(47) COM/2025/374 final. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52025DC0374.

(48) Eurostat: structural business statistics [sbs_ovw_act]; Farm indicators [ef_m_farmleg].

(49) Eurostat: Farm indicators [ef_m_farmleg].

EN EN

A typical livestock farm has on average 48 LSUs and employs one to two workers in addition

to the farm owner. Available statistics (50) show that average working units (AWU) per holding

in livestock farms increase clearly with physical farm size. Very small livestock farms (over 0

to less than 30 ha) operate with about 1 AWU per holding, indicating predominantly family

labour or limited workforce intensity. Farms with no land and those between 30 and 99.9 ha

require around 2 AWU per holding, suggesting a more labour-intensive organisation despite

fewer holdings. The largest livestock farms (100 ha or over) stand out, averaging 4 AWU per

holding, which reflects a much higher labour requirement per farm, likely linked to greater

scale, specialisation and more complex management. Overall, the figures show a strong positive

relationship between farm size and labour input per holding in livestock farming, but also a

negative correlation with standard output thanks to economies of scale.

Age and gender

Available statistics on age and gender of farmers (51) shows a clear age concentration of

livestock farming (52) among middle-aged and older farmers, in line with the overall farming

situation. Both the number of livestock units (LSU) and number of holdings rise steadily from

younger age groups and peak between 40 and 64 years, indicating that the core of livestock

production is managed by farmers in their mid and late-career stages. Farmers under 40 account

for only a small share of total LSU (18%) and holdings specialised in livestock (14%) (53),

suggesting limited generational renewal in the sector. Even though the 65-and-over group

manages fewer livestock units (11%) than the 40–64 cohort, they control one third of livestock

holdings, pointing to an ageing farming population with many older farmers still retaining farm

ownership, often with smaller average herd sizes.

Strong gender differences are evident across all age groups. Male farmers dominate livestock

farming in every age category, holding the vast majority of livestock units (86%) and a higher

number of holdings specialised in livestock farming (74%) (54). Female participation is

consistently lower (even lower than in crop production), particularly in terms of LSU (14% in

the EU in 2020 versus 11% in 2010, ranging from 2% in Hungary to 35% in Austria) and farm

sizes on female-managed farms.

(50) Eurostat: Farm indicators [ef_m_farmleg].

(51) Eurostat: Farm indicators [ef_m_farmang].

(52) Distribution of LSUs.

(53) Farms specialised in livestock manage 90% of LSU (Farm indicators [ef_m_farmleg]).

(54) Eurostat: Tenure of agricultural holdings by utilised agricultural area, sex and age of farm manager and NUTS

2 region [ef_mp_tenure].

EN EN

A family farm system

EU livestock farming is largely based on family-run farms (55). Family farming is the backbone

of EU livestock production, accounting for most animals reared despite the generally smaller

size of these holdings. In 2020, family farms represented about 93% of all EU farms and

managed roughly 55% of all livestock units, confirming their central role in livestock farming

systems. In most Member States, family farms reared most of livestock, exceeding 80% in some

EU Member States (Austria, Luxembourg, Greece and Malta). Although family farms can also

manage high herd sizes, these systems typically combine family labour with relatively limited

land and herd sizes, embedding livestock production within local socio-economic structures

and reinforcing strong links between farming households, territories and traditional production

models. However, marked national contrasts persist. In Slovakia, Estonia and Czechia, less than

one quarter of livestock were reared on family farms, reflecting a concentration of livestock

production in large, non-family operations in those Member States.

(55) Eurostat: Farm indicators [ef_m_farmang].

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Less than

25 years

From 25 to

34 years

From 35 to

39 years

From 40 to

44 years

From 45 to

54 years

From 55 to

64 years

65 years or

over

M il

li o n

s L

S U

Chart 15: Distribution of livestock units (LSU) by age and

gender of farmers (2020)

Men Women

EN EN

Family livestock farms are generally smaller and less capital-intensive than non-family farms,

yet they remain dominant in terms of labour use and rural presence, sustaining employment and

continuity in livestock-dependent regions. In eastern and southern Member States, many family

farms combine livestock rearing with semi-subsistence or low-output systems, while in parts of

north-western Europe family farms can be more commercial and productive despite remaining

family-managed. At the same time, the ageing profile of family farm managers—over one third

aged 65 or more—poses distinct challenges for the continuity of family-based livestock systems

in certain regions. These contrasts underline that family livestock farming in the EU is not

uniform, but territorially diverse, shaped by national structures, historical pathways and varying

degrees of integration into markets and value chains.

Territorial diversity

Livestock farming in the EU shows a marked regional and territorial diversity (56). Such

territorial diversity is strongly shaped by natural conditions, historical farming systems and

regional specialisation patterns. In terms of number of farms, livestock-specialised farms are

particularly concentrated in north-western and mountainous regions, where climatic and soil

conditions favour grassland rather than arable cropping. In 2020, specialist livestock farms

accounted for just over one-fifth of all EU farms, but their territorial footprint is uneven: Ireland

stands out with almost nine out of ten farms specialised in livestock, while similar dominance

is observed in parts of the Benelux countries, northern Spain, central France, southern Sweden

and Alpine regions of Austria, France and Italy. Grazing livestock systems manage more than

(56) https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Agri-environmental_indicator_-

_specialisation.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Austria

Luxembourg

Greece

Malta

Poland

Netherlands

Italy

Romania

Ireland

Belgium

Croatia

Finland

Sweden

Germany

Latvia

Bulgaria

Denmark

Portugal

Hungary

Cyprus

France

Czechia

Estonia

Slovakia

Chart 16: Distribution of farm livestock by type of

farm (2020)

Family farms Non-family farms

EN EN

65% of utilised agricultural area in these regions, underlining the strong geographical clustering

of cattle, sheep and goat farming linked to pasture availability and topography as well as the

relevance of grazing systems for the socio-economics of marginal territories the management

of grassland ecosystems and the related cultural heritagea.. In Europe, many valuable protected

habitats are to be found within the Natura 2000 network in Areas with Natural Constraints

(ANC) and depend on grazing from extensive livestock farming for their management (EEA,

2026). This illustrates that territorial differentiation can usefully build on existing territorial

realities and frameworks, including Natura 2000, where farming systems, biodiversity

objectives and landscape management are closely interlinked.

Food and beyond

Animal products constitute important sources of several macro and micronutrients. They

provide around 60% of the protein supply in EU diets. Additionally, animal by-products are

used as raw materials in a wide range of industries, from textiles and medicine to industrial

solvents, cosmetics, or biofuels.

Societal concerns

As outlined in the Vision, there are several societal concerns and expectations regarding

livestock and livestock production in the EU, including growing concerns about farmers’ well-

being, the sector’s environmental and climate footprint, intensifying trade and market

competition, animal health and welfare risks, and uneven territorial impact.

In particular, EU citizens are increasingly concerned about animal welfare, and there is growing

societal pressure to improve living conditions for livestock, as expressed by the European

Citizens’ Initiative “End the Cage Age” (57). Such societal concerns also emerged in the context

of the public consultation on the modernisation of the EU animal welfare legislation (58). The

need for sustainable livestock production is also highlighted, with a focus on reducing the

sector's climate and environmental impact; the climate and environmental dimension is dealt

with specifically in the next sections. Citizens are expecting more transparency and ethical

practices in the agri-food sector, and this has led to calls for targeted labelling to better inform

consumers about animal welfare and product origins.

CHAPTER III: ENVIRONMENTAL AND CLIMATE DIMENSIONS

GHG emissions

Agriculture is responsible for around 12.6% of the EU's total direct greenhouse gas (GHG)

emissions, with livestock contributing approximately to 66% of these agricultural

(57) https://food.ec.europa.eu/animals/animal-welfare/eci/eci-end-cage-age_en

(58) Launched on 19 September 2025 and ended on 17 December 2025 with almost 200 000 responses. The large

majority of respondents, including a majority of companies and business organisations, considered the phasing

out of cages to be very important or important for certain species. The majority of companies and businesses

also considered the current fragmented legal landscape, caused by differing national rules and private

standards as creating unnecessary administrative burden for EU farmers and business operators. Most

respondents considered that clearer and more consistent EU rules for on-farm animal welfare would help, to

a large or very large extent, to ensure fairer conditions for farmers across Member States.

EN EN

emissions. (59) Livestock generates GHG primarily through enteric fermentation (CH4) and

manure management (CH4 and N2O), accounting respectively for 49% and 17% of agricultural

emissions (60). Assigning also indirect emissions from feed production to livestock, as it is the

case in a full life cycle assessment, further increases livestock’s share in agricultural emissions.

Among livestock species, bovines are the largest contributors, with beef production responsible

for 37% and dairy for 19.8% of agricultural emissions. Pigs follow with 10.7%, poultry with

9.8%, and small ruminants (both meat and milk) with 6.2% (61).

Between 2005 and 2023, the EU’s agricultural GHG emissions had an overall decreasing trend

of 6,8%, with a further 1% reduction estimated between 2023 and 2024. In the same period,

emissions from livestock decreased by 7.3%. Emission trends varied across Member States,

with some of them seeing an increase in national agricultural GHG emissions since 2005.

In the context of the national targets under the Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR) (62), Member

States, overall, are projecting that, based on their current policies and measures, EU’s

agricultural emissions in 2030 would reach a level that is 10% below the 2005 baseline. If

additional measures currently planned by Member States are implemented, the total reduction

is projected to reach 13% below 2005 levels (63).

(59) The EU climate policy framework maintains a regulatory separation between the agriculture and LULUCF

sector based on IPCC accounting categories. In the EU’s GHG inventory, agricultural emissions refer to non-

CO2 emissions, primarily from fertiliser application, enteric fermentation and manure management. CO2

emissions and removals from soils, such as from cropland for feed production or grassland management, are

attributed to the LULUCF sector. These emissions are not included in the cited share of 12.6%.

(60) (European Environment Agency (EEA), 2025, Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture in Europe,

https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/indicators/greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-agriculture. Eurostat:

Greenhouse gas emissions by source sector [env_air_gge]

(61) Eurostat: Greenhouse gas emissions by source sector [env_air_gge]

(62) Regulation (EU) 2018/842 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on binding annual

greenhouse gas emission reductions by Member States from 2021 to 2030 contributing to climate action to

meet commitments under the Paris Agreement and amending Regulation (EU) No 525/2013. OJ L 156,

19.6.2018, p. 26. ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/842/oj.

(63) Eurostat (env_air_gge), European Environment Agency: greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from agriculture

in Europe.

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1 9

9 0

1 9

9 1

1 9

9 2

1 9

9 3

1 9

9 4

1 9

9 5

1 9

9 6

1 9

9 7

1 9

9 8

1 9

9 9

2 0

0 0

2 0

0 1

2 0

0 2

2 0

0 3

2 0

0 4

2 0

0 5

2 0

0 6

2 0

0 7

2 0

0 8

2 0

0 9

2 0

1 0

2 0

1 1

2 0

1 2

2 0

1 3

2 0

1 4

2 0

1 5

2 0

1 6

2 0

1 7

2 0

1 8

2 0

1 9

2 0

2 0

2 0

2 1

2 0

2 2

2 0

2 3

B il

li o n

t C

O 2

-e q

M il

li o n

t C

O 2

-e q

Chart 18: evolution of GHG direct emissions

Total emissions (Billion t) Agriculture Livestock

EN EN

Europe’s livestock is increasingly exposed to climate risks. Increased temperatures and

humidity, as well as new diseases and transmission pathways, are projected to negatively impact

the health and productivity of livestock, especially in Southern Europe. Feed imports are

vulnerable to climate events inside and outside Europe and price fluctuations are expected to

increase.

The measures included by Member States in their National CAP Strategic Plans have the

potential to significantly contribute to the targets under the ESR, with an estimated mitigation

potential up to 31 million tonnes of CO2eq per year, mainly in carbon sequestration and

reduction of emissions from soil. However, the estimated mitigation potential from livestock is

low, highlighting room for additional emission reduction opportunities in the sector (64).

EU livestock systems also interact with emissions from crop- and grasslands which are

accounted for in the LULUCF (65) sector, including carbon sequestration in grasslands,

emissions and removals from crop land for feed production, as well as e.g. with emissions from

the fertilizer industry (affecting the use of synthetic fertilisers), and with emissions in third

countries, not only through the import of protein feed, but also through trade of livestock

products.

Sustainable livestock systems are also relevant in the context of the Carbon Removals and

Carbon Farming (CRCF) Regulation (66). Under the current agriculture and agroforestry on

mineral soils methodology improved grassland management such as conversion of arable land

for fodder crops to permanent grassland, rotational grazing and mixed swards can be certified.

The Commission is currently assessing whether to expand the scope of the Regulation to

livestock emission reductions from enteric fermentation and manure management. The

management of permanent grasslands and adapted grazing regimes can help maintain or

increase soil organic carbon stocks were supported by appropriate practices and monitoring. At

the same time, improved manure management, optimised feeding strategies, enhanced herd

efficiency and better nutrient management can contribute to reducing methane and nitrous oxide

(64) DG AGRI - Report: Rough estimate of the climate change mitigation potential of the CAP Strategic Plans

(EU-18) over the 2023-2027 period.

(65) Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF).

(66) Regulation (EU) 2024/3012 establishing a Union certification framework for permanent carbon removals,

carbon farming and carbon storage in products. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/3012/oj/eng.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2 0

0 5

2 0

0 6

2 0

0 7

2 0

0 8

2 0

0 9

2 0

1 0

2 0

1 1

2 0

1 2

2 0

1 3

2 0

1 4

2 0

1 5

2 0

1 6

2 0

1 7

2 0

1 8

2 0

1 9

2 0

2 0

2 0

2 1

2 0

2 2

2 0

2 3

2 0

2 4

2 0

2 5

2 0

2 6

2 0

2 7

2 0

2 8

2 0

2 9

2 0

3 0

2 0

3 1

2 0

3 2

2 0

3 3

2 0

3 4

2 0

3 5

2 0

3 6

2 0

3 7

2 0

3 8

2 0

3 9

2 0

4 0

2 0

4 1

2 0

4 2

2 0

4 3

2 0

4 4

2 0

4 5

2 0

4 6

2 0

4 7

2 0

4 8

2 0

4 9

2 0

5 0

M il

li o n

t C

O 2

-e q

Chart 19: EU agricultural emissions by source and projected emissions

CH4 from enteric fermentation Manure management

N2O from agricultural soils Other

Total Agriculture with additional measures (WAM) Total Agriculture with existing measures (WEM)

EN EN

emissions. Such climate-relevant practices can also deliver biodiversity co-benefits, including

improved soil structure, enhanced habitat condition and increased pollinator support, provided

that grazing intensity and nutrient balances remain within ecological limits.

Spatial distribution of livestock installations

Data from the Industrial Emissions Portal (67) provide a complementary perspective on the

spatial concentration of pig and poultry confined production sites falling under the scope of the

Industrial Emission Directive in the European Union. The installation location for reporting

year 2024 (68) shows a strong geographical concentration of the 21 800 installations in a limited

number of regions and could show some pattern despite some limitations (69). At NUTS2 level,

the largest number of installations is recorded in Bretagne (1 493), Aragón (1 241), Weser-Ems

(1 128), Noord-Brabant (971) and Cataluña (936). Other prominent clusters are found in

Lombardia, Castilla y León, Midtjylland, Pays de la Loire, Veneto and Syddanmark. This

pattern points to a marked concentration of intensive pig and poultry production in western

France, parts of Spain, north-west Germany, the southern Netherlands, Denmark and northern

Italy.

Nitrate pollution

Nitrate pollution from agricultural origins remains a significant concern for water quality within

the EU. Agricultural practices, particularly high concentration of livestock in certain areas, low

feed self-sufficiency and overfertilization contribute notably to nitrate pollution and imbalanced

nitrogen cycles. Livestock production accounts for approximately 81% of agricultural nitrogen

input into aquatic systems (70). Nutrient pollution significantly impacts 31% of surface water

bodies and 17% of the area of groundwater bodies (71) under the Water Framework Directive

(72).

Groundwater is defined as polluted when nitrate concentrations surpass 50 mg/l, and 13.3% of

EU monitoring stations have reported levels exceeding this threshold. Agriculture is the primary

source of nitrates entering groundwater bodies. Additionally, nitrate pollution plays a critical

role in the eutrophication of freshwater and marine waters, leading to adverse effects on aquatic

ecosystems. In the period 2020-23, 52% of monitoring stations in the EU indicate water affected

(67) Data source EEA 2024: Industrial Emissions European Industrial Emissions Portal . Dataset download:

https://sdi.eea.europa.eu/data/657ac3cb-affa-4295-a4a9-27b4f539adab , 24/03/2026.

(68) The IED installations dataset identifies the location and regulatory status of installations falling under Annex

I of the Industrial Emissions Directive and, for livestock, covers the three main intensive livestock categories

included under point 6.6, namely poultry installations with more than 40 000 places, pig installations with

more than 2 000 places for production pigs over 30 kg, and sow installations with more than 750 places.

(69) The limitations of the dataset should be acknowledged. First, the IED dataset does not represent all livestock

farms, but only installations covered by the directive above the relevant capacity thresholds. It therefore

captures large units rather than the full livestock population. Second, the data reflect reported installations and

their reported status, not production volumes or animal numbers. Finally, the dataset is best interpreted as a

map of reported intensive livestock installations rather than as a complete inventory of all intensive livestock

production sites.

(70) Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the implementation of Council

Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from

agricultural sources based on Member State reports for the period 2016–2019.

(71) Water Framework Directive experts dashboards | WISE Freshwater resource catalogue | WISE Freshwater

(72) Directive - 2000/60 - EN - Water Framework Directive - EUR-Lex

EN EN

by eutrophication. The risk of nitrate pollution is particularly acute in intensively farmed areas

characterised by high nitrogen surpluses. These are often also areas with high livestock density,

as intensive livestock production is a driver of general agricultural intensification (excess

manure, feed production). The ongoing analysis regarding the implementation of the EU

Nitrates Directive (73) will provide further insights into regional variations and trends

concerning nitrate pollution, emphasising its continued importance as an environmental issue.

Livestock is an important source of nutrient surplus. In regions where livestock concentration

is high, the large manure production is associated with high risks of ammonia emissions to the

air and nitrates and phosphorus losses to water. The very high livestock concentration in a few

regions of the EU have resulted in nutrient hotspots or nutrient intensive areas, with high levels

of pollution in the air and in water.

Some Member States characterised by high concentration of livestock are implementing State

Aid schemes to decrease livestock numbers in order to reduce its environmental footprint,

including in N2000 sites.

Ammonia emissions

The agricultural sector is the predominant source of ammonia emissions in the EU, contributing

approximately 90% of the total emissions. Ammonia emissions have a negative impact on

human health as the emissions contribute to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) concentrations, via

the formation of secondary particles, including in many EU urban areas due to longe-range

atmospheric transport (74). Ammonia has also a direct impact on ecosystems and vegetation

causing eutrophication and soil acidification. Within the agricultural sector, livestock farming

and the use of fertilisers are identified as the major contributors. Specifically, ammonia

emissions arise from various activities such as animal manure application to soils, inorganic

nitrogen fertilisers, improper manure management and storage for different types of livestock,

and urine and dung deposited by grazing animals.

Despite efforts made to address this issue, many EU Member States remain challenged in

meeting the ammonia emission reduction commitments set for 2030 under the National

Emission reduction Commitments (NEC) Directive (75). Although there has been a reduction in

the number of Member States not complying with their 2020 commitments (from 11 in 2020 to

5 in 2023), projections for 2030 indicate that 15 Member States are expected to fall short of

their targets unless further actions are undertaken (76). In 2023, the risk of eutrophication on

(73) Nitrates - Environment - European Commission

(74) The average contribution from agriculture in 150 urban areas in the EU is 15%, as shown in the 2025 Urban

PM2.5 Atlas prepared by the JRC: THUNIS, P., PISONI, E., ZAULI SAJANI, S., DE MEIJ, A., REY

POMMIER, A. et al., Urban PM2.5 Atlas Air Quality in European Cities, 2025 Report, Publications Office

of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2025, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/3872483, JRC143618.

(75) Directive (EU) 2016/2284 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2016 on the

reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants, amending Directive 2003/35/EC and

repealing Directive 2001/81/EC

(76) https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/publications/air-pollution-in-europe-2025-reporting-status-under-the-

national-emission-reduction-commitments-directive/magnitude-of-emission-reductions-percentage-required-

by-eu-member-states-to-meet-their-emission-reduction-commitments-for-2030-onwards-based-on-2023-

data

EN EN

terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems due to nitrogen deposition, mainly caused by ammonia,

remains high in some areas in Europe (77).

Grassland and livestock dynamics, including biodiversity aspects

European grasslands cover about one third of farmland which breaks down into roughly

51 million ha of permanent grassland and 7 million ha of temporary grassland. After a decline

in permanent grassland until the year 2000, the EU grassland area has since remained broadly

stable in total area. This apparent stability in EU-wide statistics hides important local changes

and dynamics at territorial level, also influenced by the sources of data and analysis (78).

A substantial proportion of Europe’s semi-natural grasslands are listed as habitats of EU interest

under Annex I of the Habitats Directive (79), requiring Member States to protect and manage

them within Natura 2000 sites. One third of habitats of EU interest, approximately 4.5% of the

EU’s terrestrial area (177 442 km²), depend on active agricultural management, primarily

extensive grazing by cattle, sheep, goats and/or horses. In the EU, 84% of such grazing-

dependent habitats are currently in unfavourable conservation status, with grasslands showing

the highest proportion of deteriorating trends. These include several ecosystems targeted by the

Nature Restoration Regulation (80). The first pressure affecting these habitats is related to

changes in agricultural management (e.g. intensification, abandonment of extensive grassland

management, under-grazing or intensive grazing (81)). This highlights both the ecological

importance and the structural vulnerability of these habitats as well as the need for sustainable

grazing in maintaining them.

Grassland ecosystems require an active agricultural management, and extensive animal grazing

provides the most effective nature-based way to undertake this. Grazing intensity is a key factor

shaping grassland health (82). Sustainable management in these settings implies that grazing

(77) Eutrophication caused by atmospheric nitrogen deposition in Europe | Indicators | European Environment

Agency (EEA)

(78) Agricultural Analytical Brief N° 13: Grassland and livestock dynamics

(79) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and

flora. ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/1992/43/2013-07-01

(80) Regulation (EU) 2024/1991 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2024 on nature

restoration and amending Regulation (EU) 2022/869. ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1991/oj

(81) State of nature in the EU Results from reporting under the nature directives 2013-2018,

https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/publications/state-of-nature-in-the-eu-2020, p72-73.

