What happens to food after harvest and how effectively do EU agricultural policies support these stages of the food supply chain? From storage and processing to packaging, distribution and waste management – post-harvest activities influence resource efficiency, economic viability, food loss and waste, and the resilience of food systems.

As the EU's main policy framework for agriculture and rural development, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) also plays an important role in shaping the conditions for more sustainable post-harvest food systems.

As part of the TrueFoodS project, Ecologic Institute led a comparative legal and policy analysis of nine CAP Strategic Plans (CSPs), through which Member States define their agricultural priorities and planned support measures for 2023–2027. The analysis covered eight EU Member States: Belgium (Flanders and Wallonia), Bulgaria, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden. Using a common analytical framework covering eight post-harvest stages and five sustainability dimensions, the assessment examined the extent to which post-harvest activities are reflected in strategic priorities and supported through planned CAP interventions.

Key insights

• Post-harvest systems are relevant but rarely recognised as a distinct policy area. Across the nine CSPs, relevant activities are addressed through different objectives, needs, and interventions. Rather than being treated as a specific policy priority, post-harvest activities are mainly considered in connection with established CAP objectives, particularly strengthening farmers’ position in the value chain.
• Economic viability dominates sustainability considerations. The plans consistently address economic opportunities through market access, competitiveness, and value creation. Environmental sustainability, governance, and resilience receive less consistent attention, while social equity is the least systematically integrated dimension. Resilience measures primarily address market and organisational risks rather than climate-related disruptions.
• Operational support is diverse but unevenly distributed. The analysis identified 273 post-harvest-relevant interventions across 30 intervention types. Support concentrates on physical infrastructure, processing, market organisation, and cooperation, while handling, waste management, circularity, and consumption-related activities receive less consistent attention.
• Strategic priorities and operational support are not necessarily aligned. Post-harvest needs recognised at the strategic level are not necessarily reflected in the scope of operational support. Conversely, relevant interventions may be available even where post-harvest activities receive limited strategic attention. The strongest alignment is found in areas such as market access, value addition, and producer cooperation.

Overall, the analysis shows that the CAP already offers a wide range of instruments to support sustainable post-harvest food systems, but their potential is not yet fully realised. More coherent integration of post-harvest needs and sustainability objectives across strategic priorities and operational interventions could help Member States make better use of existing support opportunities. This could strengthen the CAP's contribution to making this important stage of the food value chain more resource-efficient, inclusive, and resilient.