Photo: Patrick De Spiegelaere
A new European Agricultural Policy The Transition to Sustainability
2
3
Introduction The year 2009 has demonstrated the scale of the difficulties facing European farmers. Milk is not the only sector in crisis. Agricultural incomes have declined almost everywhere. The initial estimates from the European Commission predict a decline of 12.2% in comparison to 2008 1. And according to the European Farmers’ Organisation COPA, the income of farmers is only half the average income in the EU.2
The current European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) proved incapable of solving the problems. Farms are disappearing like snow under the sun and unemployment is on the rise. The climate is warming up, while biodiversity is rapidly declining. Health costs caused by unhealthy diets are rising steeply. Simultaneously, the number of hungry in the world has crossed the one billion mark. The European Union and its Member States have recognised each of these problems, but for the time being, they have not proposed substantial policy reorientations that would be required in order to address each of these complex issues. If Europe does not act soon, our European agri-
culture will be at risk. Who will feed our people when there are no or too few farmers? What ecological and social havoc lies in wait for us? The year 2010 must be the year in which there is a broad public debate to redefine the priorities of a new policy on agriculture and food. Vredeseilanden would like to make its own contribution to achieve this aim. Together with various civil society organisations in Belgium, the Flemish Boerenbond and environmental and farmers’ movements, we are arguing for an agriculture that embodies the three elements of sustainability: ecological, social and economical.
Since European agriculture has become so capital intensive, it has become especially difficult for young farmers to take over the business of their parents
4
1. The European Common Agricultural Policy: ignorance fosters unpopularity The European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is ignored by the press and the public, particularly considering the money spent on the same and the vital importance of the sector.
In Belgium, as probably in most of the EU member states, only a few dozen experts from the agricultural sector can state exactly what the CAP represents. The CAP nevertheless deserves our attention. The European Common Agricultural Policy determines among other things how our food is produced and whether or not agricultural products are dumped into the South. The CAP has a direct impact on our health and on the quality of our environment. Such issues cannot be decided upon without consulting with the people concerned. The European agricultural budget of 58.2 billion Euros or 117 Euros per European is used to supplement the income of farmers, for regulating markets through intervention and support for
exports, investment, stimulating innovation and diversification, and for rural development. The European politicians have now started the process of formulating the guidelines for a new European Common Agricultural Policy for the period 2013-2020. Vredeseilanden drew up a paper in collaboration with a number of civil society organisations, that sets out our shared vision of the CAP. We all agreed that we want an agriculture that delivers wholesome food and makes a positive contribution to the environment. All of us also know that this will not be possible if we just leave it to the market. The differences in opinions in Europe centre mainly around the degree of government regulation required.
The CAP has a direct impact on our health and on the quality of our environment. Such issues cannot be decided upon without consulting with the people concerned.
5
Vredeseilanden and the Farmers Association a United Front?
Photo: Jelle Goossens
Last year, in 2009, a dozen dialogue meetings were held between the Vodo Farmers’ Association and Agriculture Working Group. Vodo is the Flemish Platform for Sustainable Development. Active 3 participants include, apart from Vredeseilanden, Oxfam Wereldwinkels and Oxfam Solidariteit, Bond Beter Leefmilieu, Wervel, Natuurpunt, Broederlijk Delen, Netwerk Bewust Verbruiken, Bioforum, Greenpeace, VELT, and the Africa Europe Faith and Justice Network. Taken together, this is a substantial civil society collective.
Gert Engelen (Vredeseilanden) and Piet Vanthemsche (Boerenbond)
We reached a consensus with the Flemish farmers association ‘Boerenbond’, which is a breakthrough in itself, and we are now sharing it with the public. It was not so long ago that there was little cooperation between Boerenbond and many of these organisations. A number of things have changed in recent years. Both the North-South NGOs and the environmental movement now recognise the key role that farmers and farming organisations play in relation to the environment and food production. The Farmers’ Association for its part is aware of the need for a much broader public support for the interests of agriculture and farmers. At present, the context in which farmers have to operate is far from encouraging. The farmer incomes are too low, too uncertain and far too dependent on subsidies, which again are currently under attack. At the same time, farmers are faced with hefty bills and the need for heavy investment. Running a farm is quickly coming to mean an investment of hundreds of thousands of Euros and more. The image of farmers may well have improved in comparison to five or ten years ago,
but it remains a difficult line of work. Many farmers often live socially isolated lives. Since European agriculture has become so capital intensive, it has become especially difficult for young farmers to take over the business of their parents. They are forced to borrow heavily and thus end up in the vicious circle of farmers who have to pay back the bank. In many European countries, the farming profession has become downright unattractive. Partly because of the financial crisis, no loans are granted any more due to the low profitability and the high risk factor. The downward trend in the number of farmers who are part of the active population in Europe is continuing4. In Belgium for example, the figure is now approaching 1 percent. The impossible debt burden that young and old farmers are saddled with, goes against the principle of sustainability. The solution to this problem is twofold. European agriculture must become less capital intensive and secondly, the investment burden must be shared more widely. This can be done by ensuring better collaboration between farmers through collective purchases of machin-
Since European agriculture has become so capital intensive, it has become especially difficult for young farmers to take over the business of their parents
6
ery via cooperatives. More utopian seems the idea of converting farm customers into shareholders. Different types of organisations in Flanders region in Belgium have agreed on the objectives of a new agricultural policy to the extent of ninety percent: these organisations are the farmer union Boerenbond and organisations working on issues of environment, North-South and consumption—they are gathered in Vodo, Flemish Platform for Sustainable Development. Obviously
there are differences in terminology, and each organisation has a different emphasis. Yet we have chosen to exert ourselves fully to defend the ninety percent consensus, rather than debating about the ten percent on which we disagree. That does not mean however, that we sweep the disagreements under the carpet. We are confident that we can continue the debates about the mutual differences of opinion in an atmosphere of serenity. The full consensus text may be found further on in this file, followed by our comments.