(82) Agricultural Analytical Brief N° 13: Grassland and livestock dynamics

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1 9

9 0

1 9

9 1

1 9

9 2

1 9

9 3

1 9

9 4

1 9

9 5

1 9

9 6

1 9

9 7

1 9

9 8

1 9

9 9

2 0

0 0

2 0

0 1

2 0

0 2

2 0

0 3

2 0

0 4

2 0

0 5

2 0

0 6

2 0

0 7

2 0

0 8

2 0

0 9

2 0

1 0

2 0

1 1

2 0

1 2

2 0

1 3

2 0

1 4

2 0

1 5

2 0

1 6

2 0

1 7

2 0

1 8

2 0

1 9

2 0

2 0

2 0

2 1

2 0

2 2

2 0

2 3

K t

N H

3 Chart 20: Ammonia (NH3) emissions from agriculture

Livestock Crops

EN EN

pressure remains within ecological carrying capacity, as both overgrazing and land

abandonment can undermine habitat conditions. Light to moderate grazing with low fertiliser

inputs helps maintain productive and biodiverse grasslands while also supporting rural

livelihoods, animal welfare and cultural landscapes. Where grazing is abandoned, grasslands

are rapidly encroached by shrubs and trees, resulting in the loss of open-habitat species and an

increased risk of wildfires. Grazing, together with silvopasture and agroforestry, are in fact

critical in reducing natural hazards by keeping the amount of vegetation biomass at low levels,

as acknowledged in the recent Wildfire Communication (83). Conversely, overgrazing damages

soils, reduces plant diversity, and weakens grassland resilience, while under-grazing or

abandonment leads to uniform, overgrown vegetation and biodiversity decline.

Fertiliser input is another critical determinant of grassland biodiversity. High-nature-value

grasslands - characterised by high diversity of plants, insects and birds require management

systems with very low external fertiliser inputs. Increased fertilisation reduces plant species

diversity and raises biomass productivity, which in turn necessitates more frequent mowing or

higher grazing intensity. These changes further accelerate biodiversity loss associated with

grassland intensification. Similarly, in productive lowland areas used for livestock production,

grasslands are often intensified or even converted to other land uses (84). Ensuring that

agricultural viability and biodiversity maintenance go hand in hand is essential towards

effective implementation of EU nature and agricultural policies.

Livestock numbers on grassland-based farms have fallen sharply in recent decades, especially

in extensive systems in mountains and other marginal areas. Many small and mixed farms have

disappeared due to weaker economic viability, reducing the number of animals that actively

manage grasslands. This decline has major consequences for biodiversity, because grazing

animals are not easily replaced by machines or natural processes, and the abandonment of these

territories across Europe is a main concern for policy makers at different levels. With regard

only to the management of Annex I habitats that depend on grazing, the European Environment

Agency estimates that approximately 10–15% of the current ruminant livestock population in

the EU would be sufficient to preserve these habitats if suitably distributed (EEA, 2026). But

the extensive systems that provide these environmental benefits are in long-term decline, and

there is a growing mismatch between where livestock are raised and where grazing is needed,

in ecosystems often located in more marginal or remote regions.

While larger and more intensive livestock farms can be economically stronger, they often rely

less on grazing and more on housed systems and imported feed, weakening the link between

animals and local land ecosystems. Also, there is a tendency for livestock farming to

concentrate in a few specialised regions, resulting in the intensification of environmental

pressures there. In this context, it is also worth mentioning that Nitrogen deposition emitted by

livestock, especially in areas where livestock density is high, contributes to biodiversity loss

and degradation of both aquatic and terrestrial natural and semi-natural ecosystems. Reducing

these and other drivers of degradation is a prerequisite for nature conservation and restoration.

(83) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and

Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on integrated wildfire risk management. COM/2026/330

final

(84) Agricultural Analytical Brief N° 13: Grassland and livestock dynamics

EN EN

The biodiversity impacts of livestock production are not limited to grassland management. Feed

production can be a valuable component of crop rotation with positive impacts on circularity,

but also a main driver of biodiversity losses.

Evidence on livestock-related farming practices and environmental impacts

In transitioning to sustainable and resilient livestock systems, scientific evidence on the

environmental effects of farming practices can inform about effective ways to reduce pressures

and to have positive impacts on the environment. The JRC Farming practices Evidence Library

(FPEL)(85),(86) can serve this purpose as a collection of 630 meta-analysis (87), published from

2007 and 2024, on the impact of farming practices on the environment.

Additional scientific guidance on mitigation measures and best practices to reduce ammonia

emissions from livestock can also be found in two key UNECE documents: Guidance document

on preventing and abating ammonia emissions from agricultural sources(88) and the Framework

Code for Good Agricultural Practice for Reducing Ammonia Emissions(89).

Key livestock practices to reduce ammonia emissions, GHG emissions and nutrient losses

The JRC FPEL includes synthetised results from 83 meta-analyses covering livestock feeding,

housing techniques and manure management showing that various practices can reduce

environmental pressures compared to conventional practices. The adoption of these practices

holds significant potential to reduce environmental pressures, particularly through GHG

emissions, ammonia emissions and nutrient losses to soils and water, while sustaining or even

improving animal productivity.

Among 98 livestock feeding techniques, several have consistently positive effects on specific

environmental outcomes. Effects vary by livestock type, experimental setup, and technique

characteristics (90). However, for an effective transition, an increased uptake of these practices

needs to be combined with addressing structural issues such as high livestock numbers and

concentration of intensive systems with high stocking densities.

Based on the analysed 83 meta-analyses, the following practices are shown to have a beneficial

effect in more than 75% of the meta-analyses evaluated. Ammonia emissions can be reduced

in the barn by optimising livestock diet, in particular by adopting a low crude protein diet for

swine, poultry and ruminants farming and improving housing conditions for these type of

(85) JRC - Farming Practices Evidence library, The JRC farming practices evidence library, Publications Office of

the European Union, 2025, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/9473570

(86) Schievano, A., Pérez-Soba, M., Bosco, S. et al. Evidence library of meta-analytical literature assessing the

sustainability of agriculture – a dataset. Sci Data 11, 979 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-024-03682-

6

(87) A meta-analysis is a systematic statistical synthesis of the results of many independent individual experiments.

(88) Guidance document on preventing and abating ammonia emissions from agricultural sources published in

2012, recently revised and subject to final approval , draft revision of the Guidance

(89) Framework Code for Good Agricultural Practice for Reducing Ammonia Emissions

(90) Bosco, S., Chen, M., Bielza, M., Montero Castano, A., Schievano, A. et al., Livestock Feeding and

Sustainability: Mapping Environmental, Climate, and Productivity Outcomes, Publications Office of the

European Union, Luxembourg, 2025, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/3398918, JRC143817. JRC

Publications Repository - Livestock Feeding and Sustainability: Mapping Environmental, Climate, and

Productivity Outcomes.

EN EN

animals(91). Manure storage with acidification(92), use of cover, additives or biofilters and land

application with deep placement can reduce ammonia emissions (93). GHG emissions: methane

emissions from enteric fermentation may be reduced through an increased use of oils and fats

in the diet, with specific additives (nitrate, 3-nitrooxypropanol), and by using techniques for

rumen manipulation (94). From manure management, this kind of emissions may be reduced

with solid-liquid separation and storage with cooling. Nitrous oxide emission from manure

management may be reduced with storage with acidification or the use of storage with microbial

inoculate. Anaerobic digestion and storage with additives can help reduce the overall GHG

emissions (95). Nutrient excretion and nutrient recovery: A low crude protein diet can reduce

nitrogen excretion of swine (96) and poultry (97), as well as the use of urea as additive in the

diet. Manure storage with cover, additives and microbial inocula can reduce nitrogen losses (98).

Environmental impacts of extensive livestock systems

Locally adapted farming practices of extensive livestock systems can maintain or restore

biodiverse habitats, by resembling historical disturbance regimes by wild herbivores. With

adequate support, these systems can offer livestock production capacities in currently

abandoned and under-grazed areas. Based on a systematic review of 74 meta-analyses, the JRC

FPEL synthetises scientific evidence on the effects of grassland management, conservation and

restoration, and grazing. Conservation of old successional natural grasslands increases carbon

sequestration and grassland restoration has positive effects on several environmental indicators.

Restoration of grasslands degraded by former agricultural use have been shown to increase

biodiversity, carbon sequestration, reduce GHG emissions, and reduce nutrient losses.

Grazing can have a positive effect on biodiversity, but it depends on the intensity. The impacts

of grazing on biodiversity in general and for plant biodiversity change from significantly

positive, i.e. increasing biodiversity under light grazing intensity (99) to significantly negative

(91) Emmerling, C., Krein, A., & Junk, J. (2020). Meta-analysis of strategies to reduce NH3 emissions from slurries

in European agriculture and consequences for greenhouse gas emissions. Agronomy, 10(11), 1633.

(92) Co-mitigation of methane and ammonia emissions from agricultural sources: policy brief and guidance

(93) Ti, C., Xia, L., Chang, S. X., & Yan, X. (2019). Potential for mitigating global agricultural ammonia emission:

a meta-analysis. Environmental Pollution, 245, 141-148.

(94) Arndt, Claudia, et al. "Full adoption of the most effective strategies to mitigate methane emissions by ruminants

can help meet the 1.5 C target by 2030 but not 2050." Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences 119.20 (2022): e2111294119.

(95) Miranda, N. D., Tuomisto, H. L., & McCulloch, M. D. (2015). Meta-analysis of greenhouse gas emissions

from anaerobic digestion processes in dairy farms. Environmental science & technology, 49(8), 5211-5219.

(96) Wang, H., Long, W., Chadwick, D., Velthof, G. L., Oenema, O., Ma, W., ... & Zhang, F. (2020). Can dietary

manipulations improve the productivity of pigs with lower environmental and economic cost? A global meta-

analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 289, 106748.

(97) De Rauglaudre, T., Méda, B., Fontaine, S., Lambert, W., Fournel, S., & Létourneau-Montminy, M. P. (2023).

Meta-analysis of the effect of low-protein diets on the growth performance, nitrogen excretion, and fat

deposition in broilers. Frontiers in Animal Science, 4, 1214076.

(98) Zhao, S., Schmidt, S., Qin, W., Li, J., Li, G., & Zhang, W. (2020). Towards the circular nitrogen economy–A

global meta-analysis of composting technologies reveals much potential for mitigating nitrogen

losses. Science of the Total Environment, 704, 135401.

(99) The impacts of grazing intensity are assessed by considering different grazing intensities: light, moderate and

heavy as intervention. Intensities are taken from the reviewed meta-analyses as reported by authors, based on their

EN EN

under heavy grazing intensity. Grazing with low intensity has been shown to improve

biodiversity (of arthropods and birds) and pollinators in more than 75% of the meta-

analyses (100, 101). Extensive grazing can increase also carbon sequestration, soil quality,

grassland productivity and benefitting pollinators and weed control. Grazing at higher

intensities has negative impacts on the environment and on production. Grazing overall, and

particularly at heavy and intensive levels, has been associated with negative impacts on carbon

sequestration, grassland production, soil physio-chemical quality, soil nutrients, and soil water

retention. Rotational grazing is beneficial for both carbon sequestration and grassland

production. Rotational grazing (grazing regimes with planned rest periods) has been found to

increase animal production per hectare, grass biomass production, ground cover and forage

yield and soil organic carbon content, compared to continuous grazing (102, 103). These benefits

are more pronounced with increasing length of resting time. The effects of decision between

different management practices such as grazing or mowing and intensity/frequency levels and

mowing dates depend on local conditions. Based on the meta-analyses, the effects of grazing

and mowing practices depend on several biological (type of livestock, vegetation, soil biota),

environmental (e.g. soil, slope), climatic factors and on the type, duration of the treatment,

mowing date and historical management.

In addition, integration of livestock and crop production, such as in organic mixed farming

systems and silvopastoral agroforestry systems, has several positive effects, also shown by the

JRC FPEL, including 28 relevant meta-analyses. Silvopastoral systems can increase the carbon

sequestration in soil and in above-ground biomass, increase the biodiversity of arthropods,

vertebrates and woody plants and soil water retention. Organic livestock/ mixed crop-livestock

systems are shown to increase carbon sequestration in the soil (based on six meta-analyses).

Key livestock practices with potential for co-benefits

From the practices discusses above, the ones that have multiple positive effects (co-benefits)

on environmental and climate impacts or on production have been identified in the following

table.

assessments, without any further classification. These interventions are compared to no grazing or other grazing

intensity as comparator.

(100) Sartorello, Ylenia, et al. "The impact of pastoral activities on animal biodiversity in Europe: A systematic

review and meta-analysis." Journal for Nature Conservation 56 (2020): 125863.

(101) Herrero‐Jáuregui, Cristina, and Martín Oesterheld. "Effects of grazing intensity on plant richness and

diversity: A meta‐analysis." Oikos 127.6 (2018): 757-766.

(102) McDonald, Sarah E., et al. "Ecological, biophysical and production effects of incorporating rest into grazing

regimes: a global meta‐analysis." Journal of Applied Ecology 56.12 (2019): 2723-2731.

(103) Byrnes, Ryan C., et al. "A global meta‐analysis of grazing impacts on soil health indicators." Journal of

environmental quality 47.4 (2018): 758-765.

EN EN

Livestock value chains and bioeconomy

Livestock value chains play a pivotal role in the EU bioeconomy, contributing significantly to

its economic fabric. In 2023 (104), these value chains generated an approximate value added of

EUR 256 billion, which represents about 30% of the total biomass producing and converting

activities in the EU, valued at EUR 863 billion. This underscores the substantial economic

impact of livestock-related activities, which encompass primary production, food-product

manufacturing, leather production, and bio-based chemicals and pharmaceuticals. Over the past

decade, the value added by livestock-related activities has grown from EUR 150 billion in 2013

to EUR 256 billion in 2023, with notable expansions in chemicals and pharmaceuticals, which

more than doubled, and steady growth in primary production and food-product manufacturing.

The largest contributions to livestock value chains come from Germany, France, and Italy, each

generating more than EUR 30 billion. Spain, the Netherlands, and Poland also make significant

contributions, each adding around EUR 14-29 billion. The share of livestock-related value

added relative to total biomass-producing and transforming activities varies markedly across

Member States, ranging from under 10% to over 40%. Countries with high specialization in

livestock value chains, such as Ireland, Denmark, and Cyprus, derive a substantial proportion

of their bio-based value added from these activities. Other Member States fall into two main

patterns: those with strong agri-food sectors where livestock underpins primary production and

food processing, and those with advanced downstream processing combined with traditional

livestock streams, particularly in bio-based chemicals and pharmaceuticals.

The integration of livestock-related streams within different bio-based value chains highlights

their importance in supporting food production, material manufacturing, and emerging bio-

based chemical markets.

(104) Lasarte-López, J., M’barek, R. Contribution of livestock value chains to the bioeconomy sectors in the EU.

European Commission, Seville, 2026, JRC146560.

EN EN

Possible options to reduce emissions and mitigate environmental impacts

Reducing air pollution and GHG emissions and mitigating environmental impacts while

maintaining economic viability and competitiveness faces significant challenges. However,

there are potential avenues to achieve these goals.

Technological measures play a crucial role in mitigating emissions from the livestock sector.

DG AGRI's internal modelling and assessments highlight the potential of feed additives (like

3NOP), low-nitrogen feeding strategies, and anaerobic digestion to reduce methane emissions

significantly. For instance, the use of 3NOP feed additive can reduce methane emissions from

enteric fermentation by around 30% for dairy cows and 11-15% for total GHG emissions (105).

Similarly, anaerobic digestion and low ammonia application measures can contribute to

substantial emission savings, with DG AGRI's assessments indicating a potential reduction of

42.2 million tonnes of CO2 equivalents through technological measures. These technologies

can enhance emission efficiency without substantially increasing import demand, thereby

minimizing emission leakage. The adoption of such measures is essential for improving the

sector's competitiveness while reducing its climate footprint. However, the cost of adoption

accrues to farmers, which may impact their competitiveness and require additional policy

support to incentivize widespread implementation.

The CAP, current and future, contains a 'green architecture' that integrates environmental and

climate sustainability objectives through a combination of mandatory and voluntary policy

tools. This framework supports sustainable farming practices, such as eco-schemes, agri-

environmental and climate commitments. Data show a clear trend of declining agricultural

GHG emissions across multiple categories within IPCC sector 3, likely driven by improved

farming practices and better implementation of sustainability measures –data signal a successful

decoupling of GHG emissions from production intensity in EU agriculture over recent years.

Also, the post 2020 divergence between emissions and economic output highlights that an

increase in economic value of the agricultural sector does not mean an increase in GHG

emissions across the industry (106).

The CAP's focus on productivity and environmental performance offers a balanced approach.

Scenario analyses indicate that achieving better environmental performance may in some cases

come with increased budget expenditure and additional costs for consumers and lower input

costs for farmers. Improving the environmental performance of farms may increase resilience.

However, the environmental benefits are significant, including reductions in nitrogen surplus,

ammonia emissions, and GHG emissions, particularly when combined with technological

advancements and sustainable farming practices.

Reducing livestock density is another potential avenue to mitigate environmental impacts. The

2022 agricultural outlook report (107) analyses scenarios where maximum livestock density is

lowered to certain levels, inspired by ongoing policy discussions in some EU countries. These

scenarios indicate that reducing livestock density can lead to a decrease in ammonia emissions

and nitrates leaching, particularly in high livestock density regions. For example, scenarios

modelling a reduction in livestock density to 1.4 LSU/ha UAA at the grid level can reduce the

EU average nitrogen surplus by 6-12% and ammonia emissions by 6-11%. However, the report

(105) DG AGRI assessment

(106) DG AGRI assessment

(107) https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/document/download/a353812c-733e-4ee9-aed6-

43f8f44ca7f4_en?filename=agricultural-outlook-2023-report_en_0.pdf

EN EN

also highlights the risk of emission leakage, where reduced EU production leads to increased

imports and higher emissions in non-EU regions. To address this, parallel policies targeting

emission efficiency, dietary changes, or trade flows would be necessary. The use of feed

additives like 3NOP can further enhance the effectiveness of these measures, contributing to a

more substantial reduction in methane emissions and overall GHG emissions. For instance, the

combination of reduced livestock density with the use of 3NOP can increase the net global

GHG reduction from less than 2% to 5-7%, depending on the dose of 3NOP used.

Changes in consumption patterns, particularly a shift towards more plant-based diets, can also

significantly impact air pollution and GHG emissions. Even moderate dietary changes can lead

to substantial emission reductions. For example, a moderate decline in meat and dairy

consumption by 6kg/capita and 10% respectively can result in significant GHG emission

reductions (108). This approach not only reduces demand for animal products but also promotes

a more export-oriented EU livestock sector. However, achieving such dietary shifts would

require comprehensive policy measures to incentivize consumers and support the agricultural

sector in adapting to changing market dynamics.

In conclusion, reducing emissions and environmental impacts from the livestock sector requires

a multifaceted approach that combines the CAP's green architecture, adoption by farmers of

more environmentally sustainable practices and/or technological advancements, production

adjustments, and changes in consumption patterns. The CAP's measures provide a solid

foundation for sustainable farming practices, while technological innovations offer practical

solutions to enhance emission efficiency. Reducing livestock density and promoting dietary

changes are alternative avenues.

CHAPTER IV: THE POLICY CONTEXT

The current CAP

The CAP 2023-27 sets ambitious objectives aligned with the EU's goals for social,

environmental, and economic sustainability in agriculture and rural areas. The current CAP

framework (109) supports the development of a more competitive, resilient and sustainable

livestock sector. Each EU Member State has developed a national CAP Strategic Plan

(108) DG AGRI assessment

(109) Regulation (EU) 2021/2116 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021 on the

financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Regulation (EU) No

1306/2013. ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/2116/oj

Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021 establishing

rules on support for strategic plans to be drawn up by Member States under the common agricultural policy

(CAP Strategic Plans) and financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and by the

European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1305/2013

and (EU) No 1307/2013. ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/2115/oj

Regulation (EU) 2021/2117 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021 amending

Regulations (EU) No 1308/2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products,

(EU) No 1151/2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs, (EU) No 251/2014 on the

definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of aromatised

wine products and (EU) No 228/2013 laying down specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions

of the Union. ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/2117/oj

EN EN

(CSP) (110) that combines funding for income support, rural development, and sectoral

interventions.

Basic income support for sustainability (BISS), as area-based support, extends to all land-based

agricultural sectors, including livestock farming. Livestock production systems with no eligible

land are not benefiting from BISS. Livestock farmers also potentially benefit from various CAP

payments, such as coupled income support (CIS), eco-schemes (including animal welfare),

complementary redistributive income support for sustainability (CRISS), and rural

development support, provided through grants and/or financial instruments. This support

includes payments for areas with natural constraints, including ANC in mountain areas, agri-

environmental-climate payments, investments, cooperation, risk management, knowledge

transfer and advisory services, where applicable. A significant portion of these funds is directed

toward manure storage and processing and grassland management. Additionally, through their

CSP, many Member States offer support to livestock farmers for upgrading farm buildings and

equipment, including for environmental reasons, to increase animal welfare standards and

support the conservation of rare breeds.

A substantial share of CIS funding (around 70%) is allocated directly to ruminant livestock

sectors which are under specific economic difficulties and financial constraints. Some CIS

interventions directed towards crops, particularly protein crops (about 13% of CIS financial

allocation), may also in some cases directly and indirectly benefit the livestock farms and

sectors. Some CSP incorporate specific eligibility criteria to their CIS support to ruminants such

as livestock density limitations, territorial targeting (mountains, alpine pastures...) or

endangered/mixed breeds. Livestock farms not producing crops, notably in the pig and poultry

sectors, receive no area-based payments. This is not the case where farms combine livestock

production with crop cultivation on land eligible for direct support. Pigs and poultry are

excluded from CIS animal-based payments. Farmers, including those in livestock production,

are potentially eligible for investment support aimed at restructuring, modernization, and

enhancing competitiveness. For example, granivores and dairy farms are major beneficiaries of

CAP investment support.

A significant part of CAP interventions in the environment, climate and animal welfare domains

address livestock farming and its interaction with natural resources. At the interfaces between

livestock and grasslands the current CAP introduced a range of instruments such as the GAEC

standards (Good Agriculture and Environmental Conditions, part of the conditionality

mechanism), eco-schemes (annual climate/environment payments from EAGF), agri-

environment-climate commitments (AECC from EAFRD) and support for areas with natural or

other area-specific constraints (ANC). Evidence from an internal AGRI analysis of Member

States’ CAP Strategic Plans on interventions governed by Articles 31 (Eco-Schemes) and 70

(Agri-Environmental-Climate Commitments) reveals that the CAP toolbox has the necessary

instruments to support grass-based livestock farming, but their implementation oftentimes

needs stronger coherence and a more strategic ambition (53). About two-thirds of all grassland-

related eco-schemes and a significant portion of AECC promote grazing in one form or another.

(110) Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021 establishing

rules on support for strategic plans to be drawn up by Member States under the common agricultural policy

(CAP Strategic Plans) and financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and by the

European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1305/2013

and (EU) No 1307/2013. ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/2115/oj

EN EN

The integration of these measures is though often limited, and so is their impact on sustainable

grassland management.

Through strategic use of existing tools, and a more territorial and targeted approach, the CAP

can more effectively maintain grassland ecosystems and the livestock farmers who steward

them (111). Other measures within the CAP framework, specifically under the basis of the

Common Market Organisation (CMO) Regulation (112) include measures aimed at

strengthening farmers' positions within the agri-food supply chain, market transparency, and

the protection against certain harmful unfair trading practices (113). They are for the benefit of

all farmers, including livestock ones.

The expansion of producer organisations (POs) could play a significant role in increasing their

bargaining power. By channelling EU financial support and implementing Sectoral

Interventions (114), POs not only restructure and augment the sector's competitiveness, but also

contribute to environmental conservation and adaptation and risk and crisis management.

In the first year of CAP 2023-2027 implementation (claim year 2023), 4 billion euro was

specifically allocated to interventions paid per head of animal or livestock unit (corresponding

to 10% of the total CAP funds) (115). Of this amount, three-quarters was distributed as coupled

income support, while 16% was allocated to eco-schemes targeting animal welfare and 9% was

directed towards animal welfare interventions supported under “Environmental, climate-related

and other management commitments”. Coupled income support is the main type of intervention

for livestock in most EU Member States. However, there are two notable exceptions, Ireland

and the Netherlands, where no such support is provided for livestock. Meanwhile, Austria and

Italy allocate the largest share of support to livestock via eco-schemes for animal welfare

(respectively 44% and 57%).

In 2023, 60% of livestock farms benefitted from rural development support. Half of the

livestock farms received support for natural constraints related to area, 27% for commitments

for environmental and climate payments and 11% for animal welfare. Additionally, 6% of

livestock farms received support for investments (116).

(111) DG AGRI, 2026. Analytical Brief N° 13: Grassland and livestock dynamics

(112) Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013

establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations

(EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/1308/oj

(113) Directive (EU) 2019/633 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on unfair trading

practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/633/oj

(114) Interventions in certain sectors under the CAP Strategic Plans financed through the EAGF. The interventions

are foreseen in the following sectors: fruit and vegetables, apiculture, wine, hops, olive oil and table olives

and other sectors (Art. 42(f) Reg. 2021/2115).

(115) DIB (Data on interventions and beneficiaries). Further details are available in the DIB guidelines. Data are

under review and currently unavailable for Greece. interventions paid per area targeting livestock farms based

on eligibility criteria are not taken into account.

(116) Eurostat IFS (ef_rd_leg). Above threshold.

EN EN

The EU promotion policy (117) supports the livestock sector by cofounding agri-food promotion

programmes targeting the internal market and countries outside the EU. Between 2023 and

2025, an average of 47% of the total amount granted to promotion programmes financed

programmes promoting meat or dairy products. 43% of these funds supported the promotion of

organic, sustainable and quality schemes production.

Under the current CAP (2023–2027), Member States have flexibility to include animal health

related measures, such as biosecurity, within their National Strategic Plans (NSPs) on a

voluntary basis, typically under broader interventions rather than as a dedicated requirement.

10 Member States were recommended to add biosecurity in their NSPs to, later this

recommendation was extended through observation letters to 15 Member States in light of the

African swine fever situation or associated risks. While the majority of these Member States

(12 out of 15) subsequently introduced relevant CAP-based interventions on biosecurity

(mainly investments on infrastructures in pig farms, advisory services and awareness

measures), biosecurity is still often addressed indirectly and without dedicated indicators.

Overall, the uptake of animal health related measures can be characterised as limited to modest.

Measures beyond the CAP

Beyond the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), State Aids and several EU policies

significantly influence the sustainability and competitiveness of the EU livestock sector. The

primary focus areas are environmental and climate policies, including water and soil

management policies and animal health and animal welfare legislation.

Current EU policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving resource

efficiency, and promoting circular economy, as well as measures addressing water and soil

management, including regulations on nutrient runoff and manure management, are highly

relevant to the EU livestock sector. These include in the Water Framework Directive (118), the

Nitrates Directive (119), the Industrial Emissions Directive (120), the National Emission

Reduction Commitments (NEC) Directive (121) and the Birds and Habitats Directives, which

together aim to ensure the livestock sector operates within sustainable boundaries. Some of

these requirements are included in the CAP through SMRs, while obligations arising from the

(117) Regulation (EU) No 1144/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on

information provision and promotion measures concerning agricultural products implemented in the internal

market and in third countries and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 3/2008.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2014/1144/oj

(118) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a

framework for Community action in the field of water policy. ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2000/60/oj

(119) Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution

caused by nitrates from agricultural sources. ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/1991/676/oj

(120)Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial

emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control). ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2010/75/oj

(121) Directive (EU) 2016/2284 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2016 on the

reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants, amending Directive 2003/35/EC and

repealing Directive 2001/81/EC. ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2016/2284/oj

EN EN

Water Framework Directive and the Birds (122) and Habitats (123) Directives can be financially

compensated for under the CAP.

The Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming (CRCF) Regulation (124) establishes a certification

framework for carbon farming, with the aim to complement farmers’ incomes and support them

in the transition towards more resilient production. On 3 February 2026, the Commission

adopted a methodology to certify agricultural practices that sequester carbon or reduce

emissions from soils (125), for instance through improved management of grasslands in

extensive livestock systems. The Commission is currently assessing whether to expand the

scope of CRCF to include the reduction of livestock emissions from enteric fermentation and

manure management.

The EU research policy in agriculture focuses on promoting sustainable and resilient livestock

farming, enhancing food security, and fostering innovation to address the challenges posed by

climate change. The EU invests in research and innovation through framework programmes

like Horizon Europe, which funds projects in key research areas for the livestock sector such

as, for example, animal health and welfare, animal production systems, genetic resources, and

breeding (126). To date, under Horizon Europe (2021-2027), the funds dedicated specifically to

R&I in the land-based livestock sector within Intervention Area 3 ’Agriculture, Forestry and

Rural Areas’ of Cluster 6, are managed by DG AGRI and amount to over 360 million euros.

Research goes from fundamental research up to applied research and potential market uptake,

and includes collaborative projects, networking activities, EU partnerships, and multilateral and

international cooperation. A robust collaboration with Members States and Associated

Countries in R&I across agriculture, forestry, fisheries, food systems and the bioeconomy is

fostered not only through co-funded initiatives but also via the Standing Committee on

Agricultural Research (SCAR). R&I in animal health and welfare, has led to the launch in 2024

of the European Partnership for Animal Health and Welfare (EUPAHW) for a duration of 10

years. The Partnership strengthens the MAA to R&I across the EU co-funded projects

conceived and implemented with the One Health – One Welfare vision. Examples of

multilateral and international cooperation are the International Research Consortium on Animal

Health (STAR-IDAZ), the International Coordination of Research on Infectious Animal

Diseases (ICRAD) and the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases (GRA

GHG).

The Horizon Programmes support knowledge sharing and innovation uptake, working in

synergy with the CAP under the umbrella of the EU CAP Network and the European Innovation

(122) Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the

conservation of wild birds. ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2009/147/oj

(123) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and

flora. ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/1992/43/oj

(124) Regulation (EU) 2024/3012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2024 establishing

a Union certification framework for permanent carbon removals, carbon farming and carbon storage in

products. ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/3012/oj

(125) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/285 of 3 February 2026 supplementing Regulation (EU)

2024/3012 of the European Parliament and of the Council by establishing the certification methodologies for

permanent carbon removals activities. ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2026/285/oj

(126) https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/research-area/agriculture-forestry-and-rural-areas_en.

EN EN

Partnership EIP-AGRI. By providing funding opportunities for R&I for and with users, Horizon

Programmes promote the implementation of a multi-actor approach (MAA) to R&I, which

fosters collaboration among diverse stakeholders to address the real needs and challenges faced

by farmers and rural communities.

To this end, Horizon Programmes facilitate a set of dedicated activities aimed at supporting a

robust AKIS by i) sharing existing and new knowledge across the EU through thematic

networks (TN)(127) and ii) connecting advisors across all EU Member States through advisory

networks (AN)(128), but also on-farm demonstration and peer-to-peer learning. A considerable

amount of MAA and TN within the livestock sector are currently being implemented. There are

already more than 1 200 Operational Groups (OGs) working on animal husbandry and welfare

contributing to more than 2000 practice abstracts.

The EC promotes R&I on sustainable farming methods through several means like Cordis

Results Packs (e.g., animal health), EU Publications (e.g., livestock sustainability, AMR),

Clustering workshops (e.g., livestock, modelling, digital, organic), AgriResearch Conference,

AgriResearch Factsheets (e.g., Animal Production Systems), Factsheet on R&I, InfoDays, etc.

In addition, the EU has established comprehensive legislation to ensure animal health and

welfare in livestock production, on animal-by products, on veterinary medicinal products and

on feed and food hygiene (129) and on animal breeding (130). This legislation is also crucial for

the sustainability, resilience, and competitiveness of the EU livestock sector. Based on the

animal breeding legislation, the EU has established EU reference centres for bovine breeding

and for endangered animal breeds, ensuring the scientific and technical contribution to the

establishment and harmonisation of methods for the preservation of endangered breeds, and the

preservation of the genetic diversity existing within those breeds.

Private sector initiatives substantially contribute towards sustainable livestock farming

applications. Through pilot projects and farmer rewarding systems, they support dissemination

of sustainable practices, while incentivising farmers, acting as front-runners for their scale up.

Meanwhile, research and innovation, along with living labs accelerating their valorisation

support the sustainable transition of the livestock sector.

The Single Market Programme (SMP) 2025-2027 provides for financial support for the control

and eradication of several priority animal diseases through i) Emergency measures for animal

diseases for which there is immediate eradication (eligible costs are compensation for animals

killed, disinfections, vaccination subject to EU co-financing at a maximum rate of 30%) and ii)

Veterinary multiannual programmes for planned surveillance control and eradication of certain

diseases present or close to the EU at co-financing rates ranging between 12-30%). The co-

financing rates of this SMP instrument were reduced in 2023 by 60% from the original 50/75%

to the current 20/30% due to the unfavourable disease situation that forced to prioritise

expenditure. A reversion to original co-financing rates and sufficient funding adapted to the

prevailing epidemiological reality is necessary.

(127) https://eu-cap-network.ec.europa.eu/thematic-networks-compiling-knowledge-and-solutions-ready-

practice_en.

(128) https://eu-cap-network.ec.europa.eu/advisory-networks-connecting-advisors-across-eu_en.

(129) Food Safety - Food Safety - European Commission.

(130) Zootechnics - Food Safety - European Commission.

EN EN

The CAP post 2027 proposals

The CAP post 2027 proposals (131) include keeping income support at the centre of livestock

farming, while making it fairer and better targeted. The proposals preserve existing CAP

support instruments and guarantee that income support for EU livestock farmers will continue.

As proposed by the Commission, coupled income support per animal remains available for the

ruminants' livestock farms and the area-based coupled support is proposed to be extended to

the production of grasses and other herbaceous forage. Payments focus on active farmers,

excluding pensioners, and would be reduced for very large payments to ensure a fairer

distribution. Extra support would be possible for mixed farms combining crops and livestock,

farms in areas at risk of abandonment, and farms facing natural constraints, helping to maintain

livestock production across rural areas.

A key feature of the proposed CAP post 2027 is its stronger focus on sustainable livestock

systems. Member States would be required to support extensification of livestock farming in

areas affected by nitrate surplus, and support to extensive livestock farming under voluntary

commitments and the new transition payment. This aims to reduce pressure on soil and water

while keeping farming viable. In this context, and depending on regional situations and

scenarios, Member States could develop targeted measures for extensive grazing systems where

relevant, in particular in marginal and high nature value areas, building on existing frameworks

such as Natura 2000. Grasslands and grazing areas would remain eligible for support,

recognising their role in carbon storage, biodiversity and landscape management. CAP will

specifically allow for specific support for grass and other herbaceous forage, and livestock

payments would also take into account environmental impacts, including limits on stocking

density where needed.

The proposed CAP post-2027 gives greater importance to animal health and animal welfare.

These are defined as key priority areas, and Member States must include support measures in

their plans. Farmers would be able to receive funding for better housing, improved feeding

systems, disease prevention and higher welfare standards. Support would also be available

through agri-environmental and climate actions and the new transition payment to help farmers

transition to more resilient and sustainable livestock systems, including changes in management

(131) Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing

the European Fund for economic, social and territorial cohesion, agriculture and rural, fisheries and maritime,

prosperity and security for the period 2028-2034 and amending Regulation (EU) 2023/955 and Regulation

(EU, Euratom) 2024/2509. COM/2025/565 final.

Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing

the conditions for the implementation of the Union support to the Common Agriculture Policy for the period

from 2028 to 2034. COM/2025/560 final

Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending

Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 as regards the school fruit, vegetables and milk scheme (‘EU school scheme’),

sectoral interventions, the creation of a protein sector, requirements for hemp, the possibility for marketing

standards for cheese, protein crops and meat, application of additional import duties, rules on the availability

of supplies in time of emergencies and severe crisis and securities. COM/2025/553 final

Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION amending Regulation (EU) No 1370/2013 as regards the aid

scheme for the supply of fruit and vegetables, bananas and milk in educational establishments (‘EU school

scheme’). COM/2025/554 final

EN EN

practices such as extensification in areas with high concentration of livestock, support to more

extensive forms of livestock beneficial to the preservation of biodiversity and landscapes, or

that improve animal wellbeing and reduce risks linked to climate change.

Another important feature is the proposed provisions on stronger protection against crises and

market shocks for livestock farmers. The proposed new CAP includes a reinforced Unity Safety

Net for agriculture, which can be activated in cases of serious market disturbance or natural

disasters. Farmers may receive crisis payments or support for restoring production capacity

after events such as droughts, floods or disease outbreaks. Member States would also have more

flexibility to quickly amend their plans and redirect funds to livestock sectors when urgent

support is needed.

Finally, the proposed CAP post-2027 supports the long-term future of livestock farming in rural

areas. It promotes generational renewal by offering targeted support for young and new farmers,

including higher payments, start-up support and investment aid. Livestock farmers can also

benefit from support for farm relief services, helping improve work-life balance in labour-

intensive sectors like animal production. By combining income support, environmental

incentives, welfare improvements and rural development measures, the proposed new CAP

aims to keep livestock farming economically viable, environmentally responsible and socially

sustainable across the EU.

CHAPTER V: ANALYSIS. STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE EU LIVESTOCK SECTOR

Resilience

The resilience of the EU livestock sector is underpinned by several key strengths that bolster

its adaptive capacity amidst evolving challenges. The sector benefits from a diverse array of

production systems distributed across various regions, species, and market segments. This

diversity enhances the sector's ability to adapt to differing local conditions and market

demands. The CAP provides robust tools for income support, rural development, and risk

management, ensuring a reliable safety net for farmers and other rural actors. The EU

also maintains stringent animal health and welfare standards, contributing to heightened disease

resilience and bolstering public trust in the sector. Innovation and digitalisation, coupled with

effective knowledge transfer networks, and adoption of sustainable practices supported by

adequate incentives, further support the sector's adaptability to climate, market, and regulatory

pressure. The integration of livestock farming into circular systems exemplifies sustainable

practices that include efficient manure use, renewable energy production, and nutrient

recycling.

Among the sector's weaknesses that hinder its resilience, farm income plays a major role:

it is characterised by volatility, influenced by fluctuating market conditions and input costs.

Despite the mechanisms provided by the CAP, the uptake of risk management

tools remains insufficient, leaving many farmers vulnerable. The ageing farming population

and the limited generational renewal pose challenges to long-term sustainability. Additionally,

exposure to animal diseases and climate shocks continues to threaten the sector's stability.

There is a significant dependency on imported feed and global supply chains, exposing the

sector to external shocks that may disrupt operations. As other agricultural sectors, livestock is

exposed to the weaponisation of food by major agricultural world players. In parallel, the sector

remains heavily dependent on the continued provision of essential ecosystem services (e.g.,

EN EN

natural pastures, clean water, soil fertility and pollination…), meaning that degradation of

natural habitats could amplify existing vulnerabilities (132).

Competitiveness

One of the sector’s most important structural strengths is the high level of production standards

applied across the sector. EU livestock producers operate under strict rules on animal welfare,

food safety, and environmental protection, which protect human health, climate and the

environment, and help ensure high-quality products and reinforce consumer trust both within

the EU and internationally. These standards contribute to a strong reputation for reliability and

quality, allowing EU products to differentiate themselves from competitors on global markets.

Quality schemes such as Protected Designations of Origin (PDO), Protected Geographical

Indications (PGI), and organic certification strengthen this differentiation by highlighting

regional heritage, traceability, and specific production methods. In addition, several livestock

sectors in the EU, particularly dairy and poultry, have developed highly efficient production

systems supported by advanced technology, strong veterinary services, and well-established

supply chains. These factors help maintain relatively high productivity. The combination of

recognised quality, strict standards, and efficient production also supports growing export

opportunities. EU livestock products are often positioned in premium market segments abroad,

where consumers are willing to pay more for safety, traceability, and perceived quality, giving

the sector a competitive edge in many international markets.

Among the structural weaknesses that can limit its competitiveness, a major challenge for the

EU livestock sector is the relatively high cost of production compared with many international

competitors. Compliance with strict EU regulations on animal welfare and environmental

protection, while valuable for sustainability and product quality, often increase production costs

for farmers. At the same time, producers may face competition from imported products

originating from countries with less demanding standards, creating concerns about unfair

competition and an uneven playing field. Another structural issue lies in the imbalance of power

along the supply chain. Processing and retail sectors are much more concentrated than the

farming community, which can reduce farmers’ bargaining power and limit their ability to

secure fair prices for their products. As a result, a significant share of the value generated in the

supply chain may not reach primary producers. Furthermore, although consumers increasingly

express interest in sustainable and high-welfare products, their willingness to pay higher prices

for these attributes remains limited in practice. Finally, in some livestock sectors, market

organisation remains fragmented, with many small producers operating independently. This

fragmentation can weaken coordination, reduce economies of scale, and make it more difficult

for farmers to negotiate effectively or invest in innovation and market development.

Sustainability

The livestock sector has several sustainability strengths in environmental performance,

climate management and animal welfare. Compared with many global competitors, EU

livestock production operates with a lower environmental footprint due to stricter regulations,

improved farm management practices and advanced technologies. Grazing livestock systems

play a role in maintaining biodiversity, particularly in marginal areas where livestock grazing

(132) Economic and financial impacts of nature degradation and biodiversity loss - European Central Bank

Economic Bulletin, Issue 6/2024. The ECB estimates that 72% of euro area non-financial corporations are

critically dependent on at least one ecosystem service and identifies agriculture among the sectors exposed to

nature-related risks.

EN EN

helps preserve habitats and prevent land abandonment. In addition, livestock farming

contributes to circular agriculture through the recycling of manure and nutrients. Manure is

used as an organic fertilizer, helping to close nutrient cycles and reduce reliance on synthetic

inputs while improving soil fertility and reduce air emissions, particularly ammonia. The sector

shows growing integration with renewable energy production, particularly through the use

of manure and agricultural residues for biogas generation, which contributes to rural energy

production and greenhouse gas mitigation. Furthermore, the EU has some of the highest animal

health and welfare standards in the world, embedded in comprehensive policies and regulatory

frameworks. These standards not only improve the well-being of animals but also support

product quality, consumer confidence and the overall sustainability of livestock systems across

the EU.

Despite these strengths, the EU livestock sector also faces several sustainability challenges.

One of the most significant concerns relates to greenhouse gas emissions, particularly methane

produced by ruminants. These emissions contribute to climate change and are difficult to reduce

without substantial technological and management innovations. Nutrient pollution is another

key substantial environmental pressure particularly visible in regions with high livestock

density, where large concentrations of animals can lead to acute nutrient surpluses, soil

degradation and water quality problems caused by nitrogen and phosphorus runoff. The sector

faces increasing scrutiny from the public regarding its overall environmental and climate

impact. Public perception often focuses on the negative aspects of livestock production, which

can affect consumer attitudes and policy debates. The complexity of requirements placed on

farmers, including on sustainability is a particular challenge. Environmental, climate, and

animal welfare policies sometimes overlap or create conflicting expectations, making

compliance difficult and increasing administrative burden, while many livestock farmers are

not sufficiently compensated for the ecosystem services they provide, such as maintaining

grasslands, preserving landscapes and supporting biodiversity, which can discourage the

continuation of environmentally beneficial farming practices.

Territorial diversity

Livestock farming plays a crucial role in sustaining rural economies and supporting

employment across many regions. In numerous rural communities, livestock production

provides a stable source of income and helps maintain local economic activity, particularly

where alternative economic opportunities are limited. The sector is especially important in less-

favoured areas such as mountainous regions, grasslands and other marginal territories where

crop production may be difficult or less profitable. In these areas, livestock farming allows land

to remain productive and ensures that agricultural activity continues, keeping life in

those territories. Beyond its economic contribution, livestock farming also supports important

environmental and cultural functions. Grazing animals help maintain traditional landscapes,

prevent overgrowth and contribute to the preservation of biodiversity by sustaining diverse

habitats. These practices often reflect long-standing agricultural traditions that form part of the

cultural heritage of rural regions. By keeping land actively managed and supporting local

livelihoods, livestock farming contributes to a more balanced territorial development. It

helps maintain population in rural areas and reduces the risk of land abandonment, which can

lead to environmental degradation and the loss of traditional landscapes.

Despite its importance, livestock farming in rural areas faces several structural challenges that

threaten its long-term sustainability. One major issue is the continuing trend of farm

abandonment and rural depopulation, particularly in marginal and remote regions. As younger

generations leave rural areas in search for better economic opportunities, many farms struggle

EN EN

to find successors, leading to declining agricultural activity and reduced local economic vitality.

Extensive livestock systems, which are common in grassland and mountainous areas, often face

significant economic viability challenges. These systems typically operate with lower

productivity and higher costs, making it difficult for farmers to remain competitive in

increasingly globalized markets. In addition, many rural regions suffer from gaps in

infrastructure and essential services, such as transportation, digital connectivity, healthcare and

education. These limitations reduce the attractiveness of rural living and make it harder for

farmers and their families to maintain stable livelihoods. While policy frameworks such as the

CAP provide support to farmers, existing measures are sometimes not sufficiently adapted to

the specific territorial conditions of different regions, particularly those with unique geographic

or socio-economic constraints. As a result, some areas continue to struggle

to maintain viable livestock farming systems.

CHAPTER VI: STAKEHOLDER’S VIEWS AND CONSULTATIONS

Consultations were carried out via three basic channels: the EU livestock workstream (133), the

European Board for Agriculture and Food (EBAF) (134) and a public Call for Evidence (135).

The findings and conclusions of those consultations can be summarised as follows.

The EU livestock workstream

First Meeting, 27 May 2025 (136)

• On market remuneration

The diversity of livestock production systems continues to require public support to provide

income to livestock farmers, guarantee economic life in rural areas in danger of land

abandonment and enhance livestock’s positive contribution to biodiversity, climate change

mitigation, circularity, renewable energy production, waste management, landscape

preservation, animal health and welfare, etc. The market does not in itself remunerate all

services provided by livestock farmers. Some niche markets may attract better farmers’

remuneration, but the latter is quickly jeopardised when the niche market expands to become

the new normal (e.g. recent experience with organic products). Market differentiation and

labelling have limits in terms of underpinning higher consumer prices. Market differentiation

and labelling also have limits in terms of underpinning higher consumer prices. Also, market

prices do not always compensate for higher standards in the production process compared with

imports from third countries, unfair competition from third country products respecting lower

standards also needs to be properly addressed.

(133) https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy/cap-overview/committees-and-expert-

groups/livestock-workstream_en

(134) https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy/cap-overview/committees-and-expert-

groups/ebaf_en

(135) https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/16832-EU-livestock-strategy_en

(136) https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-

register/screen/meetings/consult?lang=en&meetingId=62806

EN EN

• On CAP support

Available tools under the current CAP offer the necessary portfolio of possibilities to

accompany the sector on a positive pathway. A stronger focus is needed for generational

renewal, farm resilience and risk management, digital transformation, knowledge transfer and

innovation uptake. In other words, an evolution is necessary to make the best emerge from the

livestock sector, no revolution. Territorial realities require tailored approaches. The variety of

inspiring examples evidences the need for flexibility and adaptability to local contexts.

Sustainability requirements that may appear irreconcilable at first sight can be addressed by the

complementary assets of different livestock farming systems.

Second Meeting, 23 October 2025 (137)

• On competitiveness

Competitiveness for the livestock sector is not just about cost efficiency. It requires a resilient,

fair, innovative and sustainable model that ensures farmers’ profitability, consumer trust and

consistent global standards. Key enabling conditions include a predictable and coherent policy

framework, a global level-playing field, investment in innovation and circularity, support for

small and medium farms, and quality communication.

• On environmental impacts

The workstream showed a shared recognition that the sector must transition towards

sustainability within planetary boundaries. Environmental transition must go hand in hand with

economic viability and social cohesion. Innovation and circularity—such as biogas, manure

management, and feed autonomy—are crucial to balance the environmental, economic, and

social dimensions equally. Transition requires a stable investment climate for new technologies,

science-based policies with measurable indicators, and mechanisms that reward farmers’

sustainability efforts. These elements are consistent with broader EU objectives on biodiversity

and nature restoration.

Third Meeting, 11 December 2025 (138)

• On prevention and preparedness against animal diseases

Certain stakeholders expressed views indicating that:

o Massive animal culling around disease outbreaks is no longer societally

acceptable as a measure to eradicate diseases. Other approaches must be

developed.

o Prevention is better than cure and less costly.

(137)https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-

register/screen/meetings/consult?lang=en&meetingId=65322

(138) https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-

register/screen/meetings/consult?lang=en&meetingId=66503

EN EN

o Vaccination should become mainstream. This requires overcoming technical

difficulties in developing vaccines, timely anticipation, financing support to

avoid that farmers are the ones bearing the costs and diplomatic handling at

international level to avoid penalisation of trade with products coming from

vaccinated animals.

• On research and innovation (R&D)

The workstream reached consensus around the need for R&I to be more immediately available

to practitioners, ideally experimented directly with farmers (with a right to fail), and not

duplicated to make the best out of available funds (once a practice proves its usefulness in an

experiment, it should be spread around to maximise uptake).

Fourth Meeting, 18 February 2026 (139)

• On an on-farm sustainability compass

The workstream discussions showed that on-farm sustainability compass must be holistic, i.e.

not just covering environmental/climate sustainability but also look at social and economic

sustainability. The main issue is to find an appropriate balance between keeping it voluntary

and trying to have a degree of comparability at EU level.

• On animal welfare

Animal welfare is respected by all across the supply chain. The question is whether a further

step is needed. If so, it must be quickly decided so that planning be possible for farmers to

invest and it must be accompanied by financial backing.

Fifth Meeting, 29 April 2026 (140)

• On feed and circularity in livestock production

There’s a need to transition livestock systems towards efficiently utilising non-edible biomass.

Circular practices, technological innovation, and by-product valorisation present clear

sustainability benefits, yet uptake remains constrained by economic, regulatory, and knowledge

barriers. There is a call for clearer, more coherent rules, lower costs, and stronger system

integration to enable scaling.

• On social and territorial aspects in livestock production

Livestock underpins rural economies, jobs, and territorial cohesion, delivering ecosystem

services and cultural value. However, the sector faces structural decline, generational gaps,

regulatory burdens, and market barriers. There is a need for coherent policies, investment, local

(139) https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-

register/screen/meetings/consult?lang=en&meetingId=68202

(140) https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-

register/screen/meetings/consult?lang=en&meetingId=69481

EN EN

infrastructure, and support for innovation to sustain resilient, attractive, and multifunctional

rural areas.

European Board on Agriculture and Food (EBAF)

Fifth Meeting of the EBAF dedicated to livestock, 22 January 2026 (141)

• On the economic viability of the livestock sector:

Discussion among EBAF Members and experts revealed a strong focus on ensuring economic

viability in the livestock sector through coherent trade policies, equitable market regulations,

and investment in resilience. Simplifying regulations, enhancing biosecurity and soil health,

and recognising the critical role of livestock in the bioeconomy were highlighted as essential

considerations. Addressing various challenges, such as regulatory constraints and price

volatility, alongside strengthening cooperation and competitiveness within the supply chain,

were deemed priorities for long-term investment. Additionally, efforts to remain competitive

globally through quality and volume of products were noted, with disease prevention and

innovation, including better animal feeding, being considered necessary for improving

competitiveness.

• On investments:

Enhancing technological and infrastructure investments to bolster conventional production

while promoting sustainable practices was advocated by EBAF Members and experts.

Strategies to enhance investment access and risk management tools via the CAP toolbox were

discussed, alongside the need for coherent policies and strengthened market orientation.

• On sustainability:

Environmental degradation, such as nitrogen pollution, animal disease, and greenhouse gas

emissions due to livestock intensification, were examined, with calls for circular economy

approaches to increase sustainability and competitiveness. CAP's role in financing transitions

to more sustainable production methods, targeting environmental objectives, and supporting

mixed farms were underlined.

• On attractiveness and social conditions:

Labour shortages and demographic changes affecting livestock farms in the EU were identified

by EBAF Members as significant issues requiring attention. Enhancing skills through training

platforms and encouraging youth involvement to drive digitalisation and innovation were seen

as crucial steps under the CAP toolbox. Financing for farmer social services to improve mental

health, life quality, and childcare under future CAP initiatives was highlighted as beneficial.

(141)https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-

register/screen/meetings/consult?lang=en&meetingId=67897&fromExpertGroups=3976

EN EN

Additionally, inclusion and enforceability of Trade and Social Development Chapters in EU

trade agreements were welcomed.

• On animal health and welfare:

EBAF Members stressed the importance of animal health and welfare for the sector's long-term

viability, linking improved welfare to addressing animal diseases. Biosecurity was emphasised

as a priority in the upcoming EU livestock strategy. A call for more uniform support across the

EU for vaccination and a future animal health fund was made, suggesting collaboration between

public and private financing.

• On the territorial dimension:

There was an understanding that a “one-size-fits-all” strategy wouldn't work for the diverse EU

livestock sector, with varied territories and production methods in EU areas. Livestock's

significance for rural areas and as providers of public goods like landscape maintenance and

biodiversity was recognised. Special consideration for mountainous and remote areas in CAP

policies was advocated to counter ongoing land abandonment, ensuring strong rural

development and addressing livestock eco-scheme deficiencies in certain EU Member States.

At the same time, high concentrations in certain areas increase environmental footprint of

production.

• On consumer demand:

Adapting to changing consumer preferences was underscored by several EBAF Members,

noting a shift in EU consumers favouring white meat over red meat. Rising global demand for

animal protein and the importance of One Health considerations were discussed, encouraging

reduced meat consumption in Europe. Providing comprehensive information to consumers on

livestock production standards was necessary, with a push for enhanced origin labelling. The

increasing success of organic labels and demand for organic meat were seen as trends needing

attention.

Public Call for Evidence

A public consultation on a Call for Evidence on the EU Livestock Strategy was opened from

16 March to 10 April 2026. The public consultation received 893 submissions from 30

countries. Across all stakeholder groups, three themes dominated the responses to the

consultation: animal welfare, sustainable farming and farmer livelihoods.

Overall, respondents acknowledged that the EU livestock sector must transform, but disagree

profoundly on the pace, direction, and instruments of change.

A complete synopsis report on the results of the public consultation is outlined in Annex A.

EN EN

Annex A Synopsis Report: Public consultation on the EU

livestock strategy

Summary

The EU Livestock Strategy public consultation received 893 submissions from 30 countries

over a 25-day window (16 March – 10 April 2026). The consultation attracted an exceptionally

skewed geographic distribution: France accounted for 66.0% of all submissions (589

responses), overwhelmingly from EU citizens (90.7% of French respondents).

Across all stakeholder groups, three themes dominate the consultation: animal welfare,

sustainable farming and farmer livelihoods. These three themes represent a broad convergence:

stakeholders acknowledge that the livestock sector must transform, but disagree profoundly on

the pace, direction, and instruments of change.

The consultation reveals a fundamental tension between two visions of the future:

− a reform-oriented vision, primarily voiced by environmental and animal welfare NGOs,

citizens, and some academic institutions, calling for a substantial reduction in livestock

numbers, mandatory dietary shifts, and an end to factory farming; and

− a continuity vision, advanced by farming organisations, business associations, and trade

unions, which accepts sustainability transitions but insists on economic viability,

competitive trade conditions, and a gradual, farmer-led transition.

Themes and stakeholder groups

The most cited themes in the consultation are:

− Animal Welfare (81.9%): is the single most cited theme across all respondent categories.

This does not mean universal agreement on what the animal welfare policy should

entail: EU citizens, NGOs, and environmental organisations call for structural change

(ending caged systems, limiting stocking densities), while farming associations and

business groups emphasise the need for transition support, economic compensation, and

global level-playing-field conditions.

− Sustainable Farming (80.2%): appears in nearly all substantive submissions but means

different things to different respondents. For NGOs and environmental organisations, it

implies a shift toward agroecological, low-input, and extensive systems. For farming

organisations, it refers to precision technology, innovation, and improved efficiency

within existing systems.

− Farmer Livelihoods (73.2%): reflects a general stakeholder acknowledgement that

economic sustainability for farmers is non-negotiable in any transition. This is equally

emphasised by NGOs (who argue farmers need public support to transition) and industry

(who emphasise fair market conditions).

EN EN

− Trade (37.3%): strongly emphasised by industry, business associations, and farming

organisations. It reflects deep concern about competitive asymmetry: EU farms are

expected to adopt higher standards than competitors importing into the EU market

without equivalent requirements.

− Climate & GHG Emissions (26.5%)

− Meat & Dairy Consumption Reduction (20.0%)

By stakeholder group, the most cited themes are as follows:

− NGOs (n=220): Top themes: Animal Welfare, Sustainable Farming, Farmer

Livelihoods & Economy, Meat & Dairy Consumption Reduction, Export and Trade

− Environmental Organisations (n=120): Top themes: Export and Trade, CAP and

Subsidies, Sustainable Farming, Farmer Livelihoods, Animal Welfare

− Business Association (farm cooperatives, sector federations, interbranch organisations)

(n=60): Top themes: Export & Trade, Farmer Livelihoods & Economy, Innovation &

Technology, Sustainable Farming, CAP & Subsidies

− Company/business (large agricultural enterprises to SMEs in the food and feed industry)

(n=35): Top themes: Sustainable Farming, Farmer Livelihoods & Economy, Export &

Trade, Animal Welfare, Innovation & Technology

− Academia (universities, research institutes) (n=25): Top themes: Climate & GHG

Emissions, Sustainable Farming, Biodiversity & Ecosystems, Farmer Livelihoods &

Economy, Innovation & Technology

− Citizens (n=200): Top themes: Biodiversity & Ecosystems, Climate & GHG Emissions,

Sustainable Farming, Animal Welfare, CAP & Subsidies

− Farming Organisations (n=100): Top themes: Sustainable Farming, Farmer Livelihoods

& Economy, CAP & Subsidies, Animal Welfare, Climate & GHG Emissions

− Trade Unions (n=13): Top themes: Farmer Livelihoods & Economy, Export & Trade,

Animal Welfare, CAP & Subsidies, Sustainable Farming

Points of consensus

Despite significant differences, the following positions enjoy broad cross-stakeholder support:

− The EU Livestock Strategy is necessary and timely. Across all respondent types there

is near-universal acknowledgement that the EU livestock sector faces structural

challenges requiring a coordinated policy response.

− Animal welfare must improve but transition needs support. Even the most industry-

oriented submissions acknowledge that EU animal welfare standards should be raised.

The disagreement is about pace, instruments, and whether improvement must be linked

to global trade safeguards.

EN EN

− Sustainable farming practices benefit farmers and society. Extensive grazing,

agroecological approaches, and reduced input dependency are presented positively

across the replies.

− Farmer income must be protected in any transition. There is a common understanding

that farmers cannot be asked to bear the financial cost of societal transitions

uncompensated.

− Third-country imports must meet equivalent standards ('level playing field'). EU

producers face competitive disadvantage when importing countries do not meet the

same welfare, environmental, or food safety standards.

− Innovation and technology are essential tools. Precision livestock farming, data-driven

management, genetic improvements for feed efficiency and disease resistance, and

biogas/circular nutrient systems receive broad support as enablers of a more sustainable

sector.

− Biodiversity and extensive grazing deserve specific protection. Multiple respondent

types recognise that extensive grazing systems play an irreplaceable role in maintaining

semi-natural habitats, Natura 2000 areas, and landscape biodiversity.

− Better labelling and consumer information are needed. A relevant part of the

submissions explicitly mentions labelling and transparency, with support from

consumers, NGOs, and many industry actors who believe quality European products

deserve differentiation from lower-standard imports.

Points of divergence

The following issues reveal fundamental disagreements:

− The role of meat consumption reduction. NGOs, citizens, environmental organisations

advocate explicitly call for EU policy to promote reduced meat and dairy consumption,

mandatory dietary guidelines, and a protein transition toward plant-based foods. They

cite climate, health, and animal welfare grounds. Business associations, trade unions,

farming organisations reject demand-side intervention as outside the scope of

agricultural policy, economically damaging, and socially paternalistic. Business

associations explicitly warn against measures that reduce European livestock production

while imports fill the gap.

− The pace and ambition of animal welfare improvements. NGOs demand time-bound

phase-outs of caged systems, mandatory maximum stocking densities, and enforceable

EU-wide standards by specific target dates. Farming and business associations prefer

gradual, voluntary, incentive-based transitions with long transitional periods (10–15

years), flexible implementation, and full economic compensation before any mandates

take effect.

− Livestock reduction targets. Several NGO submissions explicitly call for legally binding

targets to reduce the total number of livestock units in the EU, primarily for climate and

land-use reasons. This is categorically rejected by all farming sector respondents, who

argue that reducing animal numbers without addressing global food security and trade

dynamics will simply shift production and emissions outside the EU.

EN EN

− The nature of sustainable livestock. A disagreement exists about what 'sustainable

livestock' means. Agroecological NGO advocates favour extensive, low-input, mixed-

farming systems tightly integrated with local ecosystems. Technology-oriented industry

actors respondents favour intensification improvements (precision feeding, genomics,

biosecurity) that maintain or increase productivity while reducing per-unit

environmental impact. These represent fundamentally different visions of the future

farming.

− The role of the Common Agricultural Policy. NGOs want CAP payments strictly

conditioned on animal welfare and environmental outcomes, with rapid phase-out of

income support that is not linked to public goods delivery. Farming organisations want

CAP to provide economic stability and transition support without punitive

conditionality that reduces competitiveness.

− GMOs, gene editing, and novel technologies. Innovation-oriented respondents support

accelerated regulatory approval for gene-edited livestock and novel feed technologies

(insect protein, fermentation, algae). Several NGOs and organic farming respondents

oppose GMO-adjacent technologies on precautionary and market differentiation

grounds.

− Mandatory vs. voluntary standards. NGOs, Citizens, Environmental Organisations

favour binding EU-level mandatory standards with clear timelines. Business

associations, trade unions and farming organisations favour voluntary frameworks,

market incentives, and sector-led agreements, arguing that mandates create competitive

disadvantages and economic risks.

ET ET

EUROOPA KOMISJON

Strasbourg, 7.7.2026 COM(2026) 576 final

KOMISJONI TEATIS EUROOPA PARLAMENDILE, NÕUKOGULE, EUROOPA

MAJANDUS- JA SOTSIAALKOMITEELE NING REGIOONIDE KOMITEELE

ELi loomakasvatusstrateegia

{SWD(2026) 576 final}

1. SISSEJUHATUS

Loomakasvatus on üks inimkonna vanimaid tegevusalasid. Loomade kodustamine toimus

rohkem kui 10 000 aastat tagasi, mistõttu omab see keskset rolli tsivilisatsioonide

sotsiaalses ja majanduslikus arengus. Loomakasvatus on läbi sajandite olnud mitte ainult

meie toidusüsteemi lahutamatu osa, vaid tänu sellele on Euroopal omad elatusallikad,

sellest on saanud maapiirkondade majanduse selgroog ja meie maastike määrav element.

Tänapäeva Euroopas on loomakasvatus mitmekesine ja kompleksne majandustegevus, mis

annab ligikaudu 40 % ELi põllumajanduslikust lisaväärtusest ja mille aastakäive on 400

miljardit eurot. Sellel on tugev sotsiaalne ja territoriaalne mõju: loomakasvatusega on

hõivatud ligikaudu seitse miljonit inimest ja sellega tegeleb neli miljonit

põllumajandusettevõtet, mis asuvad kõikjal Euroopas, sageli piirkondades, kus on vähe

alternatiivseid majandustegevusi. Euroopa maapiirkondade püsimajäämise seisukohast on

kariloomad määrava tähtsusega alates Alpide karjamaadest kuni idapoolsete piirialadeni,

Arktika piirkonnast lõunapoolsete deesade ja ELi äärepoolseimate piirkondadeni ning

Vahemere saarteni. Kuna loomakasvatusel on tähtis roll elanikkonna hoidmisel

maapiirkondades ja nende majandusliku elujõulisuse tagamisel, aitab see vägagi kaasa ELi

julgeoleku- ja valmisolekualaste eesmärkide saavutamisele. Euroopa idapoolsetes

piirkondades on suur maa kasutamata jätmise oht ja kariloomade arv väheneb kiiresti,

mistõttu sealsete piirkondade vastupanuvõime kriisidele ja reageerimine

julgeolekuriskidele väheneb veelgi1.

ELi loomakasvatussektori tähtsus toiduga kindlustatusel on suur – kvaliteetse loomse

valgu pakkumine mitte ainult ELis, vaid ka üleilmsel tasandil, positiivne ELi

kaubandusbilanss ja kasvav nõudlus ELi toodete järele tänu maailmatasemel standarditele,

kvaliteedile ja kestlikkusele;2 see esindab Euroopa tipptasemel toodangut kogu maailmas.

Käesolevas strateegias nähakse ette meetmed, et kõrvaldada praegused nõrgad kohad ja

suurendada vastupanuvõimet kasvava turukonkurentsi tingimustes, sest loomakasvatus on

liidu konkurentsivõime ja avatud strateegilise autonoomia seisukohast oluline strateegiline

sektor. Samas peab sektor paremini vastama ühiskonna kasvavatele ootustele, eelkõige

seoses loomade heaoluga, muutma oma keskkonnajalajälje positiivseks välismõjuks ja

tugevdama oma territoriaalset seotust. Toiduahela parem integreerimine ja täieliku

ringmajanduse lähenemisviisi järgimine võimaldaks väärtustada kõiki kõrvalsaadusi ja

biomassi, et luua põllumajandustootjatele lisasissetulekut, vähendades samas

loomakasvatuse CO2 jalajälge.

Nagu on märgitud põllumajandus- ja toidualases visioonis,3 vajab ELi

loomakasvatussektor pikaajalist strateegiat, mis väärtustab loomakasvatuse mitmekesisust

ja eripära kogu Euroopas. ELis jätkub üleminek, et muuta loomakasvatussektor

vastupanuvõimelisemaks, konkurentsivõimelisemaks ja kestlikuks ning see on määrava

1 Teatis ELi idapoolsete piirkondade kohta, mis piirnevad Venemaa, Valgevene ja Ukrainaga,

COM(2026) 82 final.

2 Kogu maailmas peaks liha tarbimine elanikkonna ja sissetulekute kiire kasvu tõttu veelgi suurenema.

Liit on juhtiv üleilmne loomsete saadustega kaupleja. 2025. aastal eksportis EL loomseid saadusi 53

miljardi euro väärtuses, samas kui import ulatus 16 miljardi euroni. Esikohal on piimatooted: 2025.

aastal oli nende väärtus 20,7 miljardit eurot ja kaubandusbilansi ülejääk 18 miljardit eurot. ELi loomsete

saaduste kaubandusbilanss on viimase kümne aasta jooksul olnud positiivne.

3 Põllumajandus- ja toidualane visioon. Kujundada üheskoos atraktiivne ELi põllumajandus- ja toidusektor

tulevastele põlvedele, COM(2025) 75 final.

2

tähtsusega, et võidelda rahvastikukao vastu kõige haavatavamatel territooriumidel ja aidata

paralleelselt kaasa eesmärgile saavutada 2050. aastaks kliimaneutraalsus. Selline üleminek

on üks eesmärkidest, mida toetab 2027. aasta järgne ÜPP, millega toetatakse

põlvkonnavahetuse strateegia,4 ELi biomajanduse strateegia,5 tulevase uue maaelu arengu

tegevuskava,6 väetiste tegevuskava7 ning metsa- ja maastikutulekahjude riskijuhtimist

käsitleva teatise8 rakendamist. Rahvusvahelisel tasandil teeb komisjon koostööd

mitmepoolsete organitega, et toetada seda üleminekut kooskõlas rahvusvaheliste

standarditega, eelkõige ÜRO Toidu- ja Põllumajandusorganisatsiooniga (FAO) kestliku

loomakasvatuse ülemaailmse tegevuskava raames.

ELi loomakasvatussektori pikaajalise elujõulisuse tagamiseks on vaja strateegiat, et:

− liikuda vastupanuvõimelise loomakasvatussüsteemi suunas, mis peab vastu

kriisidele ja on kliimastressiga paremini kohanenud;

− tugevdada oma konkurentsivõimet ELi ja ülemaailmsel tasandil;

− muuta sektor tulevikukindlaks, tugevdades loomade heaolu tingimusi ning

minimeerides selle kliima- ja keskkonnajalajälge;

− tagada, et loomakasvatussüsteemide puhul arvestataks jätkuvalt eri piirkondade

eripäradega, mis toetavad maapiirkondade majandust ja traditsioone kogu Euroopas

ning aitaksid jätkuvalt kaasa nende suure elurikkuse säilitamisele;

− edendada loomakasvatuse tipptaset kui selget Euroopa lähenemisviisi

loomakasvatusele, mida tarbijad tunnustavad ja väärtustavad, eeskätt seoses loomade

heaoluga.

Strateegia tugineb sidusrühmade ulatuslikule kaasamisele loomakasvatuse töörühma

raames ning rohkem kui aasta kestnud dialoogile liikmesriikide, põllumajandustootjate,

tööstuse esindajate ja kodanikuühiskonnaga, sealhulgas Euroopa põllumajandus- ja

toidunõukojaga. Strateegiaga kaasneb valgualane tegevuskava, et muuta ELi valgusüsteem

vastupidavamaks ja kestlikumaks. Käesolevas teatises, mis põhineb sektori tugevate ja

nõrkade külgede analüüsil, mis on esitatud lisatud komisjoni talituste töödokumendis,

võetakse arvesse Euroopa Parlamendi algatusraportit „Kuidas tagada ELi

loomakasvatussektori kestlik tulevik, pidades silmas vajadust tagada toiduga kindlustatus,

põllumajandustootjate vastupanuvõime ja loomahaigustest tulenevad probleemid“9.

4 Põllumajanduse põlvkonnavahetuse strateegia, COM(2025) 872 final.

5 ELi konkurentsivõimelise ja kestliku biomajanduse strateegiline raamistik, COM(2025) 960 final.

6 „Läbivaadatud ELi maaelu arengu tegevuskava“, mis on lisatud dokumendile „Komisjoni aruanne

Euroopa Parlamendile, nõukogule, Euroopa Majandus- ja Sotsiaalkomiteele ning Regioonide Komiteele

„ELi maapiirkondade arengu pikaajaline visioon: peamised saavutused ja edasine tegevus“,

SWD(2024) 451 final.

7 Väetiste tegevuskava: partnerlus ELis toodetud väetiste kättesaadavuse ja taskukohasuse ning nendega

seotud strateegilise autonoomia tagamiseks, COM(2026) 310 final.

8 Teatis „Metsa- ja maastikupõlengute integreeritud riskijuhtimine“, COM(2026) 330 final.

9 2025/2053(INI).

3

2. ELI LOOMAKASVATUSSEKTOR PRAEGU

2.1. Probleemid ja võimalused

ELi loomakasvatussektor seisab silmitsi struktuurse ja igapäevase survega. Sellise surve

tõttu on juba praegu mõnes piirkonnas põllumajandusettevõtted oma tegevuse lõpetanud,

kõige rohkem on see mõjutanud veise-, lamba- ja kitsekasvatust ning mõnes liidu osas on

tekkinud probleemid loomakasvatuse pikaajalise järjepidevusega. Näiteks Prantsusmaa on

viimase kümne aasta jooksul vähendanud 16 % oma veisepopulatsioonist ning Saksamaa

samal ajavahemikul 22 % oma seapopulatsioonist.

Keskne probleem on kasumlikkus. Kõrged sisendikulud, turu volatiilsus ning sööda ja

energia hinnakõikumiste mõju survestavad jätkuvalt marginaale. Samas võib loomade

heaolu, toiduohutuse, kliima- ja keskkonnakaitse valdkonnas kehtestatud kõrgete ELi

standardite järgimine tähendada tootmiskulusid, mis ei kajastu alati turuhindades.

Põllumajandustootjate läbirääkimispositsioon ostjate suhtes on samuti nõrk.

ELi loomakasvatussektor seisab silmitsi ka kestlikkusprobleemidega.

Loomakasvatussektor on peamine põllumajanduse kasvuhoonegaaside heite,

ammoniaagiheite ja toitainetega saastumise põhjustaja, mõjutades kliimat, õhku, vee

kvaliteeti ja elurikkust. Kuigi heitkogused on pidevalt vähenenud, on vähendamise tempo

aeglane. Loomakasvatuse koondumine mõnda ELi piirkonda põhjustab toitainete

tasakaalustamatust, mille tulemuseks on toitainetega saastumine. Samas aitab ekstensiivne

karjakasvatus säilitada rohumaid, mis toetavad elurikkust, maapiirkondade biotoope,

kaitsta loodust ning vältida maa kasutamata jätmist ja maapiirkondade rahvastikukadu.

Sektori väljavaateid kujundavad veelgi mitu struktuurset haavatavust.

Põllumajandusega tegeleva rahvastikuosa vananemine, ebapiisav põlvkonnavahetus,

tööjõupuudus – sealhulgas maapiirkondade veterinaarteenused – ja rasked töötingimused

ohustavad selle tulevast suutlikkust. Kliimamuutuste mõju ja loomahaiguste puhangud

pärsivad majandustulemusi.

ELi loomakasvatussektori tulevikku kujundades peab tuginema selle olulistele tugevatele

külgedele ja võimalustele. ELi loomakasvatussektoril on pikad traditsioonid, kuid seda

toetab ka innovatsioon ja ettevõtlus. Selle tootmissüsteemide, liikide ja territooriumide

mitmekesisus suurendab vastupanu- ja kohanemisvõimet. Kõrged ELi standardid

tugevdavad tarbijate usaldust ja võimaldavad tagada hea positsiooni preemiumturgudel.

Mitmes sektoris toetavad tootlikkust ja eksporditegevust tõhusad tootmissüsteemid,

kõrgetasemelised veterinaarteenused ja hästi väljaarendatud tarneahelad. Innovatsioon ja

ringbiomajandus parandavad nii konkurentsivõimet kui ka keskkonnatulemusi. Aina

rohkem põllumajandustootjaid on lisaks toidutootmisele ka looduse hoidjad ja maaturismi

edendajad ning energiatootjad, kes toodavad taastuvenergiat põllumajandusettevõttes

kohapeal ja paljudel juhtudel laiemaks tarbimiseks, vähendades ELi sõltuvust

fossiilkütustest.

3. STRATEEGIA

2040. aastal peab liit olema koht, kus kestlik loomakasvatus toimib ja areneb.

Sektorit peab toetama sidus poliitikaraamistik, mis on lihtne ja prognoositav ning arvestab

põllumajanduse tegelikku olukorda. Ilma et see piiraks käimasolevaid läbirääkimisi

mitmeaastase finantsraamistiku üle, on ÜPP ka järgmisel programmitöö perioodil jätkuvalt

4

peamine tugisammas nii sissetuleku, investeeringute kui ka stiimulite toetamisel tulevaste

riikliku ja piirkondliku partnerluse kavade raames, mida täiendavad programmi „Euroopa

horisont“10 raames kavandatud fond ja Euroopa Konkurentsivõime Fond,11 et ergutada

innovatsiooni.

See strateegia annab pikaajalise suuna sektori konkurentsivõime ja pikaajalise

kestlikkuse edendamiseks, et tagada parem valmisolek. Sellega nähakse ette

operatiivsed tegevuspunktid ELi, liikmesriikide ja sidusrühmade tasandil, pannes rõhku

sihipärastele territoriaalsetele lahendustele, mis on kohandatud erinevatele

tootmissüsteemidele ja piirkondadele. Strateegia lähenemisviis on terviklik ja hõlmab eri

poliitikavaldkondi.

Komisjonil on plaanis säilitada loomakasvatuse töörühm foorumina, kus arutatakse ja

arendatakse edasi teatavaid allpool kindlaks määratud algatusi, kuna see on kaasav viis

strateegia elluviimiseks.

3.1. Kriisile vastupanuvõimeline loomakasvatussektor

Vastupanuvõimeline loomakasvatussüsteem on oluline liidu toiduga kindlustatuse,

strateegilise autonoomia ja maapiirkondade elujõulisuse jaoks. Vastupanuvõime

tähendab enamat kui võimet pärast šokki taastuda. See tähendab ka suutlikkust ennetada

riske, vähendada haavatavust, kohaneda struktuurimuutustega ning jätkata ohutu, kestliku

ja taskukohase toidu pakkumist üha keerulisemates tingimustes. Loomakasvatussektori

jaoks on see nüüd pakiline prioriteet. Tootjad seisavad silmitsi kasvava survega, mis

tuleneb volatiilsetest turgudest, suurenevatest sisendite kuludest ja püsikuludest,

kliimamuutustest, veenappusest, loomahaigustest, tööjõupuudusest ja kvalifitseeritud

töötajate puudusest, geopoliitilisest ebastabiilsusest ja ebaausast üleilmsest konkurentsist.

Seetõttu peab sektor olema tugevam ja vastupidavam, et kaitsta põllumajandustootjate

elatusvahendeid ja säilitada liidu tootmissuutlikkus.

Esmane prioriteet on tugevdada riskijuhtimise raamistikku. Loomakasvatajad vajavad

paremat juurdepääsu rahastamisele, kindlustusele, edasikindlustusele, ühisfondidele ja

sissetuleku stabiliseerimise vahenditele, mis arvestavad sektori konkreetseid riske

(ilmastikunähtused, turuhäired ja loomataudid). Tulevane poliitika peaks parandama

riskijuhtimise ja kriisiohjamise sidusust, et erakorraline toetus ei asendaks kriisiks

valmisolekut, vaid täiendaks seda.

Sellega seoses teeb komisjon ettevalmistusi koostööks finantsasutustega, sealhulgas

Euroopa Investeerimispangaga, et uurida võimalusi luua 2027. aasta järgse mitmeaastase

finantsraamistiku raames sihtotstarbeline riskijuhtimise rahastamisvahend, mis

10 Ettepanek: EUROOPA PARLAMENDI JA NÕUKOGU MÄÄRUS, millega kehtestatakse

ajavahemikuks 2028–2034 teadusuuringute ja innovatsiooni raamprogramm „Euroopa horisont“,

sätestatakse selle osalemis- ja levitamiseeskirjad ning tunnistatakse kehtetuks määrus (EL) 2021/695,

COM(2025) 543 final.

11 Ettepanek: EUROOPA PARLAMENDI JA NÕUKOGU MÄÄRUS, millega luuakse Euroopa

Konkurentsivõime Fond, sealhulgas kaitseuuringute ja -innovatsiooni eriprogramm, tunnistatakse

kehtetuks määrused (EL) 2021/522, (EL) 2021/694, (EL) 2021/697, (EL) 2021/783, tunnistatakse

kehtetuks määruste (EL) 2021/696 ja (EL) 2023/588 teatavad sätted ja muudetakse määrust (EL)

(Euroopa kaitsetööstuse programm), COM(2025) 555 final.

5

hõlmab kliimaga seotud kindlustus- ja edasikindlustusvajadusi ning laiendab toetust

loomataudidega seotud riskidele, et täiendada olemasolevaid vahendeid12.

Praeguse ja tulevase ÜPP riskijuhtimisvahendid on juba üsna ulatuslikud,13 andes

liikmesriikidele võimaluse neid vahendeid valida ja oma vajadustele kohandada. Komisjon

koostab käsiraamatu, mis sisaldab praktilisi suuniseid riskijuhtimise kohta, tuginedes

ELi ja rahvusvahelistele eksperditeadmistele, et liikmesriigid saaksid neid vajadusi oma

tulevastes riikliku ja piirkondliku partnerluse kavades paremini kajastada. See täiendab

ÜPP soovitusi, mis hõlmavad ka riskijuhtimise aspekte. Komisjon hindab ja vajaduse

korral vähendab ka haldustõkkeid konkreetsete riskijuhtimisvahendite, näiteks ühisfondide

loomisel, et nende kasutuselevõttu hoogustada, eelkõige väikestes

põllumajandusettevõtetes.

Teine prioriteet on tõhustada haiguste ennetamist ja neile reageerimist. Loomataudid,

sealhulgas zoonoosid, on jätkuvalt kõige tõsisemad ohud kariloomade vastupanuvõimele,

elurikkusele ja potentsiaalselt inimeste tervisele. Hiljutised puhangud, mille sagedus on

märkimisväärselt suurenenud, on näidanud, kui suurt majanduslikku ja sotsiaalset kahju

need võivad põhjustada, sealhulgas näiteks suure hulga loomade hävitamine ning häired

kaubanduses ja maaelus. Tugevad bioohutusmeetmed on esmatasandi kaitse ja

ennetamise seisukohast jätkuvalt kõige olulisemad. Lisaks on loomatervise määruse

hindamine aluseks liidu terviseühtsuse põhimõtte ajakohastamisele taudide ohjamisel,

sealhulgas vajaduse korral ennetava vaktsineerimise laiem ja teaduspõhine kasutamine.

Selleks et tugevdada kohanemisvõimet uute riskide ja taudide suhtes, vaatab komisjon

läbi, kas praegune taudide kategoriseerimise süsteem on endiselt eesmärgipärane ja

kas kategoriseerimise kriteeriumite puhul on piisavalt võetud arvesse konkreetseid

probleeme. Selleks et tugevdada ühtlustatud tauditõrjemeetmeid kogu ELis, teeb komisjon

jätkuvalt ettepanekuid õigusaktide ajakohastamiseks kooskõlas uusimate teadussaavutuste

ja rahvusvaheliste standarditega, nagu on sätestanud Maailma Loomatervise

Organisatsioon (WOAH), ning võtab vastu rakenduseeskirjad, et selgitada

üksikasjalikumalt rolle ja kohustusi. Selleks et toetada ennetava vaktsineerimise laiemat ja

teaduspõhist kasutamist, hindab komisjon ka seda, kas praegused

vaktsineerimiseeskirjad ja -põhimõtted on endiselt asjakohased.

See töö peaks põhinema Euroopa Toiduohutusameti (EFSA) uusimatel teaduslikel

nõuannetel ja seda peaks toetama suurem rahvusvaheline koostöö, et edendada ELi

sanitaarmeetmete heakskiitmist. Selleks et tegeleda piirkondadeks jaotamise ebaühtlase

tunnustamisega kolmandate riikide poolt, pakub komisjon liikmesriikidele oma tuge ja

töötab välja vaktsineerimissuunised, mis lähtuvad piirkondadeks jaotamise ja

bioturvarühmitamise põhimõttest, rõhutades samas kaubanduspartneritega toimuvatel

kahe- ja mitmepoolsetel foorumitel jätkuvalt ELi piirkondadeks jaotamise lähenemisviisi

tähtsust, sealhulgas vaktsineerimise puhul.

Tuleb jätkata teadusuuringuid ja innovatsiooni loomatervise ja vaktsineerimise (sh

DIVA vaktsiinide14) valdkonnas, eelkõige seoses võimalike vaktsiinide väljatöötamisega

12 fi-compass, 2025, an overview of agricultural climate risk trends across Europe under the current climate

and in 2050 - Insurance and Risk Management Tools for Agriculture in the EU (https://www.fi-

compass.eu/sites/default/files/publications/EAFRD_AGRI_Insurance_Risk_MA.pdf).

13 Maailmapank: Solutions for Better Agri-Risk Management in the European Union

(https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-

reports/documentdetail/099032326044016306).

14 DIVA-vaktsiinid (Differentiating Infected from Vaccinated Animals) on vaktsiinid, mis võimaldavad

eristada patogeeniga nakatunud ja selle vastu vaktsineeritud loomi. Selline eristamine on äärmiselt

6

peamiste piiriüleste haiguste vastu. Seda tööd toetab programmi „Euroopa horisont“

raames kavandatav sihtotstarbeline rahastusvahend.

Ennetusmeetmete osana jätkab komisjon liikmesriikide asjaomaste loomataudide seire

suutlikkuse toetamist ja tugevdamist, tagades varajase avastamise ja varajase

tegutsemise. Suure tähtsusega on varajase hoiatamise mehhanismid. Komisjon hindab,

kuidas rahastada olemasolevate süsteemide täiustamist, lõimida digitaliseerimine paremini

taudide avastamise ja nende eest hoiatamise süsteemi ning kuidas parandada teabe

levitamist põllumajandustootjatele kogu ELis (äpid, vihjeliinid).

Taudide ennetamisel, seirel, tõrjel ja likvideerimisel, eelkõige taudipuhangute korral

võetavate erakorraliste meetmete puhul, on keskse tähtsusega ELi antav piisav rahastus.

Mitmeaastases finantsraamistikus kavandatud ELi rahastu võimaldab ühiseid

poliitikameetmeid tervise ja ohutuse valdkonnas (sealhulgas loomade puhul) ning saab

pakkuda iga-aastaste eelarvemenetluste raames sihtotstarbelist toetust loomataudide

korral. Liikmesriigid võiksid oma riikliku ja piirkondliku partnerluse kavades tagada ka

põllumajandustootjate parema juurdepääsu ennetusvahenditele, sealhulgas seoses

bioturvalisuse ja vaktsiinidega, ning peaksid tagama piisavad nõustamisteenused ja

veterinaaria valdkonna töötajad, kehtestades rahalised stiimulid maapiirkondade

veterinaararstidele, samas kui sidusrühmadelt oodatakse põllumajandusettevõtete

bioohutusmeetmete tõhustamist ja loomataudide ennetamise parimate tavade levitamist.

Kolmas prioriteet on investeerida rohkem kliimamuutustega kohanemisse, nende

leevendamisse ja innovatsiooni. See võiks koos kohanemismeetmetega hõlmata toetust

innovatsioonile, mis vähendaks kasvuhoonegaaside heite mahukust, parandaks toitainete

majandamist ja tugevdaks loomakasvatussüsteemide panust ringmajandusse.

Vastupanuvõime sõltub üha enam sektori suutlikkusest tulla toime kliimastressiga ja

kasutada ressursse tõhusamalt. Tõhusam veekasutus võib aidata suurendada nii

veekerksust kui ka põllumajandustootjate vastupanuvõimet. See hõlmab geneetiliste

ressursside säilitamist ja kestlikku kasutamist ning aretusstrateegiaid, et parandada

vastupanuvõime näitajaid, nagu põua- ja kuumataluvus. Tipptasemel genoomikameetodid

ja tõuaretustehnikad parandavad nii majandus- kui ka keskkonnatulemusi. Nii kulub

vähem sööta ja heitkogused on väiksemad, tähendades põllumajandustootjate jaoks

kokkuhoidu ja väiksemat hinnakõikumiste mõju. Suurem vastupanuvõime nõuab ka

paremaid hooneid ja ventilatsiooni, kaitset üleujutuste eest ja muud kliimamuutustele

vastupanuvõimelist taristut.

Kestlike tavade ja tehnoloogiaga seotud teadusuuringud ja innovatsioon on

vastupanuvõimelisema ELi loomakasvatussektori olulised võimaldajad15. EL peaks

keskenduma ka erisugustele lahendustele ja nende kasutuselevõtule. See peaks

hõlmama toetust tugevamatele ja koordineeritumatele teadusuuringutele ja innovatsioonile

kestlike loomakasvatussüsteemide valdkonnas, selliste praktiliste vahendite

väljatöötamist ja kasutuselevõttu nagu otsuste tegemise tugisüsteemid, andurid,

suurandmete rakendused, robootika, varajase hoiatamise lahendused ja

oluline tõhusaks tauditõrjeks ja -seireks ning kariloomade ja muude loomadega kauplemist käsitlevate

eeskirjade jaoks.

15 2027. aasta järgse mitmeaastase finantsraamistiku eri rahastamisvahendid võiksid toetada tugevamaid

ja koordineeritumaid teadus- ja innovatsioonialaseid jõupingutusi kestlike ja vastupidavate

loomakasvatussüsteemide valdkonnas, hõlmates loomade tervist ja heaolu, taudiennetust ja vaktsiine,

segasüsteeme, kliimamuutustega kohanemist ja nende leevendamist, keskkonnamõju vähendamist,

sööda ja toitainete tõhusust, geneetilisi ressursse ja aretustegevust vastupanuvõime näitajate jaoks,

ringbiomajanduse lahendusi, sotsiaalset innovatsiooni ja digitehnoloogiat.

7

täppisloomakasvatus, edendades samas süsteemi- ja kohapõhist lähenemisviisi.

Kohapealse mõju kiirendamiseks peaks innovatsioon olema paremini kooskõlas

põllumajandustootjate vajadustega, et vastupanuvõimelisi lahendusi katsetataks,

laiendataks ja võetaks kiiremini kasutusele kõigis piirkondades ja tootmissüsteemides.

Seda toetatakse tulevases teatises „Uus strateegiline lähenemisviis teadusuuringutele ja

innovatsioonile AgRI2040 ja Food 2040“. Selles uues lähenemisviisis on teadusuuringute

ja innovatsiooni peamise tegevusvaldkonnana nimetatud karjakasvatust ning rõhutatakse

teadusuuringute ja innovatsiooni tulemuste paremat väärtustamist idu- ja kasvufirmades

ning nende täielikku tööstuslikku kasutuselevõttu.

Vastupanuvõime tähendab ka, et loomakasvatussektor peab muutuma vähem

sõltuvaks imporditud sisenditest ning olema suutlikum tuginema omamaistele ja

ringluspõhistele ressurssidele, nagu on välja töötatud valgurikaste kultuuride kavas ja

väetiste tegevuskavas. Samas pakub tihedam integratsioon kandidaat- ja partnerriikidega

võimalusi tugevdada liidu vastupanuvõimet ja strateegilist autonoomiat, arendades järk-

järgult välja integreeritumad ja kestlikumad põllumajandusliku toidutööstuse

väärtusahelad.

Näide vastupanuvõimealastest koostööpõhistest investeerimisprojektidest:

• Põllumajandusettevõttesse paigaldatud päikesepaneelid ja ühine biogaasijaam, kus kasutatakse

sõnnikut, vähendades sõltuvust välisest energiast ja väetistest.

• Veehoiu- ja ringlussevõtu süsteemi loomine, et tulla toime põudade ja kuumalainetega.

• Liitumine ühisfondi ja kliimakindlustusmehhanismidega, mida toetatakse liikmesriikide

meetmetega, et stabiliseerida sissetulek äärmuslike ilmastikunähtuste korral.

Liikmesriigid peaksid jätkuvalt toetama põllumajandustavasid, millega

integreeritakse vastupanuvõime ja kestlikkus nende ärimudelitesse, näiteks

mahepõllumajandus, ning stimuleerima üleminekutoetuste kaudu pikaajalise

vastupanuvõime saavutamist. Põlvkonnavahetuse meetmed peaksid paremini kajastama

loomakasvatuse konkreetset olukorda.

Parem koostöö tarneahelas võib aidata vähendada hinnavolatiilsust ja parandada

juurdepääsu sisenditele, samas kui osalemine teadmiste jagamise platvormides ja

innovatsioonipartnerlustes võib kiirendada heade tavade levikut.

Näide: Lammaste katarraalse palaviku, nodulaarse dermatiidi viiruse nakkuse või

linnugripi suhtes tundlikel aladel tagavad ametiasutused ja sidusrühmad

koordineeritud taudiennetussüsteemi:

• Liikmesriigid kaasrahastavad riikliku ja piirkondliku partnerluse kavade kaudu

bioturvalisuse suurendamist (desinfektsioonijaamad, kontrollitud juurdepääs

põllumajandusettevõtetele, eraldustsoonid).

• Riikliku ja piirkondliku partnerluse kava vahendite kaudu saavad põllumajandustootjad

koolitust taudiennetuse ja situatsioonplaani kohta nõustamisteenuste ja EIP-AGRI

rühmade näol.

• Liikmesriigid ja loomakasvatuse väärtusahela osalised võtavad kasutusele kulude

jagamise raamistiku, et ühiselt rahastada taudipuhangutele reageerimist, sealhulgas

mõjutatud tootjatele hüvitise maksmist, tuginedes eelnevalt kokku lepitud

rahastamismehhanismidele (likvideerimise, ohjeldamise ja taastumise kulude jagamine

avaliku ja erasektori maksude vahel või kindlustusriskide jagamine).

8

• Kui ELi toetatava teadus- ja arendustegevuse ning innovatsiooni toel tehakse

kättesaadavaks uued vaktsiinid, käivitatakse avaliku ja erasektori vaktsineerimis- ja

järelevalveprogramm.

Liikmesriikidel on keskne roll nende eesmärkide muutmisel praktiliseks toeks kohapeal:

- lisada vastupanuvõimega seotud investeeringud oma riikliku ja piirkondliku

partnerluse kavadesse ja parandada põllumajandustootjate juurdepääsu

taudiennetusvahenditele;

- edendada loomakasvatussektorile kohandatud kindlustust ja ühisfonde;

- tagada, et koolitus- ja põllumajandusettevõtete nõustamisteenused sisaldaksid kindlat

oskusteavet kariloomade vastupanuvõime kohta;

- toetada selliseid investeeringuid ning põllumajanduse keskkonna- ja kliimameetmeid,

sealhulgas tõhususkavad, mis aitavad säilitada ja kestlikult kasutada kariloomade

geneetilisi ressursse, mis tugevdavad loomakasvatussektori vastupanuvõimet ning

toetavad elurikkust, muldade head seisundit ja veekerksust, mis on

loomakasvatussektori vastupanuvõime aluseks;

- kaaluda meetmeid maapiirkondades veterinaarteenuste nappuse vähendamiseks,

näiteks sihipäraste stiimulite või digikonsultatsioonide kaudu, ning toetada digioskusi,

ühendatavust ja investeeringuid põllumajandusettevõtte tasandil;

- toetada tootjaorganisatsioonide, koostöömudelite ja ÜPP sektoripõhiseid sekkumisi;

see võib aidata tugevdada põllumajandustootjate läbirääkimispositsiooni ja suutlikkust

riske ühiselt juhtida.

3.2. Konkurentsivõimeline loomakasvatussektor ELi ja üleilmsel tasandil

Selleks et tõhusalt konkureerida maailmaturul, vajab loomakasvatussektor

prognoositavamat pikaajalist investeerimisraamistikku ning peab kasutama

kõrgtehnoloogia ja uuenduslike tavade võimendavat mõju, saades samas kasu võrdsetest

võimalustest ja väiksemast regulatiivsest koormusest. Praegune dekapitaliseerimise

suundumus tuleb peatada ja kasumlikkust suurendada, et karjakasvatuse Euroopa

väärtusahel jääks konkurentsivõimeliseks ja meelitaks ligi uusi ametisseastujaid. ELi

kõrgete toiduohutus-, loomatervise-, loomade heaolu ja keskkonnastandardite säilitamine

peab võimaldama sektoril ülemaailmse konkurentsi survele jõuliselt reageerida.

Prioriteet on aidata sektoril kaotada investeeringute puudujääk, hoogustada

innovatsiooni kasutuselevõttu ja digitaliseerimist, et ajakohastada ning tugevdada

konkurentsivõimet ja kestlikkust. Paljude, eelkõige noorte ja uute loomakasvatajate

jaoks on nüüdisaegse taristu, masinate ja sõnnikukäitlussüsteemide jaoks vaja

märkimisväärset algkapitali. Platvormi fi-compass kohaselt on loomakasvatussektori

rahastamispuudujääk üle 18 miljardi euro16.

Ajal, mil komisjon hindab loomade heaoluga seotud õigusaktide läbivaatamise mõju,

nõuab teatavate uuringute hinnangul üleminek puurivabadele süsteemidele

märkimisväärseid investeeringuid17. Selliseid rahastamisvajadusi ei saa rahuldada

16 https://www.fi-compass.eu/library/market-analysis/financial-gap-eu-agricultural-sector?page=1.

17 Põllumajandustootjate organisatsioonide tellitud uuringud, mille eesmärk on hinnata puurivabadele

süsteemidele ülemineku mõju munakanade ja sealiha sektoris, näitavad, et ELi tasandil on vaja

ligikaudu 6,7 miljardi euro ulatuses investeeringuid sealihasektorisse1 (0,02 eurot kg sealiha kohta 15-

9

ühest allikast, vaid need nõuavad nii ELi kui ka liikmesriikide vahendite ja meetmete

kombineerimist. Need hõlmavad paremat turupõhist tasustamist, avaliku sektori toetust,

juurdepääsu rahastamisvahenditele ja erainvesteeringutele, samuti uute ringmajanduse

ärimudelite potentsiaali ärakasutamist ja kõrvalsaaduste paremat väärtustamist. See nõuab

ka oskusi, finantskirjaoskust ja asjakohast nõustamist ning stabiilsemat ja selgemat

õigusraamistikku.

ÜPP on jätkuvalt peamine vahend, millega toetada põllumajandustootjate sissetulekut,

motiveerida neid tegema kestlikkusalaseid jõupingutusi ja pakkuda investeerimistoetust.

Järgmine rahastamisperiood pakubki võimalusi, mis on kohandatud väikeste ja suurte

põllumajandusettevõtete erinevatele vajadustele. Kombineerides mitmesuguseid

meetmeid, sealhulgas taristuinvesteeringuid ja uuenduslike projektide toetamist, saaks

kavandatud riikliku ja piirkondliku partnerluse kavade ja Euroopa Konkurentsivõime

Fondi abil suurendada kestlikkuse, konkurentsi- ja vastupanuvõimega seotud

investeeringuid.

Komisjon kaalub kõiki võimalusi, sealhulgas loomakasvatussektorile mõeldud

võimalikku sihtotstarbelist rahastamisvahendit, et katta rahastamispuudujääk

investeeringute puhul, mis tehakse seoses üleminekuga kestlikkuse ja loomade heaolu

kõrgemale tasemele.

Liikmesriigid peaksid kaaluma ka muid algatusi, nagu parem juurdepääs laenudele, riigi

tagatud laenud, riigihankevahendid, turumeetmed ja soodsamad laenutingimused kõigile

põllumajandustootjatele, eelkõige noortele ja uutele põllumajandustootjatele. Komisjon

uurib õigusaktide läbivaatamise tulemuste põhjal koos Euroopa Investeerimispangaga, kas

eelistada juurdepääsul laenudele põllumajandustootjaid, kes lähevad üle puurivabadele

süsteemidele. Samas võivad kavad, millega premeeritakse süsinikupõllundust ja looduse

arvestusühikuid, anda lisaväärtust põllumajandusettevõtetele, kes investeerivad

kestlikumatesse loomakasvatussüsteemidesse.

Lisaks rahastamisele on äärmiselt oluline tagada stabiilne, prognoositav ja selge

õigusraamistik, mis võimaldab pikaajalist planeerimist ja investeeringuid. See suurendab

investorite usaldust ja hõlbustab investeerimisotsuseid, sest tagasimaksmine võtab sageli

aastakümneid. Seda ebakindlust põhjustavad osaliselt riiklike, piirkondlike ja kohalike

ametiasutuste loamenetlused ja sellega tuleb tegeleda esmajärjekorras. Selleks et

suurendada õiguskindlust nii ettevõtjate kui ka avaliku sektori asutuste jaoks, esitas

komisjon 2025. aasta lõpus ettepaneku loamenetluste kiirendamise kohta18 ja ettepaneku

aastase amortisatsiooniperioodi jooksul) ja 2,6 miljardi euro ulatuses munakanade sektorisse2 (0,0017

eurot muna kohta 15-aastase amortisatsiooniperioodi jooksul). Kulud tulenevad peamiselt vajadusest

muuta või asendada olemasolevaid loomapidamishooneid paigaldada puurivabaks tootmiseks vajalik

taristu ja seadmed. Need andmed on esitatud ainult näitena. Komisjon valmistab ette mõjuhinnangut,

milles analüüsitakse kõiki asjakohaseid andmeid ja küsimusi, mis on seotud komisjoni kavandatud

ettepanekutega.

1 Potori et al. (2024). An Assessment of the Impacts of the Phasing Out of Cages in EU Livestock

Farming: The Pig Sector. Agriculture, 14(1), 111.

2 Majewski et al. (2024). An Assessment of the Impacts of the Phasing Out of Cages in EU Livestock

Farming: The Layer Sector. Agriculture, 14(2), 187.

18 Ettepanek: Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu direktiiv, millega muudetakse direktiive (EL) 2018/2001,

(EL) 2019/944 ja (EL) 2024/1788 seoses loamenetluste kiirendamisega, COM(2025) 1007.

10

keskkonnamõju hindamise kiirendamise kohta. Käimas on linnudirektiivi ja elupaikade

direktiivi stressitest ning komisjon võtab vajaduse korral järelmeetmeid.

Suurema ettevõtlustulu saamiseks tuleb teha tööd selle nimel, et tarbijaid paremini

teavitada, viia tarbijate ootused kooskõlla õiglaste hinnakujundusmehhanismidega ja

püüelda turu mitmekesistamise poole, et saada kasu suure väärtusega turgudelt.

Konkurentsivõimet peab edendama õiglaselt. Põllumajandustootjate positsiooni

tugevdamine toiduainete tarneahelas ja nende kaitsmine ebaausate kaubandustavade eest

on pikaajaline prioriteet, mida tugevdatakse ebaausate kaubandustavade direktiivi

läbivaatamisega,19 võttes arvesse seniseid kogemusi. Põllumajandustootjad peavad saama

paremat tasu, sealhulgas uuest majandustegevusest seoses biomajanduse arendamise

ja kõrvalsaaduste väärindamisega. Komisjon hindab, kuidas neid aspekte kõige

paremini integreerida ELi toidutarneahela vaatlusrühma töösse, et tagada turu läbipaistvus

kogu väärtusahelas ja suurendada usaldust.

Kestlikkus ja ringluspõhisus loob põllumajandustootjatele majanduslikud eelised.

Ringlustavad ja biomajandus suurendavad söödasõltumatust ja maksimeerivad biomassi

(sealhulgas loomsete kõrvalsaaduste) väärindamist, mis omakorda vähendab jäätmeid ja

tagab põllumajandustootjatele prognoositavama sissetuleku. Kõrvalsaadused, nagu vill

või sõnnik, ei ole jäätmed, vaid pigem ressurss, millel on ringmajanduse seisukohast

väärtus ja mitu eesmärki, ning õigusaktides tuleks tunnustada nende omadusi ja

potentsiaali. Tootmisahela järgmise etapi osalejad (nt piima- või lihatootjad) peavad üha

enam majanduslikult kasulikuks pakkuda tasu põllumajandustootjatele, kes vähendavad

põllumajandusettevõtetes tekkivaid heitkoguseid, muutes kestliku loomakasvatuse

konkurentsivõimelisemaks.

Konkurentsivõimet tuleb suurendada ka toiduahela parema integreerimise ja liha

kvaliteedistandardite väljatöötamise kaudu. Piimaveiste integreerimise potentsiaali

tuleks veelgi edendada. Tarneahelate parem ühtlustamine võib parandada nii piima- kui ka

veiselihasüsteemide majanduslikku ja keskkonnaalast tulemuslikkust. Sama olulised on

kvaliteetsed väärtusahelad maapiirkondades ja taristu. Tootjaorganisatsioonide ja ühistute

arendamise kogemus näitab, kuidas ühise turukorralduse määruses20 sisalduvad vahendid

aitavad tugevdada põllumajandustootjate positsiooni väärtusahelas ja suurendada nende

osa loodavast väärtusest.

Õiglus peab valitsema mitte ainult ELi sise- vaid ka väliskaubanduses. Vastastikkuse

põhimõtte edendamine ja tootmisstandardite suurem ühtlustamine kogu maailmas

nõuab asjakohaseid kontrolle, tõhusaid kaitsemeetmeid ja pidevat püüdlust kõrgete

standardite poole. Selle kallal töö käib ja see on selge prioriteet. Madalamate standardite

kohaselt toodetud toodete import seab ELi tootjad kaubanduslikult ebasoodsasse olukorda

ning üleilmsed heitkogused mitte ei vähene, vaid paigutuvad ümber. ELi imporditava

toidu, loomsete ja taimsete saaduste kontrolli tõhustamine on käimas ja seda on

19 Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 17. aprilli 2019. aasta direktiiv (EL) 2019/633, mis käsitleb

põllumajandustoodete ja toiduainete tarneahelas ettevõtjatevahelistes suhetes esinevaid ebaausaid

kaubandustavasid. ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/633/oj.

20 Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 17. detsembri 2013. aasta määrus (EL) nr 1308/2013, millega

kehtestatakse põllumajandustoodete ühine turukorraldus ning millega tunnistatakse kehtetuks nõukogu

määrused (EMÜ) nr 922/72, (EMÜ) nr 234/79, (EÜ) nr 1037/2001 ja (EÜ) nr 1234/2007. ELI:

http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/1308/oj.

11

märkimisväärselt tugevdatud21. Liidu sõlmitud lepingute puhul on tavaks näha ette

meetmed, mis kaitsevad Euroopa põllumajandustootjaid mis tahes kahjuliku impordi eest.

See hõlmab asjakohaseid kvoote, mille maht on seotud ELi turutingimustega, ja teatavate

lepingute automaatseid kaitseklausleid, mis pakuvad täiendavat kaitset. Kehtivad kõrged

toiduohutusstandardid, eelkõige seoses antimikroobikumide ja hormoonide kasutamisega.

Loomade heaolu käsitlevad eeskirjad vaadatakse läbi, et tagada parem kooskõla

imporditud toodete standardite puhul. Ettepanek luua tulevaseks rahastamisperioodiks

märkimisväärse eelarvega ühtne turvavõrk annab liidule vahendid põllumajandustootjate

paremaks kaitsmiseks turu volatiilsuse ajal. Samal ajal osaleb komisjon spetsiaalses

põllumajandusliku toidutööstuse diplomaatias, tõhustab oma kõrgetasemelisi

missioone ja müügiedendusmeetmeid, et avada Euroopa ekspordile uusi

turuvõimalusi.

Lihtsustamine on konkurentsivõime seisukohast tähtis. Alustatud on olulist tööd, kuid

on vaja teha täiendavaid jõupingutusi, et võimaldada põllumajanduslikul toidutööstusel

saada kasu õigusraamistikust, mis soodustab innovatsiooni ja konkurentsivõimet, järgides

samas loomatervise, loomade heaolu ning toidu- ja söödaohutuse standardeid. Käimasolev

arutelu toidu- ja söödaohutuse koondpaketi üle tagab väga vajaliku lihtsustamise. On vaja

kohandada ELi hügieenialaseid õigusakte ja kasutada paremini ära neis sisalduvaid

paindlikkussätteid, et kohandada väikese tootmisvõimsusega tapamajade struktuuri ja

paigutust, arvestades samas loomade heaolu standarditega ja kombineerides neid tõhusalt

praktilise tegevusega. Kavandatav muudatus toidu- ja söödaalasesse koondpaketti

kuuluvas söödalisandite õigusraamistikus loob soodsa keskkonna, et töötada välja ja teha

kättesaadavaks uusi uuenduslikke söödalisandeid, samuti jätkub töö õigusaktide täiendava

lihtsustamisega, sealhulgas osana laiematest dialoogidest õigusaktide rakendamise üle ja

toidualastest dialoogidest. Lisaks tuleb loomsete kõrvalsaaduste eeskirju kohandada,

et toetada ringmajandust, seadmata ohtu loomatervise, toidu- ja söödaohutuse standardeid.

3.3. Kestlik loomakasvatussektor

Investeerimine kestlikkusse on investeering põllumajanduse pikaajalisse tulevikku.

Tänu loomade heaolu kõrgematele standarditele võivad paraneda majandustulemused,

väheneda haigestumise risk ja suureneda toetus, tingimusel et heaolu suurenemisega

kasvab mõõdetav kasu tervisele, tootlikkusele või kõrgemast hinnast tulenev kasu – see on

netomõju, mis varieerub sõltuvalt sektorist ja turutingimustest. Lämmastiku tõhusam

kasutamine toidu- ja biomajandussüsteemides,22 sealhulgas väetiste tõhusam kasutamine,

kaitseb vett ja mulda, vähendades samas sisendkulusid. Kliimamuutuste suhtes

vastupanuvõimeline taristu suudab toime tulla äärmuslike ilmastikunähtustega ja tagada

pikaajalise investeeringutasuvuse.

Edu sõltub põllumajandustootjate investeerimissuutlikkusest. Seepärast peab

kestlikkusega seotud üleminek olema õiglane ja tasakaalustatud. Ambitsioonikamad

kestlikkuseesmärgid tekitavad küsimusi selle kohta, kuidas kulud väärtusahelas

jaotuvad. Mõnel juhul võib kestlikkusega seotud üleminek tuua põllumajandustootjatele

kaasa suuremad tootmiskulud, madalama saagikuse või väiksema loomkoormuse. Mõned

põllumajandustavad, nagu mahepõllumajandus, võimaldavad säilitada kõrged keskkonna-

21 Komisjon teatab ELi imporditavate toodete kontrolli tugevdamisest.

22 ELi biomajanduse strateegias „ELi konkurentsivõimelise ja kestliku biomajanduse strateegiline

raamistik, COM(2025) 960 final“ hinnatakse selliseid biomajanduse parimaid tavasid ja uuenduslikke

lahendusi, mis võimaldavad tõhustada lämmastikukasutust biomajandussüsteemides ja

väärtusvõrgustikes.

12

ja loomade heaolu eesmärgid koos põllumajandustootjate kasumlikkusega. Muude

süsteemide puhul, kui põllumajandustootjad või ülejäänud tarneahel ei suuda neid kulusid

täielikult katta, tähendavad need lõppkokkuvõttes kõrgemaid toiduhindu tarbijate jaoks

ning tootjate sissetuleku ja nõudluse võimalikku vähenemist. See rõhutab vajadust

hoolikalt läbimõeldud ülemineku järele, mis suurendaks põllumajandustootjate ja

ühiskonna kestlikkust, võimaldaks teha kompromisse ja säilitada sotsiaalse

vastuvõetavuse.

Liit ja liikmesriigid peaksid võimaldama põllumajandustootjatel valida üleminekut

toetavad meetmed, mis sobivad kõige paremini nende põllumajandusettevõtete ja

tavadega, ning hõlbustama otsuste tegemist selle kohta, kuidas muuta oma ettevõte

kestlikumaks.

Väärtusahela kestlikkuskokkulepped, milles kõik osalejad, sealhulgas nii vahendus- kui

ka jaemüügisektor, võtavad osa vastutusest, on paljulubavad vahendid õiglase ülemineku

toetamiseks. Näiteks võimaldavad need jaemüügisektoril premeerida

põllumajandustootjaid kõrgemate standardite järgimise eest. Komisjon, liikmesriigid ja

erasektori osalejad peaksid sellist koostöövormi igati toetama.

Loomakasvatussektori pikaajalises visioonis on seatud prioriteediks mitmekesisuse

suurendamine. Paraku ei ole kogu ELi hõlmavat mitmekesisust võimalik luua kõigile

sobiva ühtse lähenemisviisi abil. See nõuab sihipäraseid ja kohapõhiseid lahendusi, mis

lähtuvad kohalikest oludest ja arvestavad piirkondade tugevate külgedega.

Tuginedes juba tehtud edusammudele, mille eesmärk on muuta Euroopa

loomakasvatussektor maailma kõige tootlikumaks ja keskkonnahoidlikumaks,23

võimaldab uue programmitöö perioodi ülesehitus toetada seda mitmekesisust konkreetsete

meetmetega, mis näitavad kätte pikaajalise suuna.

Loomakasvatuse puhul on kodanike jaoks kesksel kohal loomade heaolu. Euroopa

Parlament on märkinud, et „loomsete valkude tarbimise oodatav ülemaailmne kasv annab

ELile võimaluse võtta endale kliima- ja loomasõbraliku põllumajanduse valdkonnas

ülemaailmne juhtpositsioon“. Kodanike murede lahendamiseks on vaja tagada kehtivate

eeskirjade täitmine ja võtta sammsammulisi järelmeetmeid seoses Euroopa

kodanikualgatusega „Lõpp puuriajastule!“, keskendudes sektoritele, kus üleminek

vabapidamisele on teostatav. Selleks tuleb kehtestada piisav üleminekuperiood ja näha ette

rahaline toetus, mis võimaldab põllumajandustootjatel kohaneda. Arvestades vajalike

investeeringute ulatust, tuleb üleminekuks vajalikku toetust maksta nii järgmisel kui ka

ülejärgmisel rahastamisperioodil.

Kõrged heaolustandardid edendavad ressursitõhusust, näiteks aitavad need vähendada

suremust, pikendada loomade tootlikku eluiga ja parandada söödaväärindust. Kodanike

eetiliste tõekspidamistega arvestamiseks tuleb loobuda munakanade sektoris tavapärasest

ühepäevaste kukktibude tapmisest, võttes kasutusele munasisese soomääramise

tehnoloogia, mis on nüüd kättesaadav. See võimaldab tugevdada ELi munasektori mainet

kvaliteetsete ja eetiliselt toodetud kaupade tootjana. Kuigi see tehnoloogia on olemas ja

mõnes liikmesriigis kasutusele võetud, ei ole see väikestele ja keskmise suurusega

haudejaamadele kogu ELis veel täielikult kättesaadav ja taskukohane. Seega on vaja

pingutada, et osutatud tehnoloogia hinda alla tuua ja selle kasutuselevõttu laiendada.

23 FAO: Greenhouse gas emissions from agrifood systems, Global, regional and country trends, 2000–

2022.

13

Komisjonil on kavas esitada 2026. aasta lõpuks ettepanek vaadata sihipäraselt läbi

munakanade ja broilerite heaolu käsitlevad eeskirjad, keskendudes puurispidamise

järkjärgulisele lõpetamisele, põllumajandusettevõtete jaoks praktiliste heaolunäitajate

väljatöötamisele, kukktibude süstemaatilisest tapmisest loobumisele ja impordile

samaväärsete nõuete kehtestamisele. Selleks et loobuda ühepäevaste kukktibude tapmisest,

uurib komisjon võimalust ajakohastada munade märgistamise eeskirju, et tarbijaid,

sealhulgas ka kolmandates riikides, põllumajandustootjate tehtud edusammudest paremini

teavitada. 2027. aasta teises kvartalis on kavas esitada ettepanek sigade heaolu

parandamiseks, võttes sulgude asemel kasutusele aedikud.

Viimastel aastatel on tõusnud esiplaanile arutelu elusloomade ekspordi üle kolmandatesse

riikidesse, eelkõige koheseks tapmiseks. Uued ja korduvad loomataudide puhangud ELi

liikmesriikides põhjustavad sageli – mõnikord põhjendamatuid – kaubandustõkkeid.

Lisaks võivad loodusõnnetused ja sihtriikide ebapüsiv julgeolekuolukord muuta maantee-

ja meretranspordi kavandamise keeruliseks. Samuti võivad need tekitada loomade

heaoluga seotud probleeme. Seepärast vahetab komisjon tihedalt teavet asjaomaste

sidusrühmade, kodanikuühiskonna ja sihtkohaks olevate kolmandate riikidega ning

lähtudes saadud teabest kavandab komisjon edasisi samme, sealhulgas võimalikke

alternatiive tapaloomade ekspordile EList kolmandatesse riikidesse, säilitades samas

Euroopa loomakasvatustootjate turupositsiooni.

ELi tootjatele seatud kõrged standardid peavad kehtima ka imporditud toodete suhtes ja

ette tuleb näha piisavad jõustamisvahendid. ELi kodanikud eeldavad, et kõik ELi turul

olevad tooted vastavad kõrgetele heaolustandarditele, samas kui kolmandates riikides

võivad loomade heaolu nõuded olla madalamad. Loomade heaolu käsitlevate ELi

eeskirjade ja ELi kaubanduslepingute ajakohastamine annab hea võimaluse kehtestada

imporditud toodetele samaväärsed loomade heaolunõuded, võttes arvesse WTO

standardeid.

Endiselt on üks prioriteete otsida lahendusi loomakasvatusest tuleneva heite

vähendamiseks. Kuigi ELi põllumajandusloomade enteraalne metaaniheide moodustab

üleilmsel tasandil väikese osa, on see ELi suurim põllumajandusheite allikas24. Nende

heitkoguste vähendamiseks on vaja teaduspõhist ja süsteemset lähenemisviisi, mis tugineb

olemasolevatele headele tavadele ning mida toetavad innovatsioon ja tehnoloogia. Lisaks

tuleb arvesse võtta, et igal loomakasvatusharul on eriomane kliimaga seotud välismõju ja

võimalus seda vähendada.

Tõhus metaaniheite vähendamine eeldab selle heite täpset mõõtmist. Olemasolevad

meetodid põllumajandusloomade põhjustatud heitkoguste hindamiseks ei kajasta täielikult

heitkoguste muutumist sõltuvalt tootmismeetodist, tõust või söödakavast.

Valitsustevahelise kliimamuutuste eksperdirühma 1. ja 2. määramistasandi meetodid

võivad alahinnata põllumajandusettevõttes saavutatud edusammude ja geneetilise

mitmekesisuse väärtust. Lisaks arutatakse praegu vajadust võtta arvesse asjaolu, et metaan

on biogeenne heide ja osa lühikesest süsinikuringest. Vaja on täpsemaid lähenemisviise, et

paremini kajastada tegelikke majandamistavasid ning tagada põllumajandusloomade

kliimamõjude täpsem ja õiglasem hindamine.Seepärast on komisjonil kavas töötada

põllumajandusettevõtete jaoks välja ühtlustatud metoodika põllumajandusloomade

24 BOSCO, S., CHEN, M., BIELZA, M., MONTERO CASTAÑO, A., SCHIEVANO, A. et al., Livestock

Feeding and Sustainability: Mapping Environmental, Climate, and Productivity Outcomes“, Euroopa

Liidu Väljaannete Talitus, Luxembourg, 2025, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/3398918 (veebis),

JRC143817.

14

kasvuhoonegaaside heite arvutamiseks ning edendada seirevahendeid, mis võtavad

paremini arvesse põllumajandusettevõttes rakendatud meetmeid ja ELi

loomakasvatussektori vajadusi. Metoodika tugineb teatavates liikmesriikides seoses 3.

taseme heitkogustega tehtud uuringutele,25 et pidada heitkoguste üle täpsemat ja

diferentseeritumat arvestust. Uuringute eesmärk on arendada tootmismeetodeid

juhindudes turustamisstandarditest ja ELi lähenemisviisist taotleda tipptaset (vt punkt 3.5

allpool). Tulemused peaksid samuti aitama parandada liikmesriikide kasvuhoonegaaside

heite riiklike inventuuride täpsust. Lisaks on EL valmis vahetama ülemaailmsete

partneritega teavet mõõtmis- ja leevendustavade kohta kooskõlas oma üleilmse juhtrolliga

metaaniheite vähendamisel ülemaailmse metaaniheite vähendamise lubaduse ja sellega

seotud algatuste kaudu. Tihedas koostöös põllumajandustootjate esindajate ja toidu

väärtusahela sidusrühmadega töötab komisjon põllumajandustootjate jaoks välja

vabatahtlikku põllumajandusettevõtte kestlikkuse kompassi. See teaduspõhine

raamistik võimaldab praktiliselt ja võrreldavalt hinnata kestlikkuse peamisi näitajaid

erinevates põllumajandussüsteemides. Kompassi saab kasutada ka juhtimisvahendina, et

suunata otsuseid, jälgida edusamme, anda läbipaistvalt aru aja jooksul saavutatud

tulemustest ning osaleda toetuskavades või -lepingutes, millega premeeritakse heitkoguste

tõendatud vähendamist, loomade heaolu parandamist ja ökosüsteemi teenuste osutamist.

See võimaldab hinnata tulemuslikkust kohapeal saavutatud tulemuste põhjal, loobudes

järk-järgult nõuetepõhisest lähenemisviisist. Lisaks hindab komisjon katselise

sertifitseerimismetoodika põhjal võimalust, et ELi süsiniku eemaldamise ja

süsinikupõllunduse määruse kohaldamisala hõlmaks ka loomakasvatusest tuleneva heite

vähendamist.

Samuti tuleb arvesse võtta asjaolu, et toiduainete tootmine on oma olemuselt seotud

looduslike bioloogiliste protsessidega, millega hoolimata kõrgete ELi standardite

järgimisest kaasnevad vältimatult endogeensed heited, mida ei saa täielikult kõrvaldada

ning mille osas tuleb teha kompromisse. Nõudlus on oluline ülemineku liikumapanev jõud,

nagu on selgitatud valgurikaste kultuuride kavas, ning on oluline meeles pidada, et ELi

tootmise vähenemine võib suurendada importi ja heitkoguseid ELi-välistes piirkondades.

Edasised edusammud kasvuhoonegaaside heite vähendamisel peavad põhinema tõhusatel

poliitikameetmetel ja stiimulitel ning geneetilise täiustamise, innovatsiooni ja tehnoloogia

potentsiaalil (sh söötmisstrateegiatel). Komisjon annab tulevase ÜPP raames

liikmesriikidele soovitusi ja tutvustab neile kõige tõhusamaid tavasid.Vastavalt ELi

2020. aasta metaanistrateegiale võivad liikmesriigid oma strateegiate väljatöötamisel

lähtuda konkreetsest olukorrast riigis, võttes arvesse investeeringuid tõhusust

suurendavatesse meetmetesse, mis aitavad heidet vähendada (nt vähem metaani eraldavad

tõud, täppissöötmine ja täiustatud sõnnikukäitlus, biogaas ja täiustatud

töötlemistehnoloogiad, heidet vähendavad lahendused siseruumides toimuva

põllumajandusliku tootmise puhul). Lisaks on tehnoloogilistel lahendustel suur

potentsiaal, et vähendada 2040. aastaks kasvuhoonegaaside heidet vähemalt 16 %26.

Seepärast võib ÜPP ambitsioonikate meetmete ja stiimulite kombineerimine koos

tehnoloogia arenguga ja innovatsiooniga aidata heitkoguseid märkimisväärselt vähendada

ja toetada 2040. aasta kliimaeesmärgi saavutamist.

Liikmesriikidel on võimalus lisada biogaasi ja biometaaniga seotud investeeringud oma

tulevastesse riikliku ja piirkondliku partnerluse kavadesse ja/või toetada neid muude

25 Iiri veisearetuse föderatsioon (ICBF): https://www.icbf.com/methane/.

26 Põllumajanduse ja maaelu arengu peadirektoraadi hinnang, mis põhineb 2022. aasta põllumajanduse

väljavaateid käsitlevas aruandes kirjeldatud arvutustel ja stsenaariumidel.

15

riiklike programmide kaudu. Riigiabi raamistik pakub selliseks toetamiseks ka

mitmesuguseid võimalusi. Biogaasirajatis võimaldab toota sõnnikust ja

põllumajandusjääkidest taastuvenergiat ja tekkiv kääritussaadus sobib väetamiseks. Mõnel

juhul saab veetustatud kääritussaadust kasutada põllumajandusloomade allapanuks.

Toodetud energiat saab kasutada põllumajandusettevõttes või müüa, eelkõige ELi

biometaani mehhanismi kaudu, luues seeläbi täiendava sissetuleku. Seega aitab

biogaasirajatis suurendada põllumajanduslike majapidamiste vastupanuvõimet ja ärilist

elujõulisust ning vähendada nende sõltuvust imporditud fossiilkütustest ja

mineraalväetistest.

Loodusvarade kaitsmine reostuse eest ja mulla hea seisundi tagamine on

loomakasvatuse pikaajalise tulevikustrateegia olulised aspektid. Võttes arvesse

loomakasvatustavade suurt mitmekesisust, on mõnel neist märkimisväärne negatiivne

mõju keskkonnale (nt toitainete kadu, õhusaaste jne), eelkõige suure

põllumajandusloomade arvuga piirkondades, samas kui mõned muud tavad, nagu

ekstensiivne karjatamine ja mahepõllumajandus, aitavad kaasa looduse heaperemehelikule

majandamisele ja säilitamisele. Seetõttu tuleb keskkonnaprobleemide käsitlemisel lähtuda

kohalikust olukorrast ja teha koostööd põllumajandustootjatega.

Tulevane ÜPP annab võimaluse liikuda parema keskkonnatoime suunas.

Liikmesriigid peaksid edendama koostööd kogu väärtusahela ulatuses, eelkõige suure

loomkoormusega piirkondades, et parandada sõnnikukäitlust ja toitainete majandamist,

vähendada survet loodusvaradele, kasutades uusi sekkumisi, mida on kirjeldatud komisjoni

ettepanekus ühise põllumajanduspoliitika kohta. Liikmesriikidel on olemas vahendid, et

pakkuda karjatamispõhistele loomakasvatussüsteemidele paremat tuge lähtuvalt nende

vajadustest. Samuti julgustatakse neid laiendama vahekultuuride, eri külvikordade ja

alternatiivsete söödaallikate kasutamist, andma toetust sõnnikuhoidlate võimsuse

suurendamiseks ning lihtsustama taastuvenergiasse, toitainete ringlussevõtu taristusse ja

täppispõllumajandusse investeerimise menetlusi. Nende eesmärkide saavutamiseks on

oluline jätkata mahepõllumajanduse toetamist.

Komisjon edendab koos loomakasvatuse töörühmaga teadmiste ja parimate tavade

vahetamist, eesmärgiga luua 2027. aastaks loomakasvatust käsitlev platvorm, mis

sisaldab kliima-, keskkonna- ja loomade heaolu valdkonnas end tõestanud lahenduste

põhjalikku andmekogu. Sellest andmekogust leiab infot tõhusate leevendusmeetmete ja

edukate põllumajandusettevõttesiseste lähenemisviiside kohta, samuti teavet

olemasolevate ÜPP vahendite ja toetusmehhanismide kohta, et hõlbustada nende

kasutuselevõttu.

ELi põllumajandustootjad juba järgivad mitmesugustes õigusaktides sätestatud kõrgeid

keskkonnastandardeid, millest mõnel on märkimisväärne mõju põllumajandustootjate

tegevusele. Osana laiemast nõuete lihtsustamise kavast hindab ja testib komisjon

mõnda neist eeskirjadest.

Peatselt avaldatakse hinnang nitraadidirektiivi27 kohta. Aruande järelmeetmena jätkab

komisjon koostööd liikmesriikidega, selgitamaks välja parimad tavad ja eeskirjade

lihtsustamise võimalused, et parandada toitainete majandamist põllumajandusettevõtte

tasandil, kalendripõhiste põllumajandustavade rakendamist, arvepidamist ja väetiste

27 Nõukogu 12. detsembri 1991. aasta direktiiv 91/676/EMÜ veekogude kaitsmise kohta põllumajandusest

lähtuva nitraadireostuse eest (EÜT L 375, 31.12.1991, lk 1–8 (ES, DA, DE, EL, EN, FR, IT, NL, PT;

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/1991/676/oj).

16

kasutamist väikestes põllumajandusettevõtetes. Eesmärk on optimeerida eeskirjade

rakendamist, võtta arvesse tehnoloogilist survet ja kliimamuutusi ning minimeerida

tarbetut koormust, tagades et meetmed on proportsionaalsed ja tõhusad ELi veekvaliteedi

standardite saavutamisel. Komisjon annab liikmesriikidele nõu kuidas direktiivi

rakendamist lihtsustada, näiteks teatavate kestlike karjakasvatuspraktikate puhul,

ning teeb hindamisaruannete koostamisel koostööd nitraadikomiteega.

Komisjon hindab ka linnudirektiivi ja elupaikade direktiivi nõudeid ning lisab tulemused

2026. aasta lõpus esitatavasse aruandesse, mis on abiks tulevaste otsuste tegemisel.

Ettepanekus loamenetluste kiirendamise kohta ja ettepanekus võtta vastu määrus

keskkonnamõju hindamise kiirendamise kohta (2025/0391 (COD)) juba käsitletakse

osaliselt mõningaid pikaajalisi nõudmisi kiirendada loamenetlust ja muuta see

prognoositavamaks. Loamenetluste sihipärane lihtsustamine on oluline ka selliste

õigusaktide läbivaatamisel, milles käsitletakse järkjärgulist loobumist puuridest ja

sulgudest vastavalt munakanade ja seakasvatussektoris, ning see on põhjendatud, võttes

arvesse, et kohandatud rajatistes peetavate loomade arv jääks samaks.

Keskkonnaeesmärkide ja põllumajanduse elujõulisuse üheaegse tagamise võti on

innovatsioon. Ajavahemikul 2016–2019 toodeti EL loomakasvatussektoris aastas üle 1,4

miljardi tonni sõnnikut. Kuigi sõnnikut seostatakse teatavates piirkondades

lämmastikureostusega, võib see innovatsiooni toel pakkuda ka võimalusi. Komisjon uurib

võimalust laiendada sõnnikust saadud taaskasutatavat lämmastikku käsitlevat õigusakti, et

hõlmata sõnnikul põhinevad teatavat liiki vedelad kääritussaadused ja kehtestada

asjakohased keskkonnakaitsemeetmed, ning esitab esimese esialgse hinnangu 2026. aasta

kolmandas kvartalis. Samuti võib biojäätmete kääritussaaduse kasutamine väetisena või

muude bioressursipõhiste väetiste tootmiseks vähendada põllumajandusloomade pidamise

negatiivset välismõju, võimaldada süsinikurikaste bioväetiste paremat jaotamist,

vähendada sõltuvust mineraalväetistest ning tugevdada ELi sööda- ja toidutootmise

sõltumatust, aidates samal ajal kaasa liidusisesele energiatootmisele (biometaan).

Komisjon töötab selle nimel, et hõlbustada loomsete kõrvalsaaduste kasutamist,

tagades siiski loomatervise ning toidu- ja söödaohutuse nõuete järgimise, ning vaatab läbi

võimalikud regulatiivsed kitsaskohad.

Põhieesmärk on parem ruumiline tasakaalustamine ja toitainete ülekandumise

võimaldamine ülejäägiga piirkondadest puudujäägiga piirkondadesse, et optimeerida

kasutamist ja vähendada kohalikku keskkonnasurvet. Sellele tuginedes töötab komisjon

koos loomakasvatuse töörühmaga välja spetsiaalse tegevuskava, et toetada meetmete

rakendamist, tugevdada logistikat, vähendada keskkonnasurvet, rakendada

õigusraamistikku sidusamal viisil, tagada regulatiivne sidusus ja võimaldada toitainete

tõhusamat ja kestlikumat ringlust kogu ELis.

3.4. Euroopa territoriaalset mitmekesisust arvestav loomakasvatussektor

Euroopa territoriaalne mitmekesisus eeldab mitmekesiseid loomakasvatussüsteeme,

mis arvestavad Euroopa piirkondade eripäradega.

Paljudes piirkondades on loomakasvatusel oluline roll, et säilitada maakohtades

majandustegevust ja toetada tööhõivet. Mõnes piirkonnas on see tihti ainus majanduslik

võimalus. Sektor on eriti oluline vähem soodsates piirkondades, nagu mägipiirkonnad,

põhjapoolsed piirkonnad, rohumaadega alad ning muud keskmise suurusega ja äärealad,

kus taimekasvatus võib olla keeruline või vähem kasumlik. Loomade karjatamine aitab

säilitada traditsioonilisi maastikke, vältida võsastumist, piirata metsa- ja

maastikupõlengute ohtu ning toetada elurikkuse säilimist, hoides mitmekesiseid

17

elupaiku28. Loomapidamise toel püsib maapiirkondade elanikkond ja väheneb maa

kasutamata jätmise oht, mis võib põhjustada keskkonnaseisundi halvenemist ja

traditsiooniliste maastike kadumist. Uuenduslikud ärimudelid võivad pakkuda tõhusaid

lahendusi praegustele probleemidele, tõstes nendel territooriumidel loomakasvatuse taas

kesksele kohale.

Loomakasvatuse vähenemine on tihedalt seotud maa kasutamata jätmisega paljudes

Euroopa piirkondades. Teadusuuringute Ühiskeskuse hinnangul29 võidakse 2030. aastaks

kasutuseta jätta ligikaudu 11 % ELi põllumajandusmaast, samas kui peaaegu veerand (1,38

miljonit hektarit) kogu ELi kasutamata jäetud põllumajandusmaast asub tõenäoliselt

mägipiirkondades. Sellel on ka märkimisväärsed demograafilised tagajärjed. Neid

väljakutseid tuleks käsitleda järjepidevalt ja integreeritult, sealhulgas tulevaste

demograafiameetmete raames. Maapiirkondadel on suur potentsiaal saada Euroopa

vastupanuvõime, kestliku majanduskasvu ja valmisoleku liikumapanevaks jõuks.

Majanduslikult atraktiivsete ja elamisväärsete maapiirkondade loomine aitab inimesi

maapiirkondades hoida ja sinna meelitada, aidates seeläbi kaasa nende piirkondade

pikaajalisele elujõulisusele.

Võimalus muuta maapiirkondade haavatavus käegakatsutavaks pikaajaliseks

sissetulekuallikaks on suurem kui kunagi varem. Kasutades integreeritud

planeerimisvahendina riiklikku reformikava, alustab EL kooskõlastatumat ja

integreeritumat planeerimist, et toetada kestlikku majanduskasvu.

Eesmärgi saavutamiseks koostab komisjon koos liikmesriikidega kava, et leida lahendus

põllumajanduslikust tootmisest loobumise ohus olevate alade ja maapiirkondade

konkreetsetele vajadustele, võttes arvesse Venemaa, Valgevene ja Ukrainaga piirneva

idapoolse piiriala olukorda. Eesmärk on taastada kestlik loomakasvatus seal, kuhu see

looduslikult kuulub ja kus see on keskkonnaalaselt, sotsiaalselt ja majanduslikult kasulik,

tagades samas konkurentsivõimelisemate piirkondade ja kogukondade hea toimetuleku.

Selline samm võiks olla atraktiivne kõikide osaliste jaoks, kes panustavad tõhusa

väärtusahela kinnistamisse maakogukondades, alates põllumajandustootjatest kuni

tarbijateni (tapamajade töötajad, käsitööndus ja kohalikud turud).

Tulevane Euroopa maaomandi vaatluskeskus30 aitab sellele protsessile kaasa, kogudes

teavet ja pakkudes infot parimate tavade kohta, et leida lahendus maa kasutamata jätmise

probleemile. Lisaks koostab vaatluskeskus maakasutuse muutuste ja maa säästva

majandamise analüüse.

Tulevase ÜPP raames on liikmesriikide käsutuses palju vahendeid, et suunata toetused

haavatavatele loomakasvatuspiirkondadele. Tootmiskohustusega seotud sissetulekutoetus

ja looduslikust eripärast tingitud piirangutega alade toetamine peaks keskenduma

sektoritele ja piirkondadele, kus neid kõige rohkem vajatakse. Üks peamisi ülesandeid on

meelitada starditoetuse, sotsiaalse innovatsiooni, ettevõtluse ja investeeringute,

põllumajandusmaale juurdepääsu meetmete, sissetulekutoetuste ja stiimulite abil

põllumajandustootjate noort põlvkonda piirkondadesse, kus loomapidamine on

tekitanud sotsiaalse lõhe. Siiski ei võimalda ÜPP meetmed üksi seda olukorda muuta.

28 Extensive livestock systems and nature in Europe | Trükised |Euroopa Keskkonnaamet, 07/2026. EEA

ülevaates märgitakse, et kolmandik elupaikade direktiivi I lisa elupaikadest sõltub ekstensiivsest

karjatamisest.

29 https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC113718.

30 „Põllumajanduse põlvkonnavahetuse strateegia“, COM(2025) 872 final.

18

Kohalikul tasandil integreeritud loomakasvatuse väärtusahelate arendamine nõuab

koordineeritud investeeringuid taristusse, töötlemisrajatistesse, digitaliseerimisse ja

turustruktuuridesse ning sotsiaal- ja tööpoliitika toetamist. Samuti tuleb vajaduse korral

osutada praktilist toetust, et aidata põllumajandustootjatel tulla toime metsloomade

põhjustatud survega.

Üks võimalus, mis võiks elavdada kohalikku majandust ja samal ajal parandada loomade

heaolu, on investeeringud liikuvatesse ja vähese võimsusega tapamajadesse äärealadel.

Komisjon eraldab koostöös loomakasvatuse töörühmaga sihtvahendid tapamajade

tegevuskava väljatöötamiseks, uurides, kuidas edendada tapamajade (paiksete või

liikuvate) teenuste kättesaadavust maapiirkondades, tuginedes juba rahastatud

projektidele31 ja võttes arvesse loomade heaoluga seotud aspekte.

Näide: Paindlik kohalik töötlemisvõrk, mis hõlmab liikuvaid, väikese

tootmisvõimsusega tapamajasid (maapiirkondade väärtusahela vastupanuvõime

mudel). Hõredalt asustatud piirkondades või mägipiirkondades toetavad

liikmesriigid hübriidtöötlemissüsteemi, kus väikesed alalised rajatised on seotud

liikuvate tapamajadega.

• Logistika ja töögraafiku haldamiseks luuakse piirkondlik loomakasvatusühistu, mis

koondab põllumajandustootjate ressursse.

• Liikmesriik kaasrahastab mobiilseid tapamaju, mis liiguvad põllumajandusettevõtete või

määratud kogumispunktide vahel, järgides samas loomatervise ja toiduohutuse standardeid.

• Õigusaktide, sealhulgas registreerimist ja tunnustamist käsitlevate õigusaktide lihtsustamine

ja optimeerimine ELi ja riiklikul tasandil.

• Võrgustikku kaasatakse väiksemad rajatised, kus liha lõigatakse ja pakendatakse, ja

külmhooned, mis asuvad väikelinnades ja mida ajakohastatakse ELi toetusel.

• Selleks et tugevdada toote identiteeti ja väärtust ning tagada vastavus ELi tipptasemele, on

rajatiste võrgustik hõlmatud kvaliteedisertifitseerimiskavaga.

• Marsruutide optimeerimiseks, loomade heaolu nõuete täitmiseks ja ooteaja lühendamiseks

on kavas võtta kasutusele digivahendid (broneerimisplatvormid, jälgitavussüsteemid). Kuna

loomade tapmine toimub enamasti kohapeal, paraneb loomade heaolu, sest jääb ära loomade

kaugvedu.

Tänapäevane digitaristu on väga oluline nii maapiirkondade atraktiivsuse parandamiseks

kui ka loomakasvatussektori sissetulekute suurendamiseks maapiirkondades.

Liikmesriigid peaksid kiirendama investeeringuid kiire lairibaühenduse, 5G-ühenduse ja

satelliitühenduse väljaehitamiseks ja võrguvälise ühenduvuse tagamiseks, et võimaldada

arukate põllumajandustehnoloogiate ja loomakasvatuse kaugjuhtimissüsteemide

kasutuselevõttu ning luua juurdepääs internetipõhistele teenustele.

31 Näited EAFRDst rahastatud projektidest innovatsiooni ja loomade heaolu parandamiseks Saksamaal:

TadeLoS - Onfarm Slaughtering of Cattle without Stress |, Euroopa Liidu ühise põllumajanduspoliitika

võrgustik ja Fully mobile slaughter unit in Thuringia |, Euroopa Liidu ühise põllumajanduspoliitika

võrgustik. Vt ka programmi „Horisont 2020“ raames rahastatud projekt, mille eesmärk oli mobiilse

tapamaja kasutamine Prantsusmaal: Practical case: Mobile Slaughter Unit | Euroopa Liidu ühise

põllumajanduspoliitika võrgustik.

19

Sotsiaalne vastupanuvõime on samuti kriitilise tähtsusega. ELi loomakasvatajate

heaolu ja vaimset tervist ei mõjuta mitte ainult surve sissetulekutele, vaid ka rasked

töötingimused, pikad tööpäevad ja sotsiaalne eraldatus, eelkõige äärepoolsemates

maapiirkondades. Seetõttu on oluline luua juurdepääs asendusteenustele, kuna see

võimaldab põllumajandustootjatel võtta haiguse või perekondlike kohustuste korral

puhkust ning aitab vähendada stressi ja läbipõlemist. Asjakohaselt tuleks käsitleda ka

soospetsiifilisi vajadusi ja erinevusi. Teine oluline sotsiaalne tegur on oskuste arendamine.

Selleks et säilitada oma toimepidevus ning kohaneda muutuvate valdkondlike ja

turunõudmistega, osalevad põllumajandustootjad üha enam koolitustel, mis käsitlevad

loomade heaolu, keskkonnatavasid, digivahendite kasutamist ja ärijuhtimist. Sellega

seoses on otsustava tähtsusega nõustamisteenuste ja maaelu arengu poliitika roll.

Piirkondlikud söödaressursid suurendavad vastupanuvõimet, kestlikkust ja strateegilist

autonoomiat, vähendades samal ajal sõltuvust impordist. Rohumaade, kõrvalsaaduste ja

ELis kasvatatud valgurikaste taimede integreerimine võimaldab vähendada heitkoguseid,

toetab maapiirkondade majandust ja on kooskõlas ringbiomajanduse eesmärkidega. Need

on komisjoni ELi valgusüsteemi vastupanuvõime, strateegilise autonoomia ja kestlikkuse

kava peamised tegurid.

3.5. Loomakasvatuse tipptase

Kvaliteet on Euroopa strateegiline vara. Arvestades ühiskonna kasvavaid ootusi,

üleilmset konkurentsi ja teatavate piirkondade haavatavust, peab Euroopa Liit hoidma ja

laiendama oma eesmärki saavutada loomakasvatuses tipptase.

ELi loomakasvatussektori tulevik ei sõltu mitte ainult sellest, kas suudetakse tagada

konkurentsivõime ja vastupidavus, vaid ka võimekusest muuta Euroopa tootmismudel

nähtavaks, usaldusväärseks ja majanduslikult tasuvaks. See eeldab sellise

loomakasvatusmudeli järgimist, mis ei põhine madalaimatel kuludel, vaid väärtuse

loomisel heade tavade, kvaliteedi, kestlikkuse, eetika ja vastutuse kaudu.

Tipptaset tuleb mõista laialt, see ei puuduta ainult niši- või kvaliteettooteid. See peaks järk-

järgult hõlmama kõiki loomakasvatuse väärtusahelaid ja kõiki tootmismudeleid. Igal

loomakasvatusettevõttel peaks olema võimalus tegutseda parimal võimalikul viisil ja

pidevalt areneda ning leida pingutuste eest tunnustust turul ja avalikus poliitikas.

Koos loomakasvatuse töörühmaga tahab komisjon töötada välja ambitsioonika kava

tipptaseme saavutamiseks loomakasvatuses. See peaks võimaldama liidul selgemalt

väljendada seda, mis eristab Euroopa loomakasvatust nii siseturul kui ka üleilmses

konkurentsis.

Esimene prioriteet on parandada tipptaseme tunnustamist ja väärtustamist turul.

Põllumajandustootjad saavad järgida kõrgeid standardeid ainult siis, kui need on

majanduslikult tasuvad. Oluline on suurem läbipaistvus kogu toiduahelas, sealhulgas

selgem teave ja märgistus. Komisjon aitab tarbijatel teha teadlikke valikuid ja tunnustab

ELi loomakasvatussaaduste väärtust.

Oluline on ELi päritolu selgem määratlemine. Komisjon kavatseb turustamisstandardite

kaudu järk-järgult tugevdada ELi päritolu rolli põllumajandusloomade turustamisel,

uurides võimalust laiendada õiguslikku alust ühise turukorralduse raames. Kõigepealt

võtab komisjon vaatluse alla kodulinnuliha eeskirjad, et tõhustada päritolust teavitamist

ja teha järeldusi teiste sektorite jaoks.

20

Komisjon töötab selle nimel, et väärtustada ELi loomakasvatuse kõrgemaid standardeid ja

eriomadusi ühise turukorralduse raames vabalt kasutatavate vabatahtlike märgete abil. See

võimaldaks kasutada vabatahtlikkuse alusel selgelt tuvastatavat märget „Euroopa

tipptase“, mis on õiguslikult määratletud ning millega antakse usaldusväärselt ja

ühetaoliselt teada toote konkreetsetest omadustest. Komisjon lähtub sellistest

kriteeriumitest nagu vähese süsinikuheitega tootmine, keskkonnasõbralikud tavad,

kohaliku sööda kasutamine, kasvatamine ja tapmine ning loomade heaolu kõrgete

standardite järgimine. Neid vabatahtlikke märkeid võiks kasutada selleks, et näidata

vastavust kestlikkusnõuetele, mida nõuavad riiklikud või Euroopa fondid

investeerimistaotluste puhul, ja võimaldades põllumajandustootjatel pääseda juurde

rahastamisvõimalustele ilma, et peaks korduvalt samu tõendeid esitama (ühekordsuse

põhimõte).

Komisjon arutab ka seda, kuidas loomakasvatuse kvaliteedi, sealhulgas liha kvaliteedi

väärtustamist olemasolevate vahenditega paremini toetada. Praegune liidu rümpade

klassifitseerimise raamistik põhineb peamiselt kvantitatiivsetel kriteeriumitel. Kuigi see

tagab ühetaolise määratluse ja hindade läbipaistvuse, ei kajasta raamistik kõiki tarbijate ja

turu väärindamise seisukohast olulisi kvaliteediomadusi. Komisjon hindab, kas

märgistussüsteemi saaks vabatahtlikkuse alusel laiendada, et võtta arvesse teatavaid

kvalitatiivseid omadusi (organoleptilised omadused, tootmismeetod), ning kasutada

vabatahtlikke märkeid, et tõsta esile eristumist, luua väärtust ja tunnustada kvaliteeti.

Teise prioriteedina suurendab komisjon territoriaalselt integreeritud

loomakasvatussüsteemide nähtavust. Komisjon kasutab ELi müügiedenduspoliitikat,

et tõsta nii sise- kui ka välisturgudel esile ELi loomakasvatustoodete kvaliteeti ja

kestlikkust, kõrgete heaolustandardite järgimist (eelkõige puurivaba loomapidamist ja

munatootmist ilma kukktibude tapmiseta) ning toodete piirkondlikku päritolu.

Maapiirkondadega tihedalt seotud süsteeme on kavas rohkem toetada, teavitades paremini

toodete lisaväärtusest ja tugevdades nende kuvandit, kui see on põhjendatud.

Selleks et maksimeerida turutulu, julgustatakse sidusrühmi ja liikmesriike tegema

koostööd eelkõige järgmistes valdkondades: territoriaalse tootemargi kujundamine, et

siduda loomakasvatussaadused konkreetse piirkonna või tõu ajaloolise identiteedi ja

looduslike omadustega; põllumajandusturism ja mitmekesistamise algatused; maastike

kollektiivne majandamine, et kaitsta elurikkust ja majandada maastikke loomapidamisel

põhinevates ökosüsteemides.

Nende jõupingutuste ulatuslikumaks toetamiseks võib ELi põllumajanduse edendamise

poliitikaga ette näha sihitatud müügiedenduskava, mis keskendub territoriaalselt

integreeritud loomakasvatusele, et kiirendada toodete turulejõudmist.

Kolmas prioriteet tugineb ELi olemasolevale kvaliteedipoliitikale, eelkõige

geograafilistele tähistele ja mahepõllumajanduslikule tootmisele. Komisjoni jaoks on

oluline kaitsta jätkuvalt nende kasutuselevõttu, edendamist ja kaitset. Nende raamistike

tugevdamiseks vaatab komisjon läbi mahepõllumajanduse ja geograafiliste tähiste

tegevuskavad.

21

4. JÄRELDUSED

Üha keerukamas maailmamajanduses on liidu eesmärk muuta vastupanuvõime,

konkurentsivõime, kestlikkuse, territoriaalsuse ja tipptaseme eesmärgid Euroopa

loomakasvatussektoris üksteist vastastikku toetavaks.

ELi loomakasvatusstrateegias esitatakse sidus visioon loomakasvatussektori tuleviku

kohta. Komisjon edendab loomakasvatuse positiivset ja tasakaalustatud kuvandit,

tunnistades nii selle probleeme, sealhulgas keskkonna- ja kliimajalajälge, kui ka sektori

panust toiduga varustamisse, tööhõivesse, territoriaalsesse ühtekuuluvusse ning elurikkuse

ja kultuurilise väärtuse säilimisse.

Vastupanuvõimet tugevdatakse koordineeritud jõupingutustega, et võidelda

kliimamuutuste vastu, tugevdada bioturvalisust, tulla toime sotsiaalsete probleemidega

ning suurendada turu ja tarneahelate stabiilsust.

Konkurentsivõime suurendamiseks otsitakse lahendusi rahastamispuudujäägi

likvideerimiseks ja loomapidamise olukorra parandamiseks teatavates piirkondades,

edendades innovatsiooni, digiüleminekut ja oskuste omandamist ning tagades õiglased

kaubandustingimused.

Kestlikkuse saavutamiseks vähendatakse keskkonnajalajälge, toetatakse elurikkust ning

edendatakse ringluspõhiseid ja loomade heaolule suunatud põllumajandussüsteeme, mis

toetavad maapiirkondade elujõulisust.

Territoriaalsus tunnustab Euroopa mitmekesiseid maastikke ja kohalikke tingimusi,

võimestades põllumajandustootjate uusi põlvkondi ja tugevdades piirkondlikku majandust.

Üheskoos loovad need komisjoni, liikmesriikide ja sidusrühmade koordineeritud

jõupingutused tugeva tipptaseme raamistiku, mis toetab loomakasvatussektori õitsengut

üleilmse konkurentsi tingimustes.

Komisjon jälgib koos loomakasvatuse töörühmaga edusamme ja annab nende kohta aru.

Osaledes aktiivselt nendes strateegilistes algatustes saab sektor loota kestlikule, õiglasele

ja jõukale tulevikule.

ET ET

EUROOPA KOMISJON

Strasbourg, 7.7.2026 COM(2026) 576 final

ANNEX

LISA

järgmise dokumendi juurde:

KOMISJONI TEATIS EUROOPA PARLAMENDILE, NÕUKOGULE, EUROOPA

MAJANDUS- JA SOTSIAALKOMITEELE NING REGIOONIDE KOMITEELE

ELi loomakasvatusstrateegia

{SWD(2026) 576 final}

LISA: Komisjoni põhimeetmed

Selleks et loomakasvatusstrateegia oleks edukas, võtab komisjon järgmised

põhimeetmed. Strateegia rakendamist jälgib loomakasvatuse töörühm, mis toimib

jätkuvalt ideede ja parimate tavade vahetamise foorumina.

Strateegia täielikuks elluviimiseks peavad liikmesriigid võtma meetmeid, et pakkuda

asjakohaseid vahendeid, ning sidusrühmad peavad pakutavaid võimalusi ära kasutama.

Liikmesriigid ja sidusrühmad peavad jätkama investeerimist, et muuta

loomakasvatussektor vastupidavaks, konkurentsivõimeliseks, kestlikuks ja

piirkonna tingimustega arvestavaks ning saavutada tipptase.

Meetmed, et muuta loomakasvatussektor kriisidele vastupidavaks

1. Teha koostööd finantsasutustega, sealhulgas Euroopa Investeerimispangaga, et uurida

võimalust töötada 2027. aasta järgse mitmeaastase finantsraamistiku raames välja

sihtotstarbeline riskijuhtimise rahastamiskava, mis katab kliimaga seotud

kindlustus- ja edasikindlustusvajadused ning hõlmab loomahaigustega seotud riskide

realiseerumisel makstavaid toetusi.

2. Lisada asjakohased riskijuhtimisaspektid ja -vajadused liikmesriikidele esitatavatesse

ÜPP soovitustesse nende riikliku ja piirkondliku partnerluse kavade jaoks.

3. Tagada loomataudide ja zoonooside ennetamise, jälgimise, tõrje ja likvideerimise

ning suurte puhangu korral hädaabimeetmete piisav rahastamine.

4. Koostada liikmesriikidele riskijuhtimise praktiliste suuniste käsiraamat, tuginedes

ELi ja rahvusvahelistele eksperditeadmistele. Edendada loomakasvatusplatvormi

kaudu heade tavade vahetamist, et hõlbustada dialoogi ja saadud kogemuste

levitamist liikmesriikides.

5. Vaadata läbi, kas praegune loomataudide kategoriseerimise süsteem on endiselt

eesmärgipärane ja kas taudide kategoriseerimise kriteeriumid käsitlevad piisavalt

konkreetseid probleeme. Esitada ettepanekud õigusaktide ajakohastamiseks kooskõlas

uusimate teadussaavutuste ja Maailma Loomatervise Organisatsiooni (WOAH)

kehtestatud rahvusvaheliste standarditega ning võtta vastu rakenduseeskirjad, et

täpsustada rolle ja kohustusi.

6. Toetada ennetava vaktsineerimise laiemat ja teaduspõhist kasutamist ning hinnata,

kas praegused vaktsineerimiseeskirjad ja -põhimõtted on endiselt asjakohased. Töötada

välja vaktsineerimise suunised ning piirkondadeks jaotamise ja bioturvarühmitamise

eeskirjad, toetades samas jätkuvalt ELi piirkondadeks jaotamise lähenemisviisi

kasutamist kaubanduspartnerite juures. .

7. Uurida võimalusi, kuidas parandada ja rahastada varajase hoiatamise süsteeme,

digitaalseid avastamisvahendeid ja põllumajandustootjate teabekanaleid.

8. Toetada teadusuuringuid, innovatsiooni ja teadmiste vahetamist, et kiirendada

vastupidavust suurendavate põllumajanduslahenduste kasutuselevõttu. Koostada teatis

„Uus strateegiline lähenemisviis teadusuuringutele ja innovatsioonile Agri2040 ja

Food 2040“, milles käsitletakse loomakasvatusega seotud teavitamistegevust.

2

Meetmed loomakasvatussektori konkurentsivõime parandamiseks ELi ja üleilmsel

tasandil

9. Kaaluda võimaliku sihtotstarbelise rahastamisvahendi loomist

loomakasvatussektori jaoks, et katta rahastamispuudujääki investeeringute puhul, mis

tehakse kestlikkuse ja loomade heaolu viimiseks kõrgemale tasemele.

10. Uurida koos Euroopa Investeerimispangaga võimalusi pakkuda

põllumajandustootjatele, kes lähevad üle puurivabale loomapidamisele,

eelisjuurdepääsu laenudele.

11. Jätkata loamenetluste lihtsustamist ELi ja riiklikul tasandil, sealhulgas selleks, et

võimaldada järkjärgulist loobumist puurispidamisest.

12. Toetada ja hõlbustada ringlust, biomajandust ja biomassi väärindamist. Hinnata, kuidas

saaks ELi toidutarneahela vaatlusrühma töösse integreerida põllumajandustootjate

biomajandusega seotud tegevuse ja kõrvalsaaduste väärindamise tasustamise

läbipaistvuse.

13. Jätkata importtoodete standardite ühtlustamist loomade heaolu tagamiseks ja tagada

ELi toiduohutuseeskirjade range jõustamine. Osaleda diplomaatilises tegevuses, et

edendada põllumajanduslikku toidutööstust, tõhustada kõrgetasemeliste

missioonide tegevust ja müügiedendusmeetmeid, et avada Euroopa ekspordile uusi

turuvõimalusi.

14. Jätkata toidutarneahelat käsitlevate õigusaktide lihtsustamist ning kasutada

paremini ära olemasolevaid paindlikkussätteid, sealhulgas loomseid kõrvalsaadusi

käsitlevates õigusaktides ja ELi hügieeniraamistikus sisalduvaid paindlikussätteid.

Korraldada 2026. aasta neljandas kvartalis dialoog söödaga seotud õigusraamistiku

rakendamise üle.

Meetmed loomakasvatussektori kestlikkuse parandamiseks

15. Edendada kogu toidutarneahelas väärtusahela kestlikkust parandavat koostööd ,

et toetada kestlikkust ja sotsiaal-majanduslikke eesmärke.

16. Esitada 2026. aasta lõpuks ettepanek vaadata sihipäraselt läbi munakanade ja

broilerite heaolu käsitlevad eeskirjad, keskendudes puurispidamise järkjärgulisele

lõpetamisele, põllumajandusettevõtete jaoks praktiliste heaolunäitajate

väljatöötamisele, kukktibude süstemaatilisest tapmisest loobumisele ja impordile

samaväärsete nõuete kehtestamisele.

17. Esitada 2027. aasta teiseks kvartaliks ettepanek vaadata sihipäraselt läbi sigade

heaolu käsitlevad eeskirjad (millega nähakse muu hulgas ette võtta sulgude asemel

kasutusele aedikud), töötada põllumajandusettevõtete jaoks välja praktilised heaolu

näitajad ja kehtestada WTO nõuetele vastavad samaväärsed impordinõuded.

18. Pidada asjaomaste sidusrühmade, kodanikuühiskonna ja sihtriikidega tihedat

teabevahetust ning kaaluda nende arutelude tulemustest lähtuvalt edasisi samme,

sealhulgas võimalikke alternatiive tapmiseks ettenähtud loomade ekspordile EList

kolmandatesse riikidesse, toetades samas Euroopa loomakasvatajate turupositsioone.

3

19. Töötada põllumajandusettevõtete jaoks välja ühtlustatud metoodika

põllumajandusloomade kasvuhoonegaaside heite arvutamiseks ning edendada

seirevahendeid, mis võtavad paremini arvesse põllumajandusettevõttes rakendatud

meetmeid ja ELi loomakasvatussektori vajadusi. Vahetada üleilmse metaaniheite

vähendamise lubaduse ja sellega seotud algatuste kaudu rahvusvaheliste

partneritega teavet mõõtmis- ja leevendamistavade kohta. Hinnata

loomakasvatusest tulenevate heitkoguste vähendamise võimalikku lisamist süsiniku

eemaldamise ja süsinikupõllunduse määruse kohaldamisalasse.

20. Tulevaste ÜPP soovituste raames paluda liikmesriikidel toetada keskkonnasurvet,

sealhulgas toitainetest tulenevat keskkonnasurvet vähendavaid meetmeid suure

põllumajandusloomade arvuga piirkondades.

21. Luua 2027. aastaks loomakasvatust käsitlev platvorm, mis sisaldab kliima-,

keskkonna- ja loomade heaolu valdkonnas end tõestanud lahenduste põhjalikku

andmekogu.

22. Algatada 2026. aasta septembris menetlus, et teha kindlaks parimad tavad ja

lihtsustamisvõimalused nitraadidirektiivi rakendamisel, eriti seoses kalendripõhiste

põllumajandustavadega, kestliku loomakasvatuse tavadega, toitainete haldamisega

põllumajandusettevõttes ja kohalikele oludele kohandamisega. Kutsuda liikmesriike

tulevase ÜPP raames üles kasutama olemasolevaid meetmeid, et aidata

põllumajandustootjatel vähendada toitainetest tulenevat keskkonnasurvet suure

põllumajandusloomade arvuga piirkondades.

23. Avaldada 2026. aasta lõpuks aruanne linnudirektiivi ja loodusdirektiivide

eeskirjade stressitestimise kohta.

24. Esitada 2026. aasta kolmandaks kvartaliks esimene hinnang meetmete kohta, millega

laiendatakse sõnnikust saadud taaskasutatavat lämmastikku käsitlevat õigusakti,

et hõlmata sõnnikul põhinevad teatavat liiki vedelad kääritussaadused ja kehtestada

asjakohased keskkonnakaitsemeetmed.

25. Töötada välja sihtotstarbeline tegevuskava, et tagada kogu ELis toitainete tõhusam

ja kestlikum ringlus.

Meetmed territoriaalset mitmekesisust arvestava loomakasvatussektori loomiseks

26. Töötada koos Euroopa maaomandi vaatluskeskusega välja kava selliste

piirkondade erivajaduste arvesse võtmiseks, kus on oht põllumajanduslikust

tootmisest loobuda, et taastada neis piirkondades kestlik loomakasvatus.

27. Koostada tapamaju käsitlev tegevuskava, et edendada tapamaja teenuste

kättesaadavust maapiirkondades.

Meetmed loomakasvatuse tipptaseme edendamiseks

28. Suurendada ELi päritoluteabe tähtsust põllumajandusloomade

turustamisstandardites ja märgistuses.

29. Töötada välja Euroopa tipptaseme kava, et väärtustada ELi loomakasvatuse

kõrgemaid standardeid ja eriomadusi ühise turukorralduse raames vabatahtlike

4

märgete kasutamise kaudu, sealhulgas kriteeriumid vähese süsinikuheitega,

keskkonnasõbralike, kohalikest allikatest pärit ja hästitoimivate

loomakasvatussüsteemide tunnustamiseks.

30. Uurida võimalusi, et tunnustada ja esitleda paremini põllumajandusloomade

kvaliteedinäitajaid, mis oleksid üksikasjalikumad praegustest rümpade

klassifitseerimise kriteeriumidest.

31. Töötada ELi müügiedenduspoliitika raames välja sihitatud müügiedenduskava, et tõsta

nii sise- kui ka välisturgudel esile ELi loomakasvatustoodete kvaliteeti, kestlikkust,

kõrgeid heaolustandardeid ja territoriaalset seotust.

32. Toetada jätkuvalt geograafiliste tähiste ja mahepõllumajanduslike tootmise

kasutuselevõtu, edendamist ja kaitset. Vaadata läbi ELi mahepõllumajanduse

tegevuskava ja geograafiliste tähiste tegevuskava.