How can Fossil-Energy-Free Technologies and Strategies (FEFTS) be adopted in European Farming?

Abstract

This paper provides policy recommendations for accelerating the adoption of Fossil-Energy-Free Technologies and Strategies (FEFTS) in the EU agricultural sector. Faster adoption of these technologies and strategies is crucial to achieving the medium- and long-term sustainability targets laid out in EU policy. The prepared policy recommendations originate out of the key outputs and findings of the Horizon 2020 project “AgroFossilFree”, including an assessment and evaluation of the current energy use status in EU agriculture, survey results on farmers’ needs, ideas and interests on the adoption of FEFTS, FEFTS categories identified through an online inventory of FEFTS called the AgEnergy platform, and key innovative processes through national and transnational workshops that combine expertise from hundreds of keys stakeholders (researchers, innovation brokers, policymakers, farmers, and industry representatives). The policy recommendations are synthesized and presented in the form of 19 policy briefs split into three main categories: those that are related to energy issues in farming and can be applied to any farm and FEFTS type; those that are specific to certain agricultural production systems; and those that are necessary for FEFTS integration in agriculture in general.

1. Introduction

The agricultural sector in the European Union (EU) is at a critical juncture, facing the challenges of transitioning towards a sustainable food and agriculture sector, ensuring food security and developing resilience against climatic change [1]. The agricultural sector remains heavily reliant on fossil energy and contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions and environmental degradation. As the urgency to combat climate change intensifies, there is a growing consensus on the need to transition towards fossil-energy-free technologies and strategies (FEFTS) within the agricultural sector. This transition is not only crucial for environmental sustainability, but also for enhancing the resilience and economic viability of agriculture in the face of fluctuating energy prices and depleting fossil fuel reserves.

The EU has set ambitious targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, increasing the use of renewable energy, and improving energy efficiency, as outlined in the European Green Deal [2], the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) [3], and the Farm to Fork Strategy [1]. However, the pace of adoption of FEFTS in agriculture remains slow especially when compared to other economic sectors [4]. In addition, in recent years, considerable attention has been placed on adopting sustainable agricultural practices and decarbonizing the agricultural sector. Still, the role and steps required to effectively transition away from fossil energy in agriculture is not well explored. This paper addresses these critical gaps by providing comprehensive policy recommendations aimed at accelerating the adoption of such technologies and strategies across the European agricultural sector.

Drawing on a thorough analysis of the outputs of the Horizon 2020 project AgroFossilFree (www.agrofossilfree.eu), based on an interactive innovation model, this paper synthetizes key policy recommendations and proposes targeted policy interventions to accelerate the adoption of FEFTS in the EU agricultural system. The proposed policies emphasize the integration of renewable energy sources (RESs), energy-efficient technologies and practices, and innovative carbon sequestration practices that reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Furthermore, the paper highlights the importance of financial incentives, regulatory frameworks, and capacity-building measures to support farmers in this transition. By fostering a collaborative approach among policymakers, industry stakeholders, and the farming community, the proposed policy recommendations aim to create a conducive environment for the widespread adoption of FEFTS. This paper contributes to the broader discourse on sustainable agriculture by offering actionable recommendations that align with the EU’s climate goals and support the sustainable development of the agricultural sector.

Such a study is particularly relevant in the present context, as the EU has established several overarching policies to promote sustainability and the adoption of renewable energy and energy efficient technologies in agriculture. The CAP, the European Green Deal, and the Farm to Fork Strategy are central to these efforts, setting ambitious targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, increasing the use of renewable energy and applying more energy efficient technologies and practices. These strategies aim to create a sustainable food system and encourage the adoption of environmentally friendly practices in agriculture [1,2,3]. However, it is often noted that these policies often lack specific, actionable measures tailored to the agricultural sector. For instance, while the Renewable Energy Directive (RED II) mandates a significant increase in the share of renewable energy in the EU’s energy mix, it does not provide detailed guidance on how agricultural stakeholders can contribute to this target [5].

At the national level, several EU member states have implemented framework policies to support the adoption of FEFTS in agriculture. For example, Germany’s Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) has been instrumental in promoting the use of biogas and solar energy in agriculture. Similarly, Denmark’s integrated approach to renewable energy, which combines wind, solar, and bioenergy, has provided a robust framework for sustainable agricultural practices [6]. In addition, there are multiple specific policy initiatives within EU member states that promote FEFTS adoption in agriculture. For renewable energy generation, notable examples include the following: France’s “Plan Énergie Méthanisation Autonomie Azote” (EMAA) that promotes biogas from agricultural waste [7], Italy’s “Conto Energia” that supports photovoltaic installations on farms [8], and the Netherlands’ SDE++ that provides support for RES generation by famers [9]. For energy efficiency measures, notable examples include Spain’s “PAREER-CRECE”, focused on the energy efficiency of agricultural buildings [10], Poland’s “Program Agroenergia” [11], and Germany’s “Bundesprogramm Energieeffizienz in der Landwirtschaft” (Federal Program for Energy Efficiency in Agriculture) [12]. There are significant disparities in the implementation of national policies across the EU and some national initiatives are not fully aligned with EU-level goals, leading to a fragmented policy landscape [13].

To address these challenges, several scholars and policy analysts have proposed more coherent and inclusive policy frameworks. Bojnec and Ferto (2022) show that targeted financial incentives, such as subsidies and low-interest loans, lower the barriers to entry for small and medium-sized farms [14]. Jenner et al. (2013) have also argued that regulatory measures, such as feed-in tariffs and renewable energy mandates, should be harmonized across the EU to create a stable and predictable market for renewable energy penetration [15].

Knowledge sharing and capacity-building initiatives are also shown as crucial policy mechanisms in promoting FEFTS in agriculture [16]. Herrera et al. (2019) show the importance of effective advisory services in the sustainability profiles of farms and highlight the importance of training programs and knowledge-sharing platforms to equip farmers with the necessary skills and information [17]. These programs should be designed to reflect the diverse agricultural contexts within the EU and be accessible to farmers in all member states.