The alternative flow Apart from the dialogue sessions with the Boerenbond, Vredeseilanden is also consulting with organisations like La Via Campesina and Friends of the Earth Europe, at the European level. La Via Campesina is a global organisation of farmers, farm workers, women and indigenous people from seventy countries. Friends of the Earth is an international organisation of autonomous environmental organisations. Like the fifty other organisations that participated in the consultations, these movements have always focused heavily on defending food sovereignty as a policy framework. The most widely accepted definition of food sovereignty comes from the Nyéléni international conference in Mali in 2007 and reads as follows. “Food sovereignty is the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems. It puts the aspirations and needs of those who produce, distribute and consume food at the heart of food systems and policies rather than the demands of markets and corporations. It defends the interests and inclusion of the next generation. Food sovereignty prioritises local and national economies and markets and empowers peasant and family farmer-driven agriculture, artisanal - fishing, pastoralist-led grazing, and food production, distribution and consumption based on environmental, social and economic sustainability. Food sovereignty promotes transparent trade that guarantees just incomes to all peoples as well as the rights of consumers to control their food and nutrition. It ensures that the rights to use and manage lands, territories, waters, seeds, livestock and biodiversity are in the hands of those of us who produce food. Food sovereignty implies new social relations free of oppression and inequality between men and women, peoples, racial groups, social and economic classes and generations”.5
This policy framework has been developed since 1996 and has in the meantime been better supported and even more broadly based, especially in Latin America6. In a number of countries, such as Ecuador7, Bolivia8, Nicaragua9, Venezuela10, Mali11, Nepal, food sovereignty is even explicitly prescribed in the law and debates about the same are in progress in Guatemala, Costa Rica12 and West Africa13. But not in Europe, and particularly not in Anglo-Saxon countries, where the term ‘sovereignty’ is unpopular due to associations with protectionism or even nationalism. The organisations involved in Europe have recently chosen to look for a greater degree of social support. For this reason, they have omitted the much criticised term from the title of the joint statement. The content remains more contemporary and relevant than ever, and the attentive reader will notice that there is little difference between the declaration on food sovereignty and the consensus text of VODO and the Boerenbond – outside the 10% points of contention. The statement is available online with the list of the first signatories. Currently, plenty of signatures are being collected from other organisations that agree with the European Food Declaration. The text may be found at: www.europeanfooddeclaration.org
7
The world of politics has not taken a back seat either All this consultation at the level of farmers and environmental organisations is necessary since the political debates concerning the new CAP for the period 20132013 - 2020 have already erupted. In the late autumn of 2010, the European Commission will publish a first communication outlining the future policy. A lot of work still remains to be done before we can succeed in persuading Dacian Diolos, the new European Commissioner for Agriculture, to broadly adopt the home-grown consensus that has been achieved in Belgium. A couple of Member Countries with greater influence than Belgium are firmly set on a liberal course. This applies in particular to Great Britain, Denmark, The Netherlands and Sweden. They would prefer to have no government interference at all in the management of the European market and trade with other regions. Their position makes it difficult to estimate what emphases the new policy will have. There does seem to be consensus that the sharp price fluctuations are unsustainable for farmers.
Other new and unknown factors are also playing a role. For the first time, the European Parliament will also take a well-considered decision on the new policy. A European Parliament with many new members and possibly therefore, new opinions as well. The file on the future CAP is the key file for the next two years for the Agricultural Commissioner, the Agricultural Committee of the European Parliament and the European Council of Agriculture Ministers. We consider the Belgian government to be a partner in defending the ninety percent consensus of the civil society organisations towards the other European players.
