[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":93},["ShallowReactive",2],{"pages-686bc9174afe1308cded1e7a":3},{"_id":4,"state":5,"name":6,"category":7,"theme":8,"components":9,"keywords":83},"686bc9174afe1308cded1e7a","active","Subsidy for local crop diversification","discover","european_food_system_dashboard",[10,21,30,37,44,51,58,65],{"type":11,"index":12,"variation":13,"imageURL":14,"title":15,"description":16,"button":18},"header",0,"image_left","https://planeateu.retool.com/api/file/8acbb2a1-7483-43c5-a3c4-5f587e5f3010",{"en_GB":6},{"en_GB":17},"- Food system activity: Production\n- Governance level: Local/regional\n- Cluster: Stay within planetary boundaries\n- Origin: Sweden\n- Type of policy intervention: Financial",{"label":19,"URL":20},{"en_GB":20},"",{"type":22,"index":23,"variation":24,"imageURL":25,"title":26,"description":28},"image_and_text",1,"image_right","https://planeateu.retool.com/api/file/1c0aace6-2325-4a53-96d6-5d50235b85c7",{"en_GB":27},"Intervention Details",{"en_GB":29},"This intervention is about providing financial support to farmers to diversify their crops, to move away from monocultures and adopt a more varied cropping system. This intervention came out of the Swedish living lab, which focused on small children. This target group and its future was reflected in the motivation for this policy measure, as “EU money for more diversified farming systems could allow my children to see the production of the food they eat in our local area”. The goal of this intervention is to promote agricultural biodiversity, enhance soil health, reduce dependence on synthetic inputs, and increase the resilience of local food systems to climate and market shocks. These subsidies can be structured through direct payments, support for diversification-related investments, or through preferential procurement and marketing schemes. As part of broader agri-environmental schemes, this intervention aligns with EU objectives on sustainable agriculture, including the Green Deal, the Farm to Fork Strategy, and the Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 (European Commission, 2020).",{"type":22,"index":31,"variation":13,"imageURL":32,"title":33,"description":35},2,"https://planeateu.retool.com/api/file/c32b40e5-d2c2-44bb-a1ed-0e0d2ba39795",{"en_GB":34},"Examples of implementation",{"en_GB":36},"Under the current Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) framework (2023–2027), eco-schemes reward practices like intercropping, crop rotation, and the inclusion of leguminous and cover crops, with member states given flexibility to tailor these supports. Several EU countries have indeed integrated crop diversification into their national and regional CAP Strategic Plans. For instance, Germany supports mixed cropping systems and species diversification under agri-environment-climate measures (Henrich Böll Stiftung, 2021). Ireland has another eco-scheme measure in which a farmer that has a crop diversification requirement plants a break crop as their second or third crop, that has to cover at least 25% of arable area (Runge et al., 2022). The Netherlands contributes strip cropping, which is a practice of growing several crops in combine-wide, long strips instead of blocks to reduce pesticide use (Runge et al., 2022).",{"type":22,"index":38,"variation":24,"imageURL":39,"title":40,"description":42},3,"https://planeateu.retool.com/api/file/afec88ea-040b-4549-a51c-f75cc9a63be5",{"en_GB":41},"Key implementation challenges",{"en_GB":43},"Despite this presence of diverse eco-schemes, crop diversification subsidies face several implementation challenges. Nationally, the flexibility given to member under the current CAP leads to uneven ambition and weak enforcement mechanisms, particularly in regions where large agribusinesses exert strong influence. Administratively, eco-scheme subsidy conditions can be complex and poorly communicated, especially for smallholders, reducing uptake. Moreover, in some regions, the lack of processing infrastructure or value chains for alternative crops (e.g. pulses or heritage grains) means that diversification is not economically viable without complementary investment, meaning specific attention should be paid in subsidies to food system elements beyond primary production (Mamine & Farès, 2020). ",{"type":45,"index":46,"variation":47,"imageURL":20,"title":48,"description":49},"title_and_text",4,"title_description",{"en_GB":20},{"en_GB":50},"Furthermore, at the EU level, monitoring and evaluation frameworks for measuring actual biodiversity gains or dietary benefits remain underdeveloped, making it difficult to demonstrate impact or adjust subsidy levels accordingly (Pe’Er et al., 2019). In order for subsidies for local crop diversification to succeed, therefore, it is essential to harmonize monitoring and evaluation processes and develop a more coherent system combining regulations, incentives and sanctions (Pe’er et al., 2019).",{"type":22,"index":52,"variation":13,"imageURL":53,"title":54,"description":56},5,"https://planeateu.retool.com/api/file/b466ae36-722e-4837-9540-cd11b3d71ab9",{"en_GB":55},"Expert Evaluation",{"en_GB":57},"Experts rated the effectiveness of this policy intervention at an average of 3.38/5.00 (SD = 0.96), reflecting a moderately positive assessment (ranked 10th out of 20). Survey respondents argued that the intervention would promote upstream food system changes by supporting the profitability of more sustainable farming practices. In addition, they noted that greater diversification of agricultural production would strengthen agronomic resilience, while also improving the diversity of products on the market. Nonetheless, survey respondents highlighted that the intervention’s effectiveness is limited by structural constraints faced by farmers, which subsidies alone cannot address. As a result, uptake may be more likely among better-resourced producers. Moreover, they identified a risk that the subsidy could constitute short-term incentives without leading to long-term changes in practices and may unintentionally widen disparities if the subsidy accessibility favors those with greater administrative capacity. The average feasibility score was 3.68/5.00 (SD = 0.92), indicating a positive assessment and ranking 8th overall. Experts’ justifications included existing legal and regulatory framework (CAP), ease of implementation due to conceptual clarity, and relative political ease compared to taxes or restrictions. Survey respondents argued that this intervention would synergize with policies aimed at driving demand for healthy and sustainable food. ",{"type":45,"index":59,"variation":60,"imageURL":20,"title":61,"description":63},6,"title_image_description",{"en_GB":62},"List of References",{"en_GB":64},"•\tHeinrich Böll Stiftung. (2021, May 10). *CAP strategic plans: Germany taking steps in the right direction?* Heinrich Böll Stiftung – European Union Office. Retrieved July 24, 2025, from [https://eu.boell.org/en/2021/05/10/cap-strategic-plans-germany-taking-steps-right-direction](https://eu.boell.org/en/2021/05/10/cap-strategic-plans-germany-taking-steps-right-direction)\n\n•\tMamine, F., & Farès, M. (2020). Barriers and levers to developing wheat–pea intercropping in Europe: A review. *Sustainability*, 12(17), 6962. [https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176962](https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176962)\n \n•\tPe'er, G., Zinngrebe, Y., Moreira, F., Sirami, C., Schindler, S., Müller, R., ... & Lakner, S. (2019). A greener path for the EU Common Agricultural Policy. *Science*, 365(6452), 449-451.\n \n•\tRunge, T., Latacz‐Lohmann, U., Schaller, L., Todorova, K., Daugbjerg, C., Termansen, M., ... & Velazquez, F. J. B. (2022). Implementation of eco‐schemes in fifteen European Union Member States. *EuroChoices*, 21(2), 19-27.",{"type":66,"index":67,"variation":68,"title":69,"contact1":71,"contact2":77,"contact3":80},"contacts",7,"title_top",{"en_GB":70},"CONTACT",{"imageURL":72,"name":73,"description":75},"https://planeateu.retool.com/api/file/771281e8-fca5-4ec7-a45c-0addca312f67",{"en_GB":74},"Jeroen Candel",{"en_GB":76},"Associate professor of food and agricultural policy​",{"imageURL":20,"name":78,"description":79},{"en_GB":20},{"en_GB":20},{"imageURL":20,"name":81,"description":82},{"en_GB":20},{"en_GB":20},[84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92],"production","local","regional","stay within planetary boundaries","sweden","financial","policy intervention","boundaries","planetary",1776437177615]