While existing policies provide a foundation for the promotion of FEFTS in agriculture, there is a clear need for a comprehensive study that spans the entire EU. Such a study should be representative of the diverse agricultural practices and conditions across member states and capture grassroots-level opinions. This would ensure that policy recommendations are evidence-based and reflect the realities faced by farmers on the ground. Grassroots perspectives are particularly important for designing effective policies. According to recent research, many farmers are hesitant to adopt new technologies due to a lack of awareness and technical knowledge. Engaging with farmers directly can help policymakers understand these barriers and design interventions that are both practical and acceptable to the agricultural community [18]. In this context, the present study that is based on an interactive innovation model that captures the opinions and needs of hundreds of relevant stakeholders across the EU is particularly crucial in developing policies for promoting FEFTS acceleration in the EU agricultural sector.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Process for the Integration of Results

The policy recommendations for accelerating the adoption of FEFTS were developed as part of and based on the results of the Horizon 2020 Project AgroFossilFree that followed the EIP-AGRI “multi-actor approach”, engaging agricultural and energy sectors’ stakeholders to support agricultural defossilization. A bottom-up approach was used to gather information at the grassroots level. First, the policy gaps were identified and then specific policy recommendations were developed using the results of the main activities of the project, which were as follows:

• Literature review to assess and evaluate the energy use state of EU agriculture.
• Identification and detailed description of the successful innovation processes of specific marker-ready FEFTS that defossilize specific agricultural practices.
• Survey execution to 470 farmers and 41 experts from eight countries (Denmark, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, and Spain) to primarily identify the main factors affecting FEFTS adoption in EU farms and then extract the needs and interests to shift into a greener farm energy profile.
• Detection and recording of FEFTS derived from international peer-reviewed journal publications, EU research projects’ results, and commercial products combined with important training information on how to install and use such FEFTS and financing mechanisms available today to support agricultural defossilization practices.
• Organization of 24 national (three agricultural systems (namely open-field, livestock, greenhouses) workshops in each of the eight countries) and 3 transnational workshops to collaborate directly and interactively with agricultural and energy stakeholders (998 actors in national and 140 in transnational events) to gather ideas on how FEFTS could be integrated in agricultural production systems in a national and EU level.
• Development of an online toolkit, named AgEnergy Platform, where an easily searched inventory of the main FEFTS types would be available for all users, while giving the registered members the ability for FEFTS assessment.

Figure 1 shows explicitly the above mentioned activities, the respective results, and their liaison for producing the proposed policy guidelines to support agricultural defossilization. More specifically, the sequence of activities (in green boxes) and the respected results (in orange bubbles) are given on a national and EU level, respectively. The three main activities on a national level were (i) the survey to farmers and experts, (ii) the successful innovation processes identification of specific FEFTS that are in action and contribute to farming defossilization, and (iii) the organization of national (regional) workshops. The survey expressed the experiences and thoughts of the 511 interviewed stakeholders and after a thorough qualitative analysis it was possible to extract their knowledge about farm energy related needs, the obstacles that delay FEFTS adoption, and the respective incentives to promote defossilization of EU farming [19,20]. The successful innovation processes analysis identified the ways that the selected use cases overcame the existing barriers (recognized from the survey) and managed to apply their FEFTS in practice [21]. The 24 national workshops were focused on extracting additional information about the needs, obstacles, and motivations that all types of actors in the agricultural and energy sectors would require to promote FEFTS integration in EU agriculture. In addition, the participating stakeholders were asked to point out the most important FEFTS for the defossilization of their sector. A shared methodology was used in all workshops and after an analysis of the workshops’ outcomes in different countries, the gaps in existing policies and incentives were retrieved [22,23]. As for the EU level, three more activities were executed, starting with (i) the review of the EU energy use in the three main agricultural systems (open-field, livestock, and greenhouses), following up with (ii) the AgEnergy Platform creation and filling it with inventoried FEFTS of all categories, and (iii) the three transnational workshops (one per agricultural system). The literature review detected the tendencies of energy consumption in all types of farming systems and acknowledged the main conventional technologies and FEFTS that are in use today [24,25,26]. This way, the starting point for agricultural defossilization was set as the cornerstone of this work methodology. The AgEnergy Platform was filled based on the methodology and standards set from the beginning of the project [27] and it contains low-to-medium-TRL technology solutions as results of scientific publications and research projects and high-TRL commercial technologies ready to use in EU farming. In addition, the platform provides access to relative training material about different types of FEFTS and financing tools to support FEFTS application. Finally, the three transnational workshops were used to validate the needs, obstacles, and motivations extracted from the regional workshops and provide extra ideas on further policies and incentives to increase FEFTS adoption [23].

Figure 1. Methodology for the development of policy recommendations to assist the defossilization of EU farming. Each activity (green boxes) produces one or more results (orange bubbles). The above frame considers the work carried out at a national level, while the frame below refers to the EU level.

After the main results for policy recommendations were gathered, an extensive critical analysis process by experts of all the organizations that are a part of the AgroFossilFree consortium was conducted to gather the main relevant outputs. This was largely a qualitative analysis of the results and their importance, as considered by the experts, as well as a detailed investigation into the most common aspects originating from the workshops. This analytical process then allowed for a synthesis of the main results leading to the formulation of a series of policy recommendations presented into 19 specific policy briefs. Experts from the following organizations took part in this process: Agricultural University of Athens (AUA), Agricultural & Environmental Solutions (AGENSO), Aarhus Universitet (AU), the Comite Europeen Des Groupements De Constructeurs Du Machinisme Agricole (CEMA), the Centre for Research & Technology Hellas (CERTH), the Confederazione Generale Dell Agricoltura Italiana (CONFAGRICOLTURA), DELPHY European Conservation Agriculture Federation (ECAF), Iniciativas Innovadoras Sal (INI), Innovationscenter for Økologisk Landbrug (ICOEL), the Instytut Uprawy Nawozenia I Gleboznawstwa, Panstwowy Instytut Badawczy (IUNG-PIB), Lubelski Osrodek Doradztwa Rolniczego W Konskowoli (LODR), RESCOOP EU ASBL, the Agriculture and Food Development Authority (TEAGASC), Trama Tecnoambiental S.L. (TTA), and Wirtschaft Und Infrastruktur Gmbh & Co Planungs Kg (WIP).