Goals alone are not enough It is perfectly possible, with all the Member States, the Commission and the Parliament, to reach consensus concerning the objectives, and simultaneously to work out a string of measures that do not stand a chance of achieving the objectives. It’s not sufficient to simply formulate wonderful goals. Goals quickly start to sound quite general and sometimes even hollow. The debate on the concrete measures to be taken is difficult and technical. However, we would like to make an attempt to translate the technical complexity for an audience without specific prior knowledge. In the last part of this file, we will examine technical issues such as subsidies and
special measures to protect the environment and the markets, in more detail. This contains Vredeseilanden’s input on specific questions formulated by the Flemish government as part of its consultations concerning the future of the CAP.
8
2. Consensus text of Boerenbond and VODO Working Group on Agriculture on CAP basic objectives Context The preparatory talks on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for the period after 2013 have already fully started and as members of the VODO Working Group on Agriculture and Boerenbond we observe that we are largely on the same wavelength concerning the objectives of the post 2013 CAP. Therefore we took the initiative to set up a series of joint dialogue sessions on the topic. This text should be considered as the result of that dialogue session series. It also represents the vision of the VODO Working Group on Agriculture and of Boerenbond. We have also made a survey of the elements on which we do not hold the same opinion or for which the debate among ourselves should be continued in a more detailed way. For the future of our agriculture we opt for sustainable forms of farming and that option is the subject of the statements in the following text.
Basic assumptions: • • •
The right to food is a universal human right, which must be recognized and supported by the CAP. The discussion on the objectives of the CAP should precede the definition of CAP tools and the establishment of a financial framework for the period 2014-2020. The main purpose of sustainable agriculture is to produce food in order to meet the basic needs of all citizens. Sustainable agriculture uses practices that are economically efficient, respect the ecological capacities and are socially acceptable for the present generation, without compromising the opportunities of future generations. .
The economic dimension of sustainable agriculture implies that producers receive a fair price for their work and hold the prospect of a livable future. This requires guaranteed access to production factors: soil, water, agrobiodiversity, credits, … The social dimension of sustainable agriculture implies that the practice of agricultural activities should contribute to the social stability in society. Farmers provide food, a basic need of all people. Agriculture provides a contribution to various social functions such as employment, rural development, recreation, etc. Therefore farmers deserve respect and need to have perspectives for the future. The ecological dimension of sustainable agriculture implies that the impact of agricultural activities on the environment, climate and nature does not prevent future generations from enjoying a healthy environment and a rich natural environment and that the production factors soil, water and biodiversity are kept in good condition.
9
A. Producing sufficient quality food • •
• • •
•
The European agricultural sector is facing the multiple challenge to produce sufficient, safe, varied and quality food in a sustainable way, first and foremost for the population of Europe. At the same time the agricultural sector must contribute to solutions for the upcoming climate, energy and commodity crises in a context of growing world population and limited natural resources (fertile farming land, water, phosphate, biodiversity). Family farming is essential in Europe to guarantee food security within the own region in accordance with local needs and cultural expectations. The strategic cornerstone for food security is an adequate degree of self-sufficiency in basic products. An adequate food production requires investments in sustainable family farms and a strong agricultural policy that is in line with the proper characteristics of agriculture and meets the expectations of society. Due attention should be paid to the preservation of sufficient farming land in Europe.
B. Producing affordable food • Basic food of good quality must be available for all at a reasonable price. • The supply of affordable food for the weakest groups in society in Europe should also remain a point of concern in policy making. • Transparent agricultural chains can help to achieve an acceptable price for consumers and a profitable price for producers. Important elements in this context are investments in efficient agricultural production systems, sound competition in delivery and marketing and the stabilization of agricultural markets. • As food production depends on biological processes and weather conditions and as consumers need food every day, the short term food supply and demand is not very flexible and hence agricultural markets tend to be volatile by nature. Policy measures and market corrections are therefore needed to guarantee the supply of sufficient and affordable food and to prevent structural surpluses.
C. Ensuring a livable income to farmers • A livable income for farmers and horticulturalists is a condition for guaranteeing an adequate and continuous agricultural production. • A sustainable family farming sector is the cornerstone of a livable countryside providing employment on the whole European territory. • Efforts to set up and maintain livable, well-developed and future oriented farms are essential in this respect. • Specific measures to promote the transferability and conversion of farms are needed, particularly for starting farmers. • The price for the producer should be profitable in the medium term; otherwise the agricultural system may get disrupted. • The volatility of agricultural markets and the trend for minimum prices have a cost for farmers, processing companies and consumers. Stabilizing policies are essential. • The correct distribution of added value within the chain should be guaranteed by strengthening the negotiating position of family famers. A correction is needed to restore the power balance within the chain. In this context, the development of short chains may provide a part of the solution.
10
D. Achieving broader societal objectives • In recent decades the societal expectations and demands of European citizens vis-à-vis agriculture have strongly evolved and still are evolving. Agriculture plays a multifunctional role and does not only provide food but also delivers various services: green (nature and landscape management), blue (water management) and yellow services (social care, walking, cycling, enjoyment, rural classes) and employment. This broadened scope of agriculture provides an additional value for farms, the countryside and society. • There is growing concern to make the European agricultural systems more sustainable. Thus there is growing attention for integral water management and climate change, for energy savings and the switch-over to sustainable energy sources, for controlling air pollution and erosion, for reducing the use of crop protection products and for promoting integrated and organic cultivation methods, for closed cycles and short chain marketing, for an enjoyable countryside offering diversity and conservation of varied landscapes, for sufficient natural areas and forests, for fair trade and production of domestic feed and for more animal-friendly production methods. • Farmers and the farming sector have already made numerous efforts and will continue to make the necessary efforts in the future. A stimulating agricultural policy that takes into account the additional costs of those societal requirements must support these efforts, because in practice there is a limit to the willingness of consumers and of the market to pay a higher price for these changes.
E. Ecological sustainability • Agriculture has an impact on the environment, nature and landscape and in turn requires natural resources (land, water, soil, air, biodiversity). • It is necessary to keep the air, soil, water, open space and agrobiodiversity all over the world in good condition so that the next generations can enjoy them as well. Agriculture should contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the improvement of the water, air and soil quality and to the preservation of biodiversity. . • In order to promote the sustainable use of the scarce resources, the relevant regulations must be clear and stable and provide legal certainty. They must also be supported by stimulating policies, the impact of which is assessed on a regular basis as to their ecological performance. Additional efforts are needed to keep the regulations as simple as possible and to reduce the administrative burden for the involved famers to a minimum. • In its policies Europe has already internalized a number of externalities, more so than other countries and continents. Europe will have to reinforce this policy in order to achieve an ecologically sustainable agriculture. This European policy framework is not recognized by the WTO (Non-Trade Concerns) and may be a source of unfair competition. Corrective measures are therefore justified and necessary.
F. A solidary agricultural policy • Through its trade flows the CAP has an impact on agriculture in developing countries. • All regions, and particularly regions with developing countries, have the right as well as the duty to develop an agricultural policy that meets the needs and expectations of the society concerned and its family farmers. Regulation of imports and variable market protection are integral parts of this. • Trade flows must not be destructive for family farming in other regions. The proper food security regarding basic products should be guaranteed and the domestic agricultural system should get development chances. • Three building stones for ensuring livable family farming: first of all take care of the own food supply in the region, next aim at trade regulation (e.g. with preferential trade agreements) and then smooth international trade transactions according to the rules of the WTO.
11 • A fair and solidary agricultural policy takes measures to restrict the volatility of markets, to better harmonize supply and demand and to enable strategic food stocks. It also supports sustainable production methods and limits financial speculative activities on future markets for farming products. • Undesired impacts due to unfair competition of the CAP on agricultural systems in vulnerable / other countries, particularly in developing countries, should be avoided. • Agricultural organizations must be recognized as the representatives of farmers and their participation is very welcome.
Points on which we did not reach agreement /that require further dialogue? • What do we mean by family farming? • What do we mean by quality food and sustainable consumption patterns? • What do we mean by efficient production systems/agricultural sector /agricultural chains? What do we mean by livable incomes for family farms? Where lies the reference? What kind of farms should be supported? • What do we mean by degree of self-sufficiency (relative/absolute) and the need to avoid structural surpluses by means of supply control? • of dumping versus exporting products that can be offered below cost price thanks to direct or indirect subsidies. • The extreme dependence on imported feed must be drastically reduced. • Genetically modified crops are not wanted. This consensus text is endorsed by Boerenbond and by the VODO Working Group on Agriculture. The following members of the VODO Working Group on Agriculture made a contribution:
Oxfam BBL Wervel Broederlijk Delen Africa Europe Faith and Justice Network Vredeseilanden
All regions, and particularly regions with developing countries, have the right as well as the duty to develop an agricultural policy that meets the needs and expectations of the society concerned and its family farmers.
12
A new agricultural system The problem of the current agricultural system
Photo: Jason Ball
The objectives in the consensus text are balanced and ambitious. We can only achieve these objectives by drawing up a clear roadmap. A delicate issue is to explicitly name and address the weaknesses in the conventional European agricultural system.
