top of page
Search

Pathways to Climate Resilient Agri-food Systems in Belgium

Reflecting on the workshop held at the Belgian Climate Centre on 9 December 2025


The Belgian Climate Centre organised another workshop in the ‘Science for Climate Action’ series, focusing on the transformations required in the Belgian agri-food production system. The event brought together scientists, public and private stakeholders to discuss decarbonisation, adaptation, health, and socio-economic challenges through an interdisciplinary lens.


Thank you to all participants, speakers for making this event a success!


ree


Summary


Impacts of climate change on agriculture have to be considered in the more general context of multiple crises, ecological breakdown, and the exceeding of several planetary boundaries. Climate change is already impacting agriculture in Belgium today, essentially due to droughts, heatwaves, or more heavy rainfalls. Projections indicate that climate conditions over the Belgian territory will still drastically evolve over the next decades, leading to climate conditions comparable to the current ones in the South of France. Under such conditions, stability of production yield will be at stake, although impacts are expected to be very contrasted between crops and regions. Risks of synchronised low crops, across large regions, and consequent tensions over food production, could also become a reality. Considering that the food industry is the biggest industrial sector in Belgium, climate change will undoubtedly also affect business and imply socio-economic and financial aspects.


Many recognize the merit of a shift towards less conventional agriculture (agroecology-based systems), which would limit the dependence to artificial fertilizers, increase the resilience of the system, and potentially secure farmers' incomes. Mixed farming (crop/animal) has traditionally been an agrarian model practiced in Belgium, which has proven to be very productive. Grass-clover coupling has also proven to be a very efficient practice for natural fixation of nitrogen, which limits the need for artificial incorporation of external material and energy flows. But this practice might in turn be threatened by climate breakdown (more unpredictability, shift of herbage species,…).


Despite the clear advantages to return to well-balanced systems of farming (at the scale of a farm or landscape), many barriers prevent farmers from embarking on a transformative path. The agri-food system remains currently primarily driven by value chain and socio-economic considerations, rather than by the prospect of transforming the sector. Other obstacles include psychological barriers (difficulty to move from fixed ideas), lobbying by the agri-food industry (for keeping the status quo), the lack of autonomy of certain farms. Agricultural activity in Belgium also covers many different realities (diversity of farms, scales, techniques…), so there is no "one-fits-all" solution.


If most farmers are very aware of the impacts of climate change, a break with the prevailing model would also imply long timescales (up to 10-15 yrs). This cannot be achieved without strong and effective support measures by governments. The adequacy of the regulatory framework is also a matter of concern. Regulations in place too often suffer from a lack of harmonisation or are even downright contradictory. It is essential to make the regulatory framework more coherent and understandable for farmers. The carbon credits system raises many questions. While European financial incentives should contribute to a virtuous transformation of the sector, it is clear that in reality incentives currently in place most often contribute to maintain the status quo.


Preserving or regenerating soil quality appears as a priority, to optimise the various ecosystem services provided by soils (crop productivity, carbon capture, water storage and flood regulation, etc.). Monitoring of carbon stocks of soils in Belgium has revealed a general decline in soil carbon content over last decades (which means there is a potential for restoring this stock, and thus for carbon sequestration). Great variations exist between areas, depending on the nature and use of the land. Higher carbon content is typically observed on clay soils or wet soils, in valleys. Grassland dominated areas clearly show a higher carbon content, while more intensively exploited areas have significantly lower carbon content (and thus a potential for improvement). Land use change clearly affects the organic content of soils (for instance from cropland to grassland, as well as agricultural practices (tillage depth, change in rotations…).


Restoring soil health and organic stock can be done by many ways. One way is to increase the carbon input through organic fertilization (manure, compost or other organic amendment), although this potential is limited due to possible trade-off with N2O emissions or nitrate leaching. Another way consists in covering soil with crops (including in winter), or optimising crop rotations, which at the same time prevents soil erosion and nitrogen leaching, and increases the carbon content. Legume crops are also beneficial for several aspects (including restoring carbon stock). The solutions to put in place must in any case take into account local specificities and favour a landscape-wide approach.


In any case, the potential for carbon sequestration should not be overestimated (it corresponds only to a small share of the emissions from agriculture), and this potential should in no way be used as a distraction from the necessary and urgent efforts required to ensure the phase-out of fossil fuels.


Issues relating to the future of livestock farming in Belgium are also numerous and complex. They combine aspects of health, environment and animal welfare, in the context of a protein transition. Europe is the leading exporter of animal products in the world. Domestic consumption only represents a small share of the production (for instance in Belgium, respectively 67% and 50% of the pork and beef production is exported). We also consume much more than we need.


For the future, several scenarios are possible, depending on whether or not meat production is maintained, and if so, in what proportion and according to what production system. Multiple factors (socioeconomic, political, cultural...) lead to a lock-in of the system. Most public support for resources is currently invested in keeping the same number of livestock, and there is huge resistance to deviate from the current system. A central question is how to reduce environmental and health impact of the agri-food system without impacting the rentability of farms. Policy makers tend to prioritize "techno-fixes", which is a way of not touching the fundamentals of the system and favouring the status quo (without opening the door to a much more sensitive debate, including a cultural and behaviour dimension). The risk of these techno-fixes is that they contribute to lock-in in the system.


How to move forward? How to accelerate the protein transition? How to create the conditions for desirable transformations to become reality? To move from the current state of the system to a desired state, some positive tipping points need to be triggered, which requires a coherent policy mix. A model maintaining a certain volume of meat production (based on the principle 'less but better'), prioritising quality and mixed crop-livestock systems seems achievable. On the regulatory side, reforming the nitrogen policy is also identified as a key driver of the transition. It could be reshaped to support agroecological transition (fewer animals, mixed crop–livestock, feed and food legumes).


Given the importance of the issues at stake, it seems essential to open up the debate to farmers and citizens, to develop a shared vision of a transition that is desirable, establish main strategic objectives and create momentum. Whatever path is taken, the new business model must be economically viable and promoted at all levels of the value chain. Mobilisation of public and private funding is also necessary, notably to cover the risks associated with the transition towards a new system. Working on skills, education and governance also seems to be key. Experiences and knowledge are available. Dissemination of knowledge on the art of farming is also part of the solution.


Programme and presentations of the workshop

Below is a link to the event programme and the presentations that were given during the sessions. The workshop programme was established with the support of a scientific committee composed of Sara Vicca (UAntwerpen), Jonas Vandicke (ILVO-Expertisecentrum Landbouw & Klimaat), Philippe Baret (UCLouvain) and Jérôme Bindelle (Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech/ULg).


Programme


Session 1: Setting the scene

Chaired by Jonas Vandicke (ILVO)


Is climate change transforming the Belgian agrifood system? | Veerle Van linden (ILVO)


What Climate Change Means for Belgian Agriculture: Insights from Modeling Projections in Wallonia | Christophe Lacroix (Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech/ULg)

References:

  • Lacroix, C., Bindelle, J., Harchies, M., Dumont, B. (2025). Risques climatiques en Wallonie. Indicateurs de rendements des grandes cultures face aux changements climatiques. Service Public de Wallonie (SPW) - Agence Wallonne de l’Air et du Climat (AWAC).

  • Lacroix, C., Bindelle, J., Harchies, M., Dumont, B. (2025). Risques climatiques en Wallonie. Indicateurs de stress thermique dans l’élevage face aux changements climatiques. Service Public de Wallonie (SPW) - Agence Wallonne de l’Air et du Climat (AWAC)


Grass and clover: green gold to return to mixed farming and resist climate change | Marjolein Visser (ULB)


Panel discussion with:

  • Ruben Savels (UGent)

  • Emilie de Bassompierre (FIAN Belgium)


Session 2: Innovative approaches for soil restoration and carbon sequestration

Chaired by Sara Vicca (UAntwerpen)


Assessing the Spatio-temporal Dynamics of Soil Organic Carbon: Trends, Challenges, and Opportunities for Climate Regulation | Jeroen Meersmans (Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech)


Unlocking the power of crops for soil health and carbon sequestration | Greet Ruysschaert (ILVO)


Monitoring reporting and verification of carbon farming; a case study from the Walloon Region | Bas van Wesemael (UCLouvain)


Panel discussion with:

  • Marc Rosiers (Mr F&A Consult)

  • Goedele Van den Broeck (UCLouvain)

  • Karen Vancampenhout (KU Leuven)


Session 3: Crop-livestock systems and protein transition

Chaired by Philippe Baret (UCLouvain)


Reconfiguration dynamics in and policy mix design for the protein transition | Erik Mathijs (KU Leuven)


The contested futures of the livestock farming in the context of the protein transition. A variety of options in a multidimensional system | Océane Duluins (UCLouvain)


Nitrogen policy as climate policy in Flanders: unchaining a locked-up debate | Louis Tessier (ILVO)


Panel discussion with:

  • Natacha Zuinen (SPW)

  • Enrico Roets (UAntwerpen)

 
 
bottom of page