In order to validate the results of this methodology, an online consultation meeting with Policy Officers from selected DGs of the European Commission was conducted. A total of 41 people participated and the selected 19 policy recommendations/briefs were presented. After a thorough discussion, the feedback was used to assist in the optimization of the policy recommendations/briefs. Their revised versions were presented at a brokerage event in Brussels, Belgium, on 22 June 2023. After the critical review of the participants at the brokerage event and an external reviewer of the project, the policy recommendations were optimized and finalized.

2.2. Limitations

There are a number of methodological limitations relevant to the present study. The synthesizing of the project results to policy recommendations, particularly derived from workshops, was predominantly a qualitative process. This reliance on qualitative data introduces potential biases, as the experts and stakeholders involved are active participants in the agricultural sector who may have vested interests or specific perspectives that could influence their contributions. These biases can arise from the individual priorities, experiences, or sectoral positions of the participants, potentially skewing the findings or recommendations. However, efforts were made to mitigate such biases through cross-validation and expert reviews. The use of cross-validation involved comparing inputs from different workshops or stakeholder groups to identify consistent themes and minimize the influence of outlier opinions. Furthermore, additional expert reviews were used to provide an external assessment of the data synthesis, ensuring that conclusions drawn were robust and reflected a balanced interpretation of the broader context. Despite these efforts, it is important to acknowledge that any qualitative analysis inherently carries a degree of subjectivity, and the interpretations made by the experts in this study, while informed, may still not fully capture the diversity of perspectives within the agricultural sector.

In addition, the agricultural sector within the EU is a large and highly diverse sector, encompassing a wide range of practices, scales of operation, and regional variations. This diversity poses a significant challenge, as it increases the risk of the analysis being overly generic and not adequately capturing the nuances of different contexts. To address this issue, efforts were made to derive specific results and to connect these findings to targeted policy recommendations. This approach aimed to ensure that the insights were applicable to distinct aspects of the sector, culminating in the development of 19 separate policy briefs. By tailoring policy suggestions to specific contexts and issues and providing recommendations on both an EU and member state level, our research sought to mitigate the risk of overly broad generalizations and to provide meaningful guidance for policy development.

3. Results

This section synthesizes the main results relevant to policy recommendations coming out of the activities of AgroFossilFree. More detailed results can be found in the associated AgroFossilFree deliverable on identified policy gaps and policy guidelines [28]. The results presented have been synthesized into 19 policy briefs presented in the discussion section.

3.1. Research on Energy Use in EU Agriculture

AgroFossilFree research that combined results from hundreds of studies on the energy use status of EU agriculture revealed that EU agriculture is a significant energy consumer and that this sector is considerably fossil fuel-dependent. More specifically, agriculture is responsible for 3.2% of total energy consumption in the EU, according to Eurostat. Energy used in EU agriculture is mainly derived directly from crude oil and petroleum products (56%), leaving electricity second in importance (17%), and natural gas third (14%). Renewables and biofuels account only for 9%. Nonetheless, these results do not consider indirect energy use from the production and transportation of fertilizers and pesticides, something that would increase agriculture’s proportion of energy use in the EU-27 up to 62% higher overall [29]. Another important finding was that the three main production systems (open-field, livestock, greenhouses) vary significantly in terms of energy use, its concentration, and breakdown.

Considering indirect energy consumption as shown in Figure 2, the production and use of fertilizers plays the most important role in energy consumption in EU open-field agriculture (around 50% of all energy inputs). Diesel fuel for on-farm activities is also significant (around 30%), electricity for irrigation, storage and drying covers 8% of the total energy consumption, and pesticides and seeds consume around 5% each [24]. Regarding livestock production, except for beef farms, animal feed accounts for around 75% of all energy use. A total of 60% of cereal production in the EU is used for animal feed, while high-protein agricultural products (e.g., soybean) are significantly imported. Electricity use in livestock facilities is also important and it is mainly derived from fossil sources; however, it varies considerably depending on the production system [25]. The greenhouse sector is split into two main categories in terms of energy consumption. High-tech facilities are also high-yielding- and high-energy-intensive, using energy mainly for heating and cooling. By contrast, low-tech facilities present lower yields and are less energy-intensive, as they use little to no heating/cooling and their main energy use is more similar to open-field agricultural systems with fertilizers, diesel use for machinery, irrigation, and other activities dominating their energy use profile [26].

Figure 2. Energy inputs of open-field agriculture for EU-27 (%) [24].

A series of policy-related needs and outputs from this literature review are summarized in Table 1:

Table 1. Policy-related results originating from research on energy use status in EU agriculture.

Policy-Related Results	Description
Immediate increase in RESs powering agricultural facilities	In order to reduce the dependency of EU agriculture on fossil-based energy systems, it is vital that RES integration in farming facilities should become a priority.
Energy efficiency improvement across the agricultural sector	The first step before RESs are applied in agriculture is energy efficiency improvement, in order to reduce the energy requirements of the farms and integrate smaller RESs in terms of energy capacity. This way, the RES integration will be cheaper and the total energy consumption of agriculture will be minimized.
Shifting to non-conventional systems (organic, conservation)	Non-conventional systems (organic, conservation) do not necessarily increase energy use efficiency (energy use per production unit), but they definitely use more sustainable energy sources.
Unification of small holdings	Large farms, due to economies of scale, have a higher possibility of adopting FEFTS of all types, which is shown in the general positive correlation between larger farms and energy input per hectare. Therefore, small farms should either be incorporated from larger holdings or become members of new cooperation models between small farmers to take advantage of this and invest in both energy efficiency and RESs.
Use reduction in chemical fertilizers and imported animal feed	Since indirect energy use dominates agriculture, it is important to reduce chemical fertilizer use (mainly nitrogen) and non-locally produced animal feed. This way, energy and fossil energy inputs in agriculture will be significantly reduced.
Improve energy statistics in agriculture	Given the various limitations of EU agricultural energy statistics, including simplistic and conflicting methodologies and significant data gaps, our comprehension and accuracy of energy use estimates in EU agriculture would improve with the implementation of consistent definitions and methodologies regarding what is measured as energy use in agriculture. Regular and consistent all-farm energy audits could play an important role in this.

3.2. Farmers’ Needs, Ideas, and Interests in the Adoption of FEFTS in the EU

In order to identify the barriers and drivers for the adoption of FEFTS, 511 stakeholder were surveyed including 470 direct surveys with farmers, and 41 expert interviews that were carried out across eight EU countries. The results indicate that economic factors are the main motivators, with cost reduction being a key reason for adopting renewable energy sources (RES) and energy-saving technologies/practices. Environmental concerns are also significant. Farmers highlight that financial support and access to customized cost–benefit models tailored to their specific farm operations are crucial incentives for adopting FEFTS. Based on these findings a number of key policy-related needs stood out and are synthesized in Table 2 [18].

Table 2. Key identified policy-related needs from farmer surveys and expert interviews.

Policy-Related Needs	Description
Specific subsidies for FEFTS	Economic considerations are found to be the main driver for the adoption or non-adoption of FEFTS and over two-thirds of adopters of FEFTS indicated that a subsidy was crucial for FEFTS adoption.
Sustainability and environmental concerns	Adoption of FEFTS could be enhanced due to the sustainability and environmental concerns of practitioners, which are the second reason for which FEFTS are adopted.
Reshape agricultural advisory/extensions services	Only around 15% of farmers use advisory services as primary sources of knowledge and awareness on RESs and energy efficient technologies; as such, advisory systems across the EU need to be redesigned and become more supportive of “innovation and knowledge” processes from a technological point of view.
Develop lighthouse demo farms	Demonstrate applied FEFTS in specific farms to act as best practice examples.
Support small and medium-sized farms	Very small to medium-sized farms require specific policies to adopt FEFTS in their activities.
Support market transparency	The FEFTS industry could possibly mislead farmers on the benefits of the adoption of such technologies and strategies, and clear information could play a significant role in increasing the trust and FEFTS integration of EU farms.
Tune products for farming conditions	The conditions in farms of all types (e.g., humidity, dust, etc.) are very different than residential, industrial, and other sectors, and FEFTS industry should develop optimized and tuned products specifically for farming environment. Regulatory and economic incentives should be given to them for such a transition.
Reduced bureaucracy and steady regulations	State administration should prepare easily interpretable legislation and require reduced paperwork keeping both steady for long periods to provide a transparent situation for farmers to invest in FEFTS.

3.3. Main FEFTS Categories Identified by Stakeholders in the Content of the AgEnergy Platform

One of the main project outputs of AgroFossilFree is the AgEnergy platform [27] where around 2000 publicly available FEFTS have been curated and published by stakeholders, including a decision support toolkit (DST) [30] supporting stakeholders in selecting the most appropriate FEFTS for their farms.

The main FEFTS categories in the AgEnergy Platform were assessed by stakeholders using specific questions (four general, two environmental and three socioeconomic related questions) and a Likert scale (Strongly disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, and Strongly Disagree). Then, this scale was converted into numerical values (−2, −1, 0, 1, 2) and the answers to all nine questions were aggregated to give the final score (max score: 16; min score: −16) of each FEFTS. The FEFTS included in this process were from scientific publications, research projects, and market-ready products, while the related training material and the possible financing tools were not included in this analysis, as they did not show trends in interest about FEFTS, which was the main target of this process. After sorting the FEFTS list according to their score and based on their categories, it was selected to consider specific thresholds for each category (Papers: ≥14; Projects: ≥10; Products: ≥14) above which a FEFTS could be considered as a popular solution for European agricultural stakeholders. The most prevalent FEFTS categories are presented in Table 3. This process was particularly useful in the development of policy recommendations as it provided a list of the most relevant FEFTS in the EU agricultural context.

Table 3. FEFTS categories identified in the content of AgEnergy Platform.

Papers (≥14)	Projects (≥10)	Products (≥14)
Most popular FEFTS categories:
Solar	Solar	Precision agriculture
Photovoltaics (agrivoltaics)	Photovoltaics (agrivoltaics)	Solar
Bioenergy	Precision agriculture	Conservation agriculture
Biogas/biomethane production	Conservation agriculture	Wind/windmills
Conservation agriculture	Bioenergy	Electricity storage
Nutrient management	Wind/windmills	Efficient buildings
Heat pumps	Heat pumps	Bioenergy
Wind/windmills	Hydropower	Biogas/biomethane production
		Liquid biofuels production
		Efficient vehicles
		Heat pumps
		Hydropower
Additional categories found:
Community energy	Community energy	Insulation
Biochar	Biochar	Building management systems

3.4. Grassroots Workshop Results

Central to AgroFossilFree’s methodology was capturing grassroots stakeholders’ opinions on FEFTS by bringing together relevant agricultural stakeholders in national and transnational workshops to develop community grassroot ideas around topics that included energy consumption in EU agriculture, the main aspects influencing the integration of innovative FEFTS in EU farms, the most interesting commercial FEFTS, the related current and possible future policies around FEFTS application in EU farming, the future changes in terms of energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy sources applied in agricultural production systems, and the possible novel research paths and collaboration schemes. Regarding the eight national hubs, information exchange was held in three multi-actor workshops per hub (twenty-four workshops), connecting researchers, agricultural and energy advisors, and FEFTS providers and farmers in order to capture their ideas and needs regarding energy use in agriculture and FEFTS integration on a regional level. As for the EU level, three workshops were carried out to bring stakeholders from all eight countries together to interact explaining the advantages and disadvantages of the situation around FEFTS in their countries, expand their knowledge about practices in other states and conclude in common and local strategies to increase FEFTS adoption in the EU. The discussions and findings from these workshops were analyzed and synthesized by relevant experts. The main findings are presented in the following sections.

3.4.1. Generic Results

The most common policy related outputs from all workshops combined are summarized in Table 4. The main discussion issues that arose were (i) farms’ energy needs at a technical, financing, and knowledge-sharing level, (ii) obstacles impeding FEFTS adoption, and (iii) motivations to enhance FEFTS adoption. More detailed information is given in the relevant project deliverables [22,23].

Table 4. Key identified policy-related needs from all workshops.

Policy-Related Outputs/Needs	Description
Support RESs/energy efficiency technologies to improve energy effectiveness in farming.	To significantly enhance energy efficiency within the agricultural sector, it is essential to support the integration of RESs and energy efficiency technologies. These technologies can reduce dependency on fossil fuels and lower operational costs for farmers.
Founding agricultural energy communities for optimum use of local energy sources.	Establishing agricultural energy communities can play a crucial role in optimizing the use of local energy resources. These communities would enable farmers to collaboratively invest in and manage renewable energy projects, such as biogas plants, small-scale hydroelectric installations, or shared solar farms. By pooling resources and sharing the benefits of locally produced energy, agricultural energy communities can enhance energy security, reduce costs, and promote a decentralized energy system that supports regional economies and reduces environmental impacts
Farm energy audit services could give a major role to agriculture in EU defossilization.	Implementing farm energy audit services is a vital step towards positioning agriculture as a key player in the EU’s defossilization strategy. Energy audits can identify areas where energy consumption can be reduced and efficiencies can be gained, helping farmers to implement targeted improvements. By offering these services, the EU can ensure that agricultural practices are optimized for energy use, contributing to lower greenhouse gas emissions and fostering a transition towards a low-carbon economy. This initiative not only supports environmental objectives but also enhances the economic viability of farms through cost savings and improved energy management.
Joint training, economic assistance, advisory, and networking should be supplied (+CAP knowledge).	To facilitate the transition to renewable energy and energy efficient systems, the EU should provide a comprehensive support package including training, financial aid, extension services, and networking opportunities. This will equip farmers with the necessary knowledge and resources to implement and maintain these technologies effectively, enhancing their capacity to adopt sustainable practices.
Assist the quadruple helix of innovation to grow in agriculture for FEFTS integration.	Support the collaboration between academia, industry, government, and civil society (the quadruple helix) to foster innovation in agriculture. This approach will accelerate the integration of FEFTS by leveraging the strengths of each sector, promoting sustainable development in agriculture.
Creation of “transfer centers/centers of excellence”.	Establish transfer centers or centers of excellence to showcase functional FEFTS. These centers will serve as a bridge between farmers and researchers, demonstrating practical applications of advanced technologies and facilitating knowledge transfer, thus encouraging widespread adoption of these solutions.
Put forward ready-to-use FEFTS.	Encourage the development and dissemination of plug-and-play FEFTS that require minimal maintenance and are easy to operate. Simplifying the user experience will make it more feasible for farmers to adopt these technologies, reducing barriers to entry and promoting sustainable practices.
Economic support for farms introducing climate-friendly measures.	Offer financial incentives to farmers who implement climate-friendly measures. This could include subsidies, tax breaks, or grants, making it economically viable for farmers to transition to RES and energy efficient technologies.
Reduce taxes for farm RES-derived energy use (especially in alternative fuels).	Implement tax reductions for agricultural operations using RESs, especially alternative fuels. This policy will lower the cost burden on farmers, encouraging the shift away from fossil fuels and promoting the use of cleaner energy.
Develop grants and ease the application to these grants for FEFTS integration in farming processes.	Expand and streamline the application process for grants aimed at investing in FEFTS. By making these grants more accessible, the EU can support more farmers in adopting sustainable technologies, fostering a broader transition across the agricultural sector.
Regulations should not cause difficulties to FEFTS adoption.	Ensure that regulations do not hinder the adoption of FEFTS. Simplify rules related to agriPV grid connections and the self-sufficiency of biofuels, removing bureaucratic obstacles that can delay or prevent the implementation of these technologies.
Policies promoting measurable/result-based subsidy financing of FEFTS.	Implement subsidy programs that are measurable and result-based, focusing on the tangible benefits of FEFTS adoption. This will ensure that subsidies are effectively promoting the desired outcomes, such as reduced greenhouse gas emissions and increased energy efficiency.
Differentiation of regulations between EU countries (geographical, climate and cultural differences + farm size).	Adapt regulations to account for the geographical, climatic, and cultural differences among EU countries, as well as varying farm sizes. This differentiation will ensure that policies are relevant and effective across diverse agricultural contexts, promoting more equitable and widespread adoption of sustainable practices.
Merge energy efficiency and agri-food policies and simplify bureaucracy for FEFTS application in EU farms.	Integrate energy efficiency and agri-food policies to streamline administrative requirements for FEFTS use in agriculture. Establish shared standards among different governmental sections to simplify processes, reduce bureaucratic hurdles, and enhance the coherence and effectiveness of policy measures aimed at promoting sustainability in agriculture.

3.4.2. Open Field Agriculture

The open field agriculture workshops addressed a wide range of pertinent topics. Some of the key, though non-exhaustive, results include the fact that the growing fuel and electricity prices will adversely impact open-field food production and increase their prices, with fertilization, tillage, and irrigation being the most energy-intensive practices. Alternative production systems, like organic farming, often require more energy as compared to conventional practices but these are seen as generally environmentally acceptable as they use more sustainable and renewable energy sources. Reducing fertilization costs through cover crops, conservation agriculture, and resilient crop varieties can reduce dependence on fossil energy sources. Legislative actions enabling electricity sales and storage could revolutionize large-scale farming as they can support on farm renewable energy production. In addition, policies should prioritize energy efficiency, carbon storage, alternative fuels like biomethane, and the effective dissemination of information on FEFTS. Proposed measures for promoting FEFTS in open-field agriculture include training programs, pilot platforms, subsidy schemes, tax reductions on renewable energy, carbon credit schemes, and EU-level incentives for sustainable practices. Policies should be results-based, linking subsidies to measurable outcomes rather than specific technologies [22,23]. Table 5 below shows the main policies proposed in the workshops about open-field agriculture.

Table 5. Key identified policy-related needs from open-field agriculture workshops.

Policy-Related Outputs/Needs	Description
Subsidies and funding for FEFTS	The most frequently mentioned incentive is the provision of subsidies and funding for the purchase of FEFTS and associated technical support.
Focus on energy efficiency solutions	Policy initiatives should prioritize solutions aimed at enhancing energy efficiency in agriculture. By reducing energy consumption, farmers can lower operational costs and minimize their environmental impact, contributing to the EU’s overall sustainability goals.
Support for biogas production systems	Promote biogas production systems that utilize open-field agricultural products as feedstock. This approach will help farmers convert waste into renewable energy, providing a sustainable energy source and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Assistance for using nitrification inhibitors	Provide assistance to farmers for the use of nitrification inhibitors, which can significantly reduce CO2 emissions in farming. Supporting the adoption of these inhibitors will enhance soil health and contribute to climate change mitigation.
Policies for farm-level biofuel production and consumption	Revise policies and regulations to facilitate the transition of agriculture into a prosumer of biofuels. By producing and consuming their own biofuels, farmers can achieve greater energy independence and sustainability.
Support for gradual change in cultivation practices	Encourage the gradual change in cultivation practices, e.g., Conservation Agriculture (CA), through staged implementation and soft transitions. This approach will allow farmers to adapt to new methods while maintaining productivity.
Carbon credits market as a financial incentive	Utilize the carbon credits market as a financial incentive to promote the adoption of new cultivation practices. Farmers can generate additional revenue by participating in carbon offset programs, which reward them for reducing emissions.
CAP support for CA practices	Ensure that the CAP provides support for the adoption of CA practices. CAP funding should be directed towards encouraging sustainable farming methods that enhance soil health and reduce environmental impact.
Subsidies for positive organic matter balance	Subsidize farms that accomplish soil organic matter surplus. This will incentivize practices that improve soil fertility and structure, leading to long-term agricultural sustainability.
Utilization of untapped raw material for RESs	Motivate farmers to utilize untapped raw materials left in fields for the development of RESs in rural areas. By turning agricultural residues into energy, farmers can contribute to rural energy security and sustainability.
Promotion of biofertilizers and alternatives to synthetic fertilizers	Promote the production and use of biofertilizers and alternatives to synthetic fertilizers. This will reduce the reliance on chemical inputs, improving soil health and reducing environmental pollution.
Encouragement of carbon storage solutions	Encourage the adoption of solutions for carbon storage, including Precision Agriculture (PA), CA, and carbon farming. These practices will enhance carbon sequestration in soils, contributing to climate change mitigation and sustainable agriculture.

3.4.3. Livestock

The livestock workshops addressed a wide range of pertinent topics. Some of the key, though non-exhaustive, results include the fact that feed production is identified as the primary energy consumer, followed by transport and building energy use. The impact of rising fuel and electricity costs on livestock production is not significant for the sector, affecting only 5–10% of production costs, thus not driving significant investment. However, rising energy prices incentivize larger farms to invest in RESs, like solar PV and biogas, while smaller farms struggle without subsidies and may cease operations due to unsustainable costs. Participants advocated for analyzing energy consumption across supply chains and implementing energy-saving technologies. Suggested policies include practical and online training, pilot platforms, economic incentives for adopting FEFTS, and policies to stabilize prices and ensure investment returns. Financial support should focus on green technology adoption, with tax policies encouraging shifts from fossil fuels and subsidies based on farm size and RES production levels. Table 6 below shows the main policies proposed in the workshops about livestock production.

Table 6. Key identified policy-related needs from livestock production workshops.

Policy-Related Outputs/Needs	Description
Promotion of integrated heat pumps and PV panels	Promote the use of integrated heat pumps and PV panels in livestock facilities. These combined systems will provide efficient heating and electricity, reducing reliance on fossil fuels and lowering greenhouse gas emissions in livestock production.
Higher prices for low carbon footprint livestock products	Encourage higher market prices for livestock products with a low carbon footprint, similar to the policies supporting organic products. This will incentivize farmers to adopt practices that reduce emissions, contributing to more sustainable agriculture.
Certification of FEFTS in livestock facilities	Develop a certification system for the integration of FEFTS in livestock facilities. Certification will ensure that these technologies are effectively implemented and provide a standard for evaluating energy efficiency and sustainability.
Support for replacing existing feed with alternatives	Provide support for replacing traditional livestock feed with more sustainable alternatives. This will reduce the environmental impact of feed production and promote the use of locally produced feed resources.
Sustainable and self-sufficient farms	Assist farms in becoming sustainable and self-sufficient in terms of feed and energy. Policies should focus on providing the necessary resources and knowledge to enable farmers to produce their own feed and generate their own energy, reducing external dependencies.
Regulatory support for farm-level biogas	Facilitate the growth of biogas production at the farm level by adjusting regulations to support its application in livestock farming. This will help farmers turn waste into valuable energy, promoting a circular economy within the agricultural sector.
Industrial symbiosis for energy flows	Encourage industrial symbiosis for energy-related flows between livestock facilities and other sectors. This approach will optimize resource use, reduce waste, and enhance the overall efficiency and sustainability of energy consumption in agriculture.
CAP support for FEFTS adoption	Leverage the CAP to assist in the adoption of FEFTS, addressing the current scarcity of related subsidies. Redirecting CAP funds towards FEFTS will provide financial incentives for farmers to adopt energy-efficient and RESs.
Stimulation of circular economy through CAP	Stimulate the circular economy (CE) in livestock production through the CAP and encourage increased collaboration among stakeholders. This will promote the recycling of resources and the reduction in waste, contributing to a more sustainable agricultural sector.
Cooperation between livestock actors	Facilitate collaboration among livestock actors to secure higher value for their products and access to FEFTS. Collaborative efforts can lead to shared resources and knowledge, enhancing the economic viability and sustainability of livestock farming.
Combining animal welfare with energy-saving policies	Integrate animal welfare considerations with energy-saving policies to support sustainable livestock production. Ensuring high standards of animal welfare alongside energy efficiency measures will enhance the overall sustainability and ethical standards of the industry.
Specific support for RES integration in livestock	Create specific support categories within policies for the integration of RESs in livestock production. Targeted financial and technical assistance will help farmers adopt RES technologies, reducing their carbon footprint.
labeling for reduced/green energy use products	Implement a well-established labelling system for livestock products that use reduced or green energy, avoiding greenwashing. Clear and credible labelling will help consumers make informed choices, driving demand for sustainably produced livestock products.

3.4.4. Greenhouse

The greenhouse agriculture workshops addressed a wide range of pertinent topics. Some of the key, though non-exhaustive, results include the fact that stakeholders acknowledge the substantial difference in energy use and Energy Use Efficiency (EUE) and agree that rising energy costs will possibly reduce food production in greenhouses. This will drive the shift to energy-efficient technologies and practices, though the pace depends on fossil fuel prices, technological advancements, and EU efficiency goals. The European greenhouse industry should prioritize policies to reduce direct and indirect energy consumption and increase renewable energy production. Proposed incentives include policies, subsidies, communication approaches, information sharing, and training. While some countries have applicable policies, more effective support is needed, particularly policies focusing on returns on investment to promote the adoption of FEFTS. Table 7 below shows the main policies proposed in the workshops about greenhouse production.

Table 7. Key identified policy-related needs from greenhouse production workshops.

Policy-Related Outputs/Needs	Description
Improvements to existing greenhouse production sites	Implement targeted funding, incentives, and support solutions for the modernization of existing greenhouse production sites. Simplifying access to financial resources will enable the adoption of advanced technologies, increasing energy efficiency and productivity while reducing environmental impact.
Financial support for CO2 injection into greenhouses	Provide financial support and necessary permits for the injection of exhaust gasses (CO2) into greenhouses. This practice can enhance plant growth and productivity, contributing to more efficient resource use and lower greenhouse gas emissions in the agricultural sector.
Support energy/carbon audits for greenhouses	Introduce and fund energy and carbon audits for greenhouses, particularly those utilizing CO2 influxes. These audits will identify areas for improvement in energy use and carbon management, helping greenhouse operators to implement more sustainable practices.
Use CO2 tax (CO2 reduction rewards) for green production	Leverage CO2 tax revenues to create rewards for green production in greenhouses. This policy would incentivize growers to adopt practices that reduce CO2 emissions, promoting a shift towards more sustainable and environmentally friendly greenhouse operations.
Develop support schemes for renewable heat and power	Establish support schemes to promote the use of renewable heat and power in greenhouse production. These schemes should provide financial incentives and technical assistance to encourage the adoption of RES, such as solar thermal or biomass heating.
Coordinated approach for district heating opportunities	Adopt a coordinated approach to integrate greenhouses into district heating systems. This will provide multiple opportunities for farms to access efficient heating solutions, reducing energy costs and emissions while enhancing the sustainability of greenhouse operations.

4. Discussion

In recent years, the EU agriculture sector has been shifting towards FEFTS integration in agriculture. The adoption of RES technologies has accelerated while, additionally, more energy-efficient machinery is becoming available and being developed by the industry [27]. Simultaneously, there is an increased focus on finding appropriate ways to reduce synthetic fertilizer and pesticide use through biological alternatives and the adoption of more sustainable agricultural practices. These trends are expected to continue in the medium term as these technologies develop and policy is supportive of these transitions.

4.1. Policy Briefs

Based on the presented results, policy recommendations were extracted about technical, financial, regulatory, and information-sharing aspects of the agricultural domain in order to give a guideline to national and EU policymakers for developing strategies to defossilize farming by introducing FEFTS in EU farms. The main three categories of policy recommendations derived by this work are as follows:

• Horizontal policies that are suitable for any farm type and any FEFTS and can act as fundamental for other specific FEFTS policies to be followed easier by farmers.
• Policies specific to agricultural production systems that are associated with open-field, livestock, or greenhouse systems and related FEFTS and designate the essential stages for farmers to apply them.
• Generic policies refer to actions that would benefit any innovation towards green growth to grow in EU farming.

These policy recommendations were then synthesized into 19 policy briefs, presented in Table 8 [31]. These policy briefs portray current challenges, policy recommendations on the EU and Member States’ levels, and the expected impact of implementing these policies. More details about them are given in the references shown within Table 8 that presents their titles.

Table 8. Titles of developed policy briefs.

Policy Brief No.	Policy Brief Title
Horizontal Policy Recommendations
1	Enabling the creation and growth of energy communities in rural areas [32]
2	Farm energy audits [33]
3	European Low Energy/Carbon Label of agricultural products [34]
Policy Recommendations Specific to agricultural production systems
4	Agrivoltaics for open-field agriculture [35]
5	Alternative fuels for agricultural machinery [36]
6	Precision agriculture as energy consumption reduction strategy [37]
7	Carbon farming for carbon removals [38]
8	Conservation agriculture to enhance soil carbon stock and reduce GHG emissions in European agriculture [39]
9	Alternative crop nutrient providers (green fertilizers/biofertilisers, biostimulants/biochar) [40]
10	Building management systems (BMSs) for agricultural constructions [41]
11	Heat pumps for HVAC of agricultural constructions [42]
12	Photovoltaics (PV) and photovoltaic thermal (PVT) collectors and systems for agricultural constructions rooftops [43]
13	Biogas production from agricultural waste and other innovative feedstock/biomethane upgrading for local consumption or grid injection [44]
14	Facilitating the development of energy independent farming in livestock [45]
15	Livestock building energy upgrading/renovation [46]
16	The use of thermochemical fluids for energy saving and storage in agriculture [47]
Generic Policy Recommendations
17	Financial support to fossil-energy-free technologies and strategies [48]
18	Regulatory support to fossil-energy-free technologies and strategies [49]
19	Technology, knowledge transfer, and awareness-building provisions to support the diffusion of fossil-energy-free technologies and strategies [50]

4.2. Generic Policy Recommendations in the Context of the New CAP

The current CAP has a large focus on environmental sustainability and climate resilience and complements the Green Deal. It also places an increased focus on innovation and knowledge transfer while supporting rural development. The Generic Policy Recommendations in Table 8 align well with the objectives and mechanisms of the new CAP (2023–2027).

Policy Brief 17 “Financial Support to FEFTS” aligns well with some of the mechanisms as part of the CAP including the emphasis on providing financial support for sustainable practices, which can include FEFTS. Through eco-schemes under Pillar I and targeted measures under Pillar II, the CAP can channel funds towards these technologies. Eco-schemes are specifically designed to reward farmers for adopting environmentally friendly practices, such as using RESs and energy-efficient technologies. Similarly, rural development programs can provide grants and subsidies for investments in FEFTS, promoting energy efficiency and RES use on farms, while the focus on fairer distribution of payments includes supporting small and medium-sized farms to adopt new technologies, which can be directed towards FEFTS [51].

Regarding Policy Brief 18 “Regulatory Support to FEFTS”, under the CAP, member states have the flexibility to design regulatory frameworks that support the adoption of FEFTS within their national CAP strategic plans, ensuring alignment with EU-wide objectives, while addressing local needs. Similarly, the new CAP’s focus on a performance-based approach allows for regulatory measures to be designed in a way that incentivizes compliance and adoption of sustainable technologies, such as FEFTS [52].

Regarding Policy Brief 19 “Technology, Knowledge Transfer, and Awareness Building Provisions to Support FEFTS Diffusion”, the new CAP places significant emphasis on research, innovation, and knowledge transfer. Programs like Horizon Europe and CAP-funded advisory services are aimed at promoting technological advancements and sustainable practices. Enhanced advisory services under the new CAP will provide farmers with the necessary knowledge and skills to adopt and effectively use FEFTS. This includes demonstration projects, training sessions, and extension services. In addition, the European Innovation Partnership for Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability (EIP-AGRI), and the EU-CAP network, can play a key role in facilitating the transfer of knowledge and innovation related to FEFTS to the farming community [3].

4.3. Policy Recommendations Specific to Agricultural Production Systems

These policy briefs are unique as they are to a large extent based on inputs from grassroots stakeholders. The 13 policy briefs that are related to specific agricultural production systems are particularly relevant as they promote specific FEFTS. By promoting these, based on evidence-based results, it can be of particular importance for policymakers, especially on a national level, where the relevant context for each of these technologies exists.

In particular, policy briefs 4–9 are related to open-field agriculture while 10–16 are related to agricultural constructions (livestock and greenhouse facilities). Some respond to the energy use make-up of European agriculture. For instance, in open-field agriculture, our research indicates that around 30% of all energy use is associated with the use of diesel for agricultural machinery, while over half of all energy use is associated with the production of chemical fertilizers. As such, policy brief 5 on alternative fuels and policy brief 9 on alternative crop nutrient providers are particularly relevant. For instance, the development of biomethane for tractors in localized livestock production farms could significantly reduce fossil use and dependency for livestock farmers, while development and support for local biofertilizers would significantly reduce the dependence on natural gas for the production of chemical fertilizers. In other cases, the policy briefs respond to the emergence of innovative and new technologies and practices. For instance, carbon farming and rewarding farmers for sequestering carbon is increasingly gaining traction in policy discourse [53] and the relevant policy brief calls for an acceleration in developing a standard for monitoring, reporting and verification of soil carbon stocks in order to make a transparent and trustworthy framework for carbon farming credits application in agriculture. Certain policies that promote and incentivize the adoption of more sustainable agricultural practices, such as precision agriculture in policy brief 6 and conservation agriculture in policy brief 8, could considerably reduce the use of fossil fuels through the adoption of more efficient practices, such as no-tillage, and the more efficient use of agricultural inputs.

4.4. Integrating Policy Guidelines into Policy Processes

It is notable that the sustainability dimensions in the policy briefs promoted by stakeholders are already, in many cases, included in or under discussion by policymakers. Integrating policy guidelines into the policy processes of the EU and member states’ agricultural policies presents both significant challenges and opportunities. One major challenge is the heterogeneity of agricultural practices and economic conditions across member states, which complicates the uniform application of policy guidelines. Additionally, the varying degrees of technological readiness and adoption among farmers further exacerbate these disparities [54,55].

However, there are substantial opportunities in harmonizing these guidelines with the CAP to promote sustainable practices and the adoption of FEFTS. The presented policy briefs and their presentation to relevant policymakers is an initial step and following from this there is a pressing need for more in-depth discussions between policymakers and stakeholders to ensure the successful integration of FEFTS promotion in agricultural policy. These discussions should focus on practical implementation strategies, aligning with the CAP’s sustainability goals, and fostering a collaborative approach to policy development and execution.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, the results presented in this paper can be useful for EU and national policymakers due to the fact that they are the result of a direct interaction with European agricultural and energy stakeholders working in all agricultural production systems through their participation in surveys, interviews, and workshops over three years (2020–2023). Based on these results, 19 key policy recommendations have been synthesized, including horizontal policies for any farm and FEFTS type, specific agricultural production system policies that support FEFTS application in farms of certain production systems, and generic policies considered essential for a green transition of EU farming. The proposed policies should be addressed by the future amendments of the CAP, the RED, the Green Deal, and the Farm-to-Fork strategy amendments and future member state legal initiatives.

The independence of EU agriculture from fossil fuels will require decades. This paper presents the increased availability of key FEFTS for farm use with relatively acceptable costs and the clear willingness of farmers to shift from conventional technologies and strategies to more sustainable ones, but simultaneously identifies several obstacles that hinders this transition. The outlined policies should be effectively implemented with a long-term view, supporting farms from a technical and economical perspective for the transition to more sustainable and resilient EU agriculture. Accelerating the adoption of FEFTS in EU agriculture is imperative for achieving climate neutrality and ensuring long-term sustainability. The policy guidelines presented in this paper provide a strategic roadmap for policymakers to drive this transformation.

The implications of these findings extend beyond the agricultural sector. On one hand, shifting away from fossil fuels in agriculture is a crucial component of the EU’s broader climate strategy. On the other hand, while other major economic sectors have generally made more progress towards integrating RESs in recent years compared to agriculture, it is particularly necessary to implement policies that support sustainable energy transitions within the agricultural sector. Such policies are not only essential for agriculture but are also likely to generate positive spillover effects across other economic sectors. For instance, an increase in RES supply from agriculture, combined with the rising demand for electrified machinery, will contribute to creating a larger and more stable energy market, thus minimizing distortions and benefiting the broader economy.