In most “old” European Member States, agriculture has been transformed within a few decades into a high-tech and capital-intensive sector, which makes intensive use of external inputs such as fertilisers, pesticides and animal feed. Farmers themselves can overcome a few weaknesses. To begin with, the use of fossil energy should be reduced drastically. The energy balance is far too much on the side of non-renewable (and therefore non-sustainable) fossil fuels that are used for heating, production of fertilisers, and to drive machinery. The large capital accumulation in the farms makes it difficult to pass them on to future generations. Industrial agriculture, with its heavy machinery and intensive fertilisation, is detrimental to the development of soil structure and soil fertility. Our agriculture is far too dependent on the import of proteins (especially soya) for animal feed. The intensive non-land-based livestock breeding industry is battling with a manure nuisance, although significant progress has been made since 1990, particularly through the reduction of livestock and increased feed efficiency.14 A great deal of progress is still possible in the field of animal welfare. Today, the conditions in daily
practice are far too distressing. For example, battery chickens and pigs that bite their fellows and die of excessive stress caused by too many of them sitting together in small area. Another old problem is that subsidised agricultural products are still exported to developing countries, due to which farmers in those regions are disadvantaged. These are all problems in connection with which the Farmers’ organisations, their banks and other commercial departments carry a great responsibility. They have contributed to the creation of the problems. And the farmers have been dragged into this logic. It was not easy to swim against the dominant current of technologisation and capital accumulation. For an independent NGO like Vredeseilanden, it is easy to point out such weaknesses. For a Farmers’ organisation however, it is a more sensitive issue. They would not want to offend their own members. Yet Farmers’ organisations have already explicitly or implicitly recognised some of the problem areas. Farmers have sensitively reduced pesticide use over the last fifteen years.15 Fertilisation is being dealt with more cautiously.16 In short, the environment will now be handled with
13 greater care. More than ever, there is a willingness amongst farmers’ organisations to deal with the problems. However, that cannot be done without attractive incentives, nore, in the long run, without legally enforceable standards. These should be accompanied by a supportive market and price policy. Consumers must also be willing to contribute by buying quality products of the season and from their own region. In comparison to 1990, production of N has declined by 17% and of P by 25% in 2007. This happened due to the combined effect of reducing
livestock and raising feed efficiency. Since the 1st of January 2007, the whole of Flanders has been designated a sensitive area, so that only 170 kg N of animal manure can be spread per hectare. This limits the manure deposit options, but creates opportunities to improve the water quality. This objective can be achieved if animal manure is better used for judicious fertilisation, lower-nutrient fodder, manure processing and if necessary, reduction of livestock.
The Farmers’ profession: a complex profession worthy of respect
Photo: Gwenael Piaser
http://www.flickr.com/photos/piaser/3653288611/
The Farmers’ profession has strangely enough not been sufficiently elaborated in the consensus text. There is far too much ignorance about the farmers’ profession and far too little love for it.
Farmers are professionals who are required to be experts in a large number of fields. Not only in terms of the soil, plants and animals, but also with regard to their machines and buildings. They should have a thorough knowledge of the market in order to be able to conduct successful negotiations with buyers and suppliers. They must be able to implement a very extensive administration system and maintain an overview of the overall management of the farm. They have to combine all of this with family life and some-
times with direct contact with clients, their own marketing, and in some cases the processing of their own products. There are few professions that require such a multitude of skills. It is only possible to do this well because most farmers are large-hearted and are totally committed to their business. Such savoir-faire cannot be acquired by doing a three to five years course in an agricultural college. It is usually a transmission to the children on the farm from father to son and from mother to daughter.
Also consumers must be willing to contribute their mite by buying quality products of the season and from their own region.
14
The 10% area of contention, and Vredeseilanden’s vision Does direct income support for farmers distort the market? This happens if the products of these farms are exported. But without this support, the products cannot even be produced, let alone exported, since the price that the farmers will obtain for the same is lower than their cost of producing the products. The products can therefore be sold and exported at a price below cost. And this causes a loss to the farmers of the regions where
these products are distributed. This does not mean that income support should be abolished. This support is required as long as farmers do not receive a price for their products that covers their costs. In fairness, export duties must be levied in order to countervail the effect of income support.
Is Vredeseilanden against GMOs? Vredeseilanden is not fundamentally against GMOs, but the current GMO developments do not meet the needs of family farming in developing countries. The developments are purely commercially driven and the needs of family farming are of little commercial interest. Current developments are threatening the economic viability of family farms in the African region because the multinationals in question are buying up African seed companies, with a view to selling their patented seeds in Africa. African farmers will have greater difficulties growing and improving their own seeds. More farmers will be forced to buy commercial (GMO) seeds, although the extra cost will not generate any new incomes. Such a trend would further reduce the variety of commercially available crops, with serious consequences for biodiversity and ecosystems. Current developments of GMOs are one-issue solutions that have not been developed as part of a complex agricultural system in which several components mutually influence one another. The scarce resources available to support agriculture in developing countries should be deployed on priorities with a much greater impact, even in the short term: improving marketing infrastruc-
ture, incentives for creating added value in the region, improvement of agricultural counselling, research on various aspects of sustainable agriculture ... We have no problems with government research institutions researching GMO applications under controlled conditions as such, i.e. provided the seeds cannot find their way into nature in the wild. The applications around which research is carried out, must meet the specific requirements or constraints as formulated by the farmers themselves, which can be included in the existing complex agricultural systems. A fundamental objection is that for some crops, it is an illusion to think that the spreading of the seeds can be kept under control. If the wind spreads the seeds over a large area, there is no possibility of combating the spread of GMOs. Then it will also become impossible for organic farms to grow completely GM-free crops. It will then no longer be possible for consumers to opt for GMO-free, or for districts or regions to declare themselves GMO-free regions. Although this is a choice that everyone should be able to make.
The current GMO developments do not meet the requirements of family farming in developing countries.
15
What do we mean by good-quality food and sustainable consumption patterns?
We have not as yet joined the debate about food and sustainable agriculture in the Flanders region, but we do not expect profound disagreements to arise in this connection. But here are some initial aspects. HighHigh - quality food In primary school we learn that healthy eating is not just about the nutritional value of the products, but about a balanced diet as well. Following a balanced diet is more decisive for health than the choice between an organic tomato and an ordinary tomato. Each person must be able to decide for him/herself whether he/she wants to eat products from organic farming or from other quality labels. Besides there is no generally accepted evidence that organic farming products are healthier.17 And those who are not interested in organic products or cannot afford them, can be aware that there are laws concerning pesticide residues on fruit, and that checks are conducted to ensure conformity with safety standards. Organic farming of course does score better in terms of ecological sustainability and has an important pioneering role to play. Junk food is something completely different. How can you make a distinction in a shop between good quality food and junk food? Junk food or fast food has little nutritional value, is rich in fat and low in vitamins and minerals. Junk food has adverse effects on health, especially in the case of children. There are even signs of addiction.18 The words ‘Junk food’ of
course do not appear on the packaging. Not choosing to eat it is (for the time being) a matter of common sense and good consumer information. Healthy eating is a matter of education, and therefore begins at home within families and in primary school. Providing adequate information to children may help prevent poor diets and obesity later on. Sustainable consumption patterns A sustainable consumption pattern is characterised by purchasing seasonal products produced through sustainable agriculture, preferably from the same region. With this method of consumption, we will support sustainable agriculture in the region and farmers will directly experience an appreciation of their products. Sustainable consumption should also be seen in a broader perspective: the greatest difference is made by the choice of transport that the consumer uses to go to the shop: do you cycle down or go by car, what is the frequency of your visits and the distance from the shop? Sustainable consumption is also about eating less meat, avoid packaging, not discarding any food, and waste sorting. There are signs that local and sustainable consumption are a trend that supermarkets will take up. This is what we hear from insiders and what we experience during our collaboration with, for example, Colruyt in Belgium and supermarkets in Central America. The more enthusiastic the customer response, the more this trend will establish itself.
16
The extreme dependency on the import of animal feed must be drastically reduced
Europe imports 37 million tons of protein-rich ingredients (especially soya) each year, for the production of animal feed. This amounts to 78% of the total consumption of animal feed. The soya is mostly from industrial farms in Brazil (56%, of which 70% is GM) and Argentina (38%, fully GM) and the U.S. (6%). Industrial soya cultivation has ensured the disappearance of family farming and the loss of many jobs. The soya industry has devastating effects on the environment. Every year, vast tracts of former forest land are occupied by soya plantations - an average of 37,000 kilometers² per year, in other words, more than the size of Belgium. If the predictions are correct, the demand for soya will rise by 60% by 2020, due to which a further 200,000 km² of forest and savannah will be lost.19 Europe has to boost the degree of self sufficiency in animal feed on the one hand by increasing the production within the European region, and on the other hand by reducing consumption. One solution lies in reducing our excessive consumption of meat. One European consumes ninety kilo of meat per year. 450 hectares of soya are needed to provide for this quantity of meat. According to the FAO, a healthy meat-eater could
manage with less than thirty-three kilo per year and a total vegetarian can live a healthy life without meat. The origin of the soybean scandal goes back to a 1962 agreement that the U.S. has forced on the EU. That agreement, which was confirmed in 1992, makes seeds containing protein and oil import duty-free and limits the land to be cultivated for home production to a maximum of 5.1 million hectares for the whole of the EU . This applies to coleseed (rape), soya and sunflower. This extremely cheap import of animal feed inputs has also resulted in the imbalance of the European agricultural model. Intensive and nonland-based farming developed particularly in the port areas of Western Europe. It was cheaper to import animal feed than to produce it domestically. An industrial development of our agricultural model, which is not based on the ecological capacity, and causes a manure nuisance. According to the European Commission, the agreement has been superseded after 2003, since no agricultural subsidy has been provided since 2003 (although the U.S. do not accept this, so they can continue to obtain duty-free access to the European market).
17
3. Alternative dynamics The new food sovereignty movement
Photo: Jean-Marc Desfilhes
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdesfilhes/303512457/
Vredeseilanden is not alone in its concern about the future of the CAP. A large coalition of organisations from across Europe recently issued the European food statement, which we have reproduced in full below. Vredeseilanden supports the initiatives relating to the European Food two-- track polDeclaration, and is also concretely involved. Our approach is manifested within a two icy: working with action groups, as well as with actors operating in and around the food chain, such as wholesale distribution, processors, traders, farmer organisations, consumer organisations, research institutions etc. Vredeseilanden has fostered these debates through a discussion document written by Tom Lines, commissioned by us.20
European Food Declaration Towards a healthy, sustainable, fair and mutually supportive Common Agriculture and Food policy We, the undersigned, believe that the European Union needs to meet the urgent challenges Europe is facing regarding food and agriculture. After more than a half-century of industrialisation of agriculture and food production, sustainable family farming and local food cultures have been substantially reduced in Europe. Today, our food system is dependent on under-priced fossil fuels, does not recognize the limitations of water and land resources, and supports unhealthy diets high in calories, fat and salt, and low in fruit, vegetables and grains. Looking ahead, rising energy costs, drastic losses in biodiversity, climate change and declining water and land resources threaten the future of food production. At the same time, a growing world population faces the potential dual burden of widespread hunger and chronic diseases due to overconsumption. We will only be able to address these challenges successfully with a completely different approach to food and agriculture policies and practices. The European Union must recognize and support the crucial role of sustainable family farming in the food supply of the population. All people should have access to healthy, safe, and nutritious food. The ways in which we grow, distribute, prepare and eat food should celebrate Europe’s cultural diversity, providing sustenance equitably and sustainably.
18 The present Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) is currently being debated and is due for change in 2013. After decades of the domination by transnational corporations and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in determining food and agriculture policy, it is time for people in Europe to re-appropriate agriculture and food policy: it is time for food sovereignty. We believe a new Common Food and Agriculture Policy should guarantee and protect citizens’ space in the EU and candidate countries and their ability and right to define their own models of production, distribution and consumption following the principles outlined below.
The new Common Food and Agriculture Policy: 1. 2.
considers food as a universal human right, not merely a commodity. gives priority to growing food and feed for Europe and changes international trade in agricultural products according to principles of equity, social justice and ecological sustainability. The CAP should not harm other countries' food and agriculture systems. 3. promotes healthy eating patterns, moving towards plant-based diets and towards a reduced consumption of meat, energy-dense and highly processed foods, and saturated fats, while respecting the regional cultural dietary habits and traditions. 4. gives priority to maintaining an agriculture all over Europe that involves numerous farmers producing food and caring for the countryside. That is not achievable without fair and secure farm prices, which should allow a fair income for farmers and agricultural workers, and fair prices for consumers. 5. ensures fair, non-discriminatory conditions for farmers and agricultural workers in Central and Eastern Europe, and promotes a fair and equitable access to land. 6. respects the local and global environment, protects the finite resources of soil and water, increases biodiversity and respects animal welfare. 7. guarantees that agriculture and food production remain free from GMOs and fosters farmers’ seeds and the diversity of domestic livestock species, building on local knowledge. 8. stops promoting the use and the production of industrial agrofuels and gives priority to the reduction of transport in general. 9. ensures transparency along the food chain so that citizens know how their food is produced, where it comes from, what it contains and what is included in the price paid by consumers. 10. reduces the concentration of power in the agricultural, food processing and retail sectors and their influence on what is produced and consumed, and promotes food systems that shorten the distance between farmers and consumers. 11. encourages the production and consumption of local, seasonal, high quality products reconnecting citizens with their food and food producers. 12. devotes resources to teaching children the skills and knowledge required to produce, prepare, and enjoy healthy, nutritious food.
The list of signatories may be found at: www.europeanfooddeclaration.org
19
4. Memorandum to the Flemish government The future of the CAP The Flemish government organised a consultancy day on the 10th of March, 2010, in order to find out the opinions of Flanders’ organisations concerned with the European Common Agricultural Policy. Environmental, North-South, Farmers’ organisations as well as actors of agribusiness were invited to notify their views with regard to seven specific questions. Each of these questions was debated further on the 10th of March. Vredeseilanden’s input on the questions has been reproduced below. 1. What are the challenges that European agricultural policy will face after 2013, in the European as well as the global context? The objectives to be pursued in relation to the European agricultural policy after 2013 have already been fully explained above. We do not therefore need to repeat the same. Here are some additions and concerns. A difficult but unavoidable challenge is to find a healthy balance between sustainability and competitiveness. Two aspects that arise from the discussion document prepared by the Flemish administration emerge as being in opposition to each other. It should however still be possible to strike a balance between sustainability and competitiveness. Europe has opted for sustainability with an emphasis on quality, in contrast to ‘bulk’ production. Europe choose to stimulate entrepreneurship and to make agricultural production processes more efficient. At the same time, we want to ensure the further development of agricultural production in all regions of Europe. Even regions with lower efficiency than the leaders should have opportunities. Special measures are needed to achieve these balances. Examples of these are supplementary assistance, among other things. We also want to avoid our farms being driven out of the market by cheaper products from outside the EU. Whether these products are produced in the same sustainable manner or not, is essentially irrelevant. We therefore need to further ensure and more effectively than before, that imports do not harm our agricultural development. This however is not possible under the current arrangements of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Europe must therefore insist on the review of these agreements. This is also in the interest of developing sustainable family farming worldwide. In the short term, it is necessary for developing countries to be able to protect their markets against cheap imports. It essentially does not matter in this connection whether the products are subsidised or not. For our own agriculture, the future export potential lies mainly in our quality products, and no longer in the export of bulk. In fairness, subsidies may not be used for the same. Such agreements should also be made with the WTO. 22a. How should the resources for agriculture evolve? How can European funds for agriculture be justified in the future? • The social expectations from agriculture are considerable. Agriculture has to satisfy the three dimensions of sustainability to a large extent: economically, ecologically and socially. That transition to greater sustainability cannot occur without deploying the necessary resources for the same. This is not only the role and the task of the agricultural sector, but a responsibility that society as a whole must bear, and for which the necessary funding should also be made available. • Agriculture would need far fewer resources if agricultural product prices cover all the farmers’ costs, including labour and external costs. European funds can then be used to optimally guide the transition to more sustainability. But it would currently be dangerous and even disastrous to eliminate or drastically reduce agricultural subsidies because the markets are liberalised, and prices for farmers are often below their production costs. • The additional efforts that farmers provide for the benefit of the environment (such as landscape maintenance, extra efforts in terms of nature or biodiversity) must be regarded as services. The ‘client’ (in this case the government) must pay for these services. These services should not be
20
seen as support to agriculture, and should be paid as services for public goods. • There are far too many risks involved in making the future of our agriculture dependent on subsidies. Politics can reduce or eliminate subsidies based on a lack of affinity with agriculture, from ideological considerations, due to fund shortages, or due to bad experiences with subsidies that have been spent in a fraudulent, unethical or unsustainable way, for example. • In no sector is it permissible to sell below cost. This should also not happen in the agricultural sector. It will only increase the attractiveness of the sector if farmers are no longer seen as beneficiaries of public support, but as versatile entrepreneurs who derive an income based on market prices. 2b. How should the distribution of CAP funds evolve between Pillar I and Pillar II? At present, a distinction is made in the agricultural budget between supported agriculture (Pillar I) for rural development (Pillar II). • We propose to maintain a single pillar that can guide our entire agricultural system to achieve the objectives described above. An agricultural policy based on two pillars involves the risk of stimulating a dual development of the agricultural sector, with an industrial model supported by Pillar I on the one hand, and an agro-ecological model supported by Pillar II, on the other. • If however, it is decided to maintain two pillars, the funds from the first pillar could be used to compensate for differences in performance between the different regions and help disadvantaged areas to progress. The European Union wants to maintain and to further develop a broad agricultural base, being aware that there are major differences between the agricultural model of new Member States like Romania and Bulgaria on the one hand, and modern farms in Western Europe on the other. The major challenge for the EU is to offer all the opportunities for development in spite of the great diversity within the different regions. If the first pillar contributes to this, the funds for the second pillar could be spent to achieve the objectives described above. Such region-specific premium rights should include incentives to evolve towards greater sustainability and higher performance. They should not reduce the farmers in those regions to passive gratuity collectors. If the gratuity rights are partly funded by co-financing the concerned Member States, there is a risk that they will not be able to provide the necessary budgets, and may thereby jeopardise this compromise solution. 3. How can the CAP contribute to a more innovative, competitive and environmentally sustainable agricