6.1 Introduction
The evolution of the narrative of the One Health conceptual framework, culminating in the new comprehensive definition provided by the One Health High-Level Expert Panel, has finally recognised the importance of applying a holistic understanding of health in the agri-food sustainability discourse.Footnote 1 Indeed, the definition enshrines the broadening of the scope of One Health and embraces it as a valuable approach to be applied across the board to global and national threats at the human–animal–ecosystem interface, but also to sustainability challenges. These explicitly include the ‘collective need for … safe and nutritious food’; that is, the need to ensure food safety and food security, both of which lie at the heart of the transition to sustainable agri-food systems.Footnote 2
Although it is still considered a ‘novelty’ to refer to One Health in relation to agri-food systems, it is certainly not unexpected. The expansion of the One Health concept over the past decade can be seen as a top-down trend, established as the interaction between the major global agencies involved in human, animal, and environmental health and agriculture intensified with regard to pandemic risk preparedness and prevention.
This has been achieved in particular by placing One Health at the centre of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) policy at global, regional, and national levels.Footnote 3 In the European Union, as mentioned in Chapter 11, the European Commission had already outlined a holistic One Health approach for its 2011–2016 Action Plan on AMR.Footnote 4 When the European Commission relaunched the plan in 2017, it was titled ‘A European One Health Action Plan against AMR’.Footnote 5 The latter proposed a robust agenda of legislative reforms aimed at making the EU a ‘best practice region’ for antimicrobial use in agriculture, which would progressively subject the use of antibiotics in European livestock farming to strict controls and significant restrictions, leading to relevant adjustments in livestock farming practices as early as the end of the past decade.Footnote 6
The One Health–AMR nexus has thus paved the way for a gradual broadening of the scope of One Health. As the FAO recently noted, ‘to date, efforts at operationalizing One Health have often … focused on specific health-dominated agendas, e.g., AMR, zoonotic diseases, plant pests and agrochemical risk reduction’; however, One Health collaborative capacity ‘also allows linking in areas such as biodiversity, microbiome, clean water, soils and air, can help with the promotion of efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable agri-food systems and healthy ecosystems’.Footnote 7
Indeed, it is not surprising that a holistic and systemic approach to health has begun to be seen as valuable in promoting sustainable agricultural production and the resilience of ecosystems and agri-food systems, as well as addressing inequalities within agri-food supply chains. Agriculture, as part of the food supply system, has a key role to play in improving public health in the holistic sense of One Health. The interplay between agriculture and health is determined by systemic and interrelated relationships, which, in a very simplified way, are driven by food production, the use of natural resources and industrial inputs.
Food production determines food security and food safety, both of which in turn influence human health and individual and social development. Food production also affects and shapes territorial conditions that can, directly and indirectly, benefit several elements of health and well-being (e.g. air and soil health, recreation in the natural environment). Moreover, intensive livestock production raises animal welfare concerns, influences disease dynamics and can lead to the misuse of antibiotics for disease prevention and growth promotion, contributing to AMR. Agricultural production then clearly involves the use of various types of natural resources (including animals and insects, energy from fossil and renewable sources, soil, and water), their transformation and, to some extent, their degradation. Indeed, in their quest for efficiency and competitiveness, farm activities can affect soil health and biodiversity, leading to ecosystem depletion and unhealthy environments. Furthermore, the use of pesticides or other chemicals, if not well managed, can affect animal and plant health, and thus human health, including food consumption. Lastly, the use of inputs (including technological ones) may affect the way natural resources are used to guarantee food security and food safety, determining the sustainability of agricultural practices and the long-term health of ecosystems.
Despite this background and the evolutionary path dictated by international governance on the importance of integrating One Health into the agri-food agenda, there are still few studies that address this issue from a legal perspective, in particular through the analysis of agri-food laws and policies. The originality of this chapter lies in its aim to help fill this gap by examining the extent to which the European regulatory framework for sustainable agri-food systems has recently been reformed in line with a One Health approach.
Such an analysis is justified by the conviction that agri-food systems are precisely one of the ‘new’ regulatory areas in which the implementation of One Health should be tested and promoted. Indeed, we believe that the transition to sustainable agriculture and food is one of the most critical challenges of our time and one of the most complex issues that would benefit from a holistic approach to the human–animal–ecosystem interface.
The discussion is structured as follows: Section 6.2 places One Health in the broader context of the European Green Deal (Green Deal),Footnote 8 the main overarching policy shaping EU action from 2019, and the Farm to Fork Strategy,Footnote 9 the policy document stemming from the Green Deal that launched the EU’s transition to sustainable agri-food systems. Section 6.3 introduces the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which is the main legal instrument regulating the EU agricultural sector, as well as the broader regulatory tool for the agricultural industry that has existed in the world for over sixty years. Section 6.4 then examines the legislative framework of the recently adopted CAP 2023–2027 to assess whether it is effectively inspired by the One Health approach. Finally, the conclusion summarises the main findings of the research.
6.2 One Health, the European Green Deal, and the Farm to Fork Strategy: A Conceptual Alignment
Before the COVID-19 pandemic and the gradual implementation of the EU Green Deal (see below), One Health was considered in the European regulatory framework first as an international initiative to be supported and then as an internal policy tool to fight AMR.Footnote 10 This picture is also supported by the analysis of the few Regulations (i.e. sources of law) published between 2016 and 2018 that mention One Health: they address One Health in the context of AMR, leading to reforms of animal health and veterinary medicines legislation that set new standards for animal health management and the use of medicines on farms, significantly improving the framework for animal production in terms of biosecurity and reducing the use of antibiotics in the EU.Footnote 11
In December 2019, the newly appointed European Commission President published the Green Deal, a policy project that aims to transform the EU into a ‘fair and prosperous society, with a modern, resource-efficient and competitive economy where there are no net emissions of greenhouse gases in 2050 and where economic growth is decoupled from resource use’.Footnote 12 It was presented as a response to multiple climate-related challenges and as an integral part of the implementation of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.Footnote 13
Formally, the Green Deal is a Communication from the European Commission; that is, a forward-looking policy document that describes the vision of the EU executive. As such, it is an administrative soft law measure with the external function of showing where the EU wants to go and by what means. It is accompanied by a detailed roadmap (annexed to the Communication) of all the implementing measures to be adopted over the next five to ten years. These implementing measures include legislative proposals (e.g. the European Climate Law, which had already entered into force in July 2021),Footnote 14 action plans (e.g. the A New Circular Economy Action Plan),Footnote 15 strategies (e.g. the Farm to Fork Strategy and the Biodiversity Strategy),Footnote 16 programmes (e.g. the Fit for 55),Footnote 17 and the revision of existing legislation (e.g. in the area of land use, energy efficiency, and renewable sources of energy).
The following subsections briefly introduce both the Green Deal (Section 6.2.1) and the Farm to Fork Strategy (Section 6.2.2), as these are the main policy documents influencing EU action on sustainability in general (through the Green Deal) and on agri-food systems in particular (through the Farm to Fork Strategy). The aim is to set the scene by illustrating the general regulatory context of the CAP and to briefly examine whether it takes One Health into account.
6.2.1 The European Green Deal
Given its ambition to transform EU society, the Green Deal is not just about environmental protection. Rather, it sets out the EU’s growth strategy in the face of climate, economic, and social challenges, seeking to balance different interests to make the EU a climate-neutral economy by 2050. This means achieving a state of zero net greenhouse gas emissions and decoupling economic growth from resource use. As such, it is a wide-ranging, cross-sectoral regulatory project that aims to provide ‘a political vision of the future of Europe rather than merely an emergency response to a new dimension of the crisis’.Footnote 18
In this respect, the Green Deal has been recognised as a promising tool for achieving major improvements in public health while reducing growing health risks from several perspectives, including climate change, globalisation, and food and agriculture.Footnote 19 In fact, its regulatory scope includes the need to ensure environmental health, which underpins the commitment to protect biodiversity, restore ecosystems, and provide healthy and sustainable diets.
Health considerations have been an integral part of the Green Deal initiative since its inception, but primarily as a derivative of various green and sustainable policy objectives rather than as a stand-alone priority. In addition, a holistic understanding of health issues was not included in the original Green Deal Communication, which only refers to health in rather specific contexts.Footnote 20
However, in parallel with the implementation of the Green Deal, the landscape changed significantly due to the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, while the Green Deal Communication was published in December 2019, meaning just before the outbreak of the pandemic, its implementing measures started to be published in 2020, when the pandemic had already spread globally. As a result, the Green Deal implementing measures gradually incorporated health considerations into their content.
The Farm to Fork Strategy,Footnote 21 the Biodiversity Strategy,Footnote 22 the EU strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change,Footnote 23 and the Zero Pollution Action Plan,Footnote 24 published between 2020 and 2021, illustrate this evolution. Indeed, in contrast to the Green Deal Communication, these implementing tools explicitly recognised the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health, with specific reference to the One Health approach. It is therefore clear that the outbreak has facilitated an unprecedented convergence of environmental and health objectives, fostering a symbiotic relationship to move the EU towards greater sustainability and improved public health.Footnote 25
Within this context, a new understanding of One Health began to emerge in the EU policy and legislative landscape. It started to be mentioned more frequently in policy documents and to be framed beyond AMR, including in the broader context of sustainability. Moreover, and most importantly, One Health appeared to be increasingly included in Regulations, to the extent that it took the form not only of a policy instrument but also of a legal one. By way of example only, the EU4Health Regulation,Footnote 26 published in 2021, provides the first EU legal definition of One Health in its Article 2(5),Footnote 27 and gives it the function of a kind of organisational legal guideline in the implementation of its general and specific objectives, which must be ‘pursue[d] … in keeping with the One Health approach’ (Articles 3 and 4).Footnote 28 In addition, the Reinforced EMA Regulation,Footnote 29 as well as the recent Regulation on cross-border health threats,Footnote 30 and the Regulation on the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC),Footnote 31 take One Health into account in both their recitals and articles. In particular, they have strengthened the link between One Health and the need to preserve the natural ecosystem, protect biodiversity, and enhance cooperation in responding to health threats.
The pattern observed in the EU legal and policy landscape is therefore fairly straightforward: One Health is penetrating more and more binding legal instruments, expanding its scope and becoming an approach or a principle to be – at least – invoked by EU legislators when regulating areas with an impact on (public) health. This paradigm shift occurred during the implementation of the Green Deal, with the result that One Health has started to be invoked in regulatory instruments aimed at addressing sustainability challenges (e.g. climate change, resilient nature, and pollution, to name but a few). However, the implications and consequences of this pattern are still uncertain: this sudden momentum for One Health in the (EU) legal sphere is still in its infancy and its normative and legal significance is not known yet. Based on these premises, the following analysis focuses on a specific aspect of the transition initiated by the Green Deal: that of sustainable agriculture within the broader framework of agri-food systems.
6.2.2 The Farm to Fork Strategy
The European Green Deal aims, among other objectives, to create a fair, healthy, and environmentally friendly agri-food system under the premise that ‘European food is famous for being safe, nutritious and of high quality. It should now also become the global standard for sustainability.’Footnote 32
The first is the Farm to Fork Strategy, the Green Deal policy document dedicated to the transition to sustainable agri-food systems. The second is the new CAP 2023-2027, which has a legally binding nature that makes the analysis from a One Health perspective even more compelling (see next section).
The Farm to Fork Strategy is a European Commission Communication with specific targets to ensure sustainable food production, processing, distribution, and consumption, including the prevention of food waste and losses.Footnote 33 The regulatory measures to implement the targets are listed in the Annex to the Farm to Fork Strategy and consist of 27 actions,Footnote 34 including revisions of existing legislation, new codes (e.g. the Code of Conduct on Responsible Food Business and Marketing Practices),Footnote 35 and legislative proposals. The potential impact of implementing the Farm to Fork Strategy on the EU’s agri-food regulatory framework is majestic for two main reasons. First, it targets the European food system rather than a specific food chain or individual components of the food system; and second, it addresses sustainability rather than food safety or security, which have been the objectives of European agri-food legislation since its inception.
In terms of what is of most interest to this chapter, the Strategy generally refers to the concept of health in taking a holistic approach to the food system. It does so by recognising the ‘inextricable links between healthy people, healthy societies and a healthy planet’ and the need to move towards healthy diets and to improve and protect public health. However, beyond these general references, One Health was not given a clear role. The Farm to Fork Strategy did make explicit reference to One Health, but only in the context of the target to reduce sales of antimicrobials for livestock and aquaculture by 50 per cent by 2030. In addition, the ongoing implementation of the twenty-seven actions is threatened by several factors, including the geopolitical crises that have hit the world in recent years, raising concerns about food security and the stability of international trade. This situation has led to a significant setback in the adoption of several of the Strategy’s implementing measures, which could have been crucial for the implementation of One Health within the EU’s agri-food legislative framework.
By way of example only, the European Commission adopted on 22 June a proposal for a new Regulation on the Sustainable Use of Plant Protection Products,Footnote 36 including EU-wide targets to reduce the use and risks of chemical pesticides by 50 per cent by 2030. The proposal, as part of the Farm to Fork Strategy, aimed to reduce the environmental footprint of the EU food system and thus bring the existing rules on the sustainable use of pesticides (e.g. Directive 2009/128/EC) in line with the ambitions set out in the EU Green Deal.Footnote 37 On 27 March 2024, the Commission withdrew the proposal as no agreement was in sight given the European Parliament’s rejection of the proposal and the lack of progress in the Council. The same happened with the Commission’s commitment to a general review of animal welfare legislation, with proposals expected by the end of 2023. So far, the Commission has only adopted a proposal to revise the regulation on the protection of animals during transport and a proposal for a new regulation on the welfare and traceability of dogs and cats, excluding, for example, the long-awaited proposal for new legislation on animal welfare labelling.Footnote 38 Given the extreme relevance of both pesticide and animal welfare legislation to One Health, these setbacks could indeed be seen as missed opportunities to reform part of the EU regulatory framework for sustainable agri-food systems in line with a holistic approach to human, animal, and ecosystem health.
6.3 The CAP 2023–2027 in a Nutshell
As mentioned above, the second regulatory front with the ambition to transform EU agri-food systems is the Common Agricultural Policy. It is one of the most important EU regulatory tools, the first in terms of expenditure since the establishment of the European Economic Community in 1957 and accounting for 32.3 per cent of the current EU multiannual budget for 2021–2027.Footnote 39 Indeed, while the food sustainability agenda of the Farm to Fork Strategy represents the new frontier of the EU’s agri-food regulatory framework, the CAP is one of the Union’s oldest pillars, supporting European agriculture and rural areas and helping to ensure food security for the European population for more than sixty years.
Articles 38–47 of the 1957 Treaty of Rome, now Articles 39–44 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), provide the legal basis for the CAP. In particular, Article 39 TFEU lists the objectives of the CAP: (1) to increase agricultural productivity by promoting technical progress and by ensuring the rational development of agricultural production and the optimum utilisation of the factors of production, in particular, labour; (2) to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, in particular by increasing the individual earnings of persons engaged in agriculture; (3) to stabilise markets; (4) to assure the availability of supplies; and (5) to ensure that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices.
Although the objectives have remained the same, the features and mechanisms within the CAP have changed significantly since it was first adopted in 1962.Footnote 40 In particular, over time, direct payments to farmers have become increasingly conditional on compliance with agri-environmental good practices and animal welfare standards. This approach justifies direct payments as a form of remuneration for environmental services and other positive externalities that farmers provide to society by supporting food security and local food traditions, biodiversity, ecosystems, landscape, and employment in rural areas, as well as contributing to the conservation of European cultural identities.Footnote 41
Indeed, while the CAP has not historically been a policy instrument designed to address health issues directly, it is increasingly incorporating within its scope considerations that appear to lie at the human–animal–ecosystem interface, while maintaining the original objectives set out in the Treaty of Rome and thus continuing to pursue the competitiveness of farms, and the promotion of employment, growth, and local development.Footnote 42 This leads to many trade-offs that the legislator is struggling to manage. Indeed, the previous CAP 2014–2020 has been heavily criticised over the years concerning the success of its environmental commitments, even by the European Court of Auditors’ Special Report 21/2017, which highlighted that the environmentally friendly practices did not contribute to significant climate and environmental results.Footnote 43 In the same vein, the European Court of Auditors’ Special Report 16/2021 sought to determine whether the CAP 2014–2020 promoted climate change mitigation strategies that could have reduced greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture between 2014 and 2020. It found that the €100 billions of CAP funds allocated to climate action between 2014 and 2020 ‘had little impact on agricultural emissions, which have not changed significantly since 2010’.Footnote 44
The new CAP 2023–2027, clearly influenced by both the EU Green Deal and its strategies, including the Farm to Fork Strategy, has been presented as a key instrument to drive the transition towards sustainable agri-food systems in the EU, introducing innovative tools to contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation, carbon sequestration, efficient management of natural resources, reduction of chemical dependency, halting and reversing biodiversity loss, enhancing ecosystem services, and preserving habitats and landscapes. Given its ambition and relevance in the EU regulatory space, the next section looks in detail at the legal framework of the new CAP 2023–2027 to explore the extent to which it incorporates a One Health perspective.
6.4 The Regulatory Framework of the CAP 2023–2027 in the Light of One Health
In December 2021, the agreement to reform the CAP was formally adopted. In particular, the new legislation, which entered into force in January 2023, aims to ensure a sustainable future for Europe’s farmers and has been presented as a key tool to achieve the ambitions of the Farm to Fork Strategy, contributing to the Green Deal objectives of environmental, social, and economic sustainability.
Regulations 2021/2115,Footnote 45 2021/2116,Footnote 46 and 2021/2117 constitute the legal framework of the CAP and give practical expression to its general thrust.Footnote 47 In particular, Regulation 2021/2115 is most relevant to the content of this research, as it sets out rules for the general and specific objectives to be pursued by the new CAP and aims to steer individual and societal behaviour towards what society considers to be positive health externalities. With this in mind, we will go through the provisions of the above-mentioned Regulation to understand how and to what extent they are consistent with the One Health approach.
6.4.1 Regulation 2021/2115: Objectives, Implementing Measures, and Rural Development
The Regulation lays down ‘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)’ replacing the former Regulation 1305/2013 and Regulation 1307/2013. The reference to the EU funds reflects the basic, historical distinction between typical CAP objectives, respectively related to the Common Market Organization (CMO, financed by EAGF) and the so-called structural objectives (Rural development, financed by EAFRD). As mentioned, the new CAP introduces a delivery model based on a decentralised approach where member states propose a CAP Strategic Plan for the use of the financial resources made available. This is one of the main regulatory innovations of the new CAP, as it gives to the member states the responsibility to ‘set targets, specify conditions for interventions and allocate financial resources, according to the specific objectives and identified needs’ (Article 1(c); the conditions to be set out in the CAP Strategic Plans are better specified in Article 4). These are thus prepared through a specific internal assessment and identification of national and regional needs concerning CAP objectives. In this new mechanism, the European Commission has a co-management role together with the member states and carries out an ex-post and ex-ante assessment of the CAP Strategic Plans. According to Recital 122 of the Regulation, ‘When assessing the proposed CAP Strategic Plans, the Commission should assess the consistency and contribution of the proposed CAP Strategic Plans to the Union’s environmental and climate legislation and commitments and, in particular, to the Union targets for 2030 set out in the Commission communication of 20 May 2020 entitled “Farm to Fork Strategy”’.
6.4.2 Objectives
The general objectives of the Regulation are set out in Article 5,Footnote 48 which includes two main directions for action, namely environmental protection and climate change mitigation (point (a)) and food security (point (b)), both consistent with a One Health approach. Article 6 (Specific Objectives) articulates the specific objectives derived from the general ones, which clearly reflect the Green Deal and Farm to Fork Strategy.Footnote 49
Among these specific objectives, point (1) is relevant to our purpose as it introduces the need to respond to societal demands for health, safe food, animal welfare, and AMR. Others reflect the One Health approach, taking into account the contribution of the environment to health (point (4) on tackling climate change and its causes; point (5) on reducing chemical dependency) and the need to halt and reverse biodiversity losses and enhance ecosystems (point (6)).Footnote 50
Under Article 9, member states design their measures following good agricultural and environmental practices (GAECs) and the statutory management requirements (SMRs), both of which create the so-called increased/enhanced conditionality (extending the environmental commitments linked to the receipt of direct payments). In particular, the SMRs are a set of rules coming from thirteen existing EU Directives and Regulations on public, animal and plant health, animal welfare, and the environment.Footnote 51 They apply to all farmers, whether or not they receive support under the CAP and as such do not have an impact on the ‘sustainability direction’ of the CAP.Footnote 52 On the contrary, the GAECs are a set of nine specific conditions and practices that apply only to farmers receiving support under the CAP and that farmers must respect to receive the payments.Footnote 53 More specifically, according to Article 12, the main areas of intervention of the GAEC are:
(1) climate and environment (climate change mitigation and adaptation, water control, soil protection and quality, biodiversity and landscape conservation and quality);
(2) public health and plant health (food safety, management of plant protection products, marketing rules, use of pesticides); and
(3) animal welfare.
Farmers violating the ‘increased/enhanced conditionality’ will have their EU support reduced and may face other penalties. Annex III of the Regulation describes in detail the technical provisions relating to the GAEC and SMRs.
Finally, Article 14 introduces the ‘social conditionality’; that is, the general rules on the respect of working and employment conditions. It provides that farmers and other beneficiaries receiving direct payments or annual payments shall comply with the requirements relating to the applicable working and employment conditions or the employer’s obligations arising from certain legal acts (in particular, Annex IV refers to the measures to encourage improvements in safety and health of workers;Footnote 54 and minimum safety and health requirements for use of work equipment by workers).Footnote 55
6.4.3 Implementation Measures
The GAEC and social conditionality are mandatory as they are part of the CAP National Strategic Plans and entitle farmers to a payment per hectare of land in return for implementing them. As mentioned, this mechanism makes farmers’ access to direct payments conditional on their compliance with the sustainability standards, both environmental and social, set out in Articles 12–14. Payments (or direct payments) are incentives designed to compensate farmers for the implementation of rules to achieve the objectives of the CAP, including climate, environmental, and animal welfare requirements (Article 16).Footnote 56 These payments are decoupled, in the sense that they are not linked to production in any way. Coupled payments (i.e. payments linked to production)Footnote 57 are also provided (point 3) for selected products and under certain circumstances listed in Article 33.Footnote 58
Additional provisions, in the form of a direct decoupled payment, are foreseen for farmers participating in ‘eco-schemes’, as provided for in Article 31. These are voluntary climate, environmental, and animal welfare schemes that provide an additional payment on top of direct payments conditional on GAEC standards, SMRs, and social conditionality. They are voluntary for farmers, while it is mandatory for member states to allocate 25 per cent of the direct payment envelope and to draw up the list of eco-schemes they wish to propose to their farmers. Article 31 lists seven areas of intervention (essentially mirroring Article 6 and the areas of the GAEC) and stipulates that eco-schemes should cover at least two of these areas to qualify for direct payments.Footnote 59
6.4.4 Rural Development
Article 69 sets out provisions for rural development including ‘environmental, climate-related and other management commitments’ (point (a)) and ‘natural or other area-specific constraints’ (point (b)). Following the same eco-scheme approach, payments (i.e. contributions to investments in this case) are granted to farmers who (1) go beyond the relevant statutory management requirements and GAEC standards; and (2) go beyond the relevant minimum requirements for the use of fertilisers and plant protection products or animal welfare, as well as other relevant mandatory requirements established by national and Union law.
6.4.4.1 Regulation 2021/2115 versus One Health
Regulation 2021/2115 provides for a wide range of measures that may affect the relationship between the environment, human health, and animal health. In this context, the management of agricultural practices to reduce their impact on the environment and conserve biodiversity is of great importance. On the other side, animal health is given less consideration. However, animal welfare is targeted by specific measures (Animal Welfare Area, SRM 8, 9, 10) and AMR is often mentioned, but little is said about biosecurity in livestock farming.Footnote 60 Biosecurity measures are the technical means to reduce disease contamination on and between farms, which can prevent the misuse or abuse of antimicrobials and AMR in animals, humans, and the environment. Furthermore, the relationship between animal welfare and disease transmission can be critical and conflicting (e.g. free-range systems improve animal welfare but expose animals to contamination risks through contact with wildlife).
This Regulation also provides the legal basis for the already mentioned eco-schemes, which support the income of farmers undertaking specific commitments to sustainability voluntarily. The eco-schemes’ framework includes measures to preserve water quality, reduce the use of pesticides, improve animal welfare, and combat antimicrobial resistance. In terms of implementation mechanisms, all the above-mentioned provisions are subject to compliance under penalty of law. Indeed, regarding environmental conditionality (Articles 12–13), the new CAP mentions non-compliance with European legislation on the environment, public health, plant health, and animal welfare as grounds for administrative sanctions in the granting of direct payments. Under social conditionality, set out in Article 14, sanctions will also be applied for non-compliance with national and international standards on workers’ conditions, which include standards on health and safety at work.
From a One Health perspective this approach might be criticised (One Health is recommended to be participatory, based on consensus and information).Footnote 61 On the other hand, the provisions on farm advisory services (Article 15), which are intended to help farmers achieve the objectives of the Regulation, seem to mitigate this criticism. Article 15(4)(c) also refers to the fact that the farm advisory services shall be adapted to the various types of production and farms, covering also ‘farm practices preventing the development of antimicrobial resistance as set out in the Commission communication of 29 June 2017 entitled “A European One Health Action Plan against Antimicrobial Resistance”’. Lastly, the EU gives the member states the responsibility to draw up CAP National Strategic Plans, which may lead to different national interpretations, including the possibility of neglecting implementation to some extent, thus reducing the effectiveness of the overall policy.
6.5 Agriculture and One Health: Compatibility in the EU
This chapter aimed to examine the role of One Health in the main new EU policies dealing with the transition to sustainable agri-food systems and to determine whether One Health is effectively guiding the future of EU legislation in this area. It shows that although One Health has undoubtedly gained new legitimacy in the EU legislative landscape following the COVID-19 pandemic and the progressive implementation of the Green Deal, it is still not at the centre of the EU action to ensure more sustainable and healthier agri-food systems.
First, the Farm to Fork Strategy makes only a tentative reference to One Health in the context of AMR. However, the Strategy contains important elements that could allow for a broader and more consistent use of One Health in the various implementation measures envisaged in the Action Plan. For example, the Strategy refers to the need to make European food systems more sustainable, fair, healthy, and equitable. It also explicitly adopts a holistic and all-encompassing approach to the drivers and outcomes of food systems, which should clearly include threats at the human–animal–ecosystem interface. This means that while One Health is not the driver of the transition to food sustainability, its implementation would certainly be consistent with existing policy goals on food sustainability. Of course, much will depend on the ambition of the EU legislator in implementing the Strategy.
As far as the CAP is concerned, we have tried to assess the ‘One Health-ness’ of Regulation 2021/2115, even though One Health is not one of its explicit objectives. This exercise was considered relevant in the light of the new understanding and scope of One Health promoted by international global governance, which includes the commitment to ‘mainstream One Health across agri-food systems and integrate the One Health approach in agricultural production’.Footnote 62 Indeed, activities related to agricultural production and food systems, in general, are at the intersection of the different dimensions of One Health: valuing this comprehensive perspective could lead to better public health outcomes (for humans, animals, and ecosystems). To be successful, this integration should go beyond mere formal recognition (even in policy or legal documents) of the links between the three dimensions of One Health: rather, it should be implemented through mechanisms of coordination, communication, knowledge and information sharing, policy coherence, strong dialogue at the science-policy interface, and participatory processes, to name but a few.
What emerges from the analysis is that Regulation 2021/2115 represents a significant step forward on previous EU reforms (which, it must be said, have probably never been assessed from a One Health perspective). However, it is difficult to assess the balance of pros and cons. In general, the new CAP contains provisions at the nexus of agriculture, animal health and welfare, public health, and environmental health. However, it fails to systematise these efforts and bring the various elements together in a holistic perspective. The outcome is a list of provisions that attempt to bring elements at the human–animal–environment interface within the traditional scope and objectives of legislation regulating agricultural activities. The resulting framework is therefore not fully satisfactory from a One Health perspective, as it lacks an organic and coherent approach that identifies its internal and external relationships and the various trade-offs. Regarding the latter, the conflicts arising within the CAP between the pursuit of sustainability objectives (especially environmental) and those of productivity and competitiveness in the name of food security (often still understood as mere food production) should certainly be mentioned.Footnote 63 In fact, these conflicts are hardly addressed by the legislation, which since the 1992 reform has tried to move in both directions, but not always in an integrated way.
On this issue, the CAP has always been widely criticised,Footnote 64 including, as mentioned above, by the European Court of Auditors,Footnote 65 for allegedly failing to deliver on its environmental ambitions. As far as the new CAP 2023–2027 is concerned, scientists have already predicted that it will not produce any significant progress in terms of climate change and the environment.Footnote 66 It seems though, that there are no best practice examples that can replace the CAP at this time, given CAP has long been one of the most attentive agricultural policies to the issue of environmental sustainability,Footnote 67 considering the economic and territorial dimensions of the EU, and that even small prosperous countries that are considered models of virtuous agricultural policies, even better than the CAP, are by no means exempt from the same kind of criticism.Footnote 68
Recent developments in European animal welfare policy have suffered from a similar contradiction between what was announced and what was delivered. Indeed, there has been great disappointment that the European Commission has only managed to produce a legislative proposal on animal transport and has failed to implement the reforms promised in the Farm to Fork strategy on slaughter, captive animals, and labelling.Footnote 69 However, these failures should be seen in a context that recognises that the development of European legislation on these issues has been well-advanced since the 1990s (even in comparison with other countries in the world)Footnote 70 and that it is inevitable that decision-makers, when faced with complex issues in a period of major change (cultural, social, economic, environmental, ethical), may arrive at contradictory and not always satisfactory results.
In this evolving scenario, One Health should not be invoked as a ‘buzzword’, but rather as a tool to help first identify these conflicts through a holistic vision and then manage them through specific provisions that help to balance and find compromise solutions (again through coordination, communication, data sharing, and multidisciplinarity).Footnote 71 To do this in a legislative text, it is necessary to clarify the legal dimension of One Health. For the time being, in the new CAP, One Health is neither a principle inspiring its content nor an approach for its implementing measures.
Regulation 2021/2115 could even be considered an ‘old’ instrument when seen in the context of the speed with which the One Health conceptual framework has been developed in the last two years, also within the legal order. The legal entry points for One Health in legislation, in general, and in agri-food legislation, in particular, still need to be defined: nevertheless, this paradigm shift will likely happen soon and the new CAP contains provisions that could be placed in this direction. In conclusion, it seems promising to assess the improvement of the EU legal framework for agri-food systems along the roadmap of the process, which is accompanied by clear and critical social conflicts between different visions of what agriculture should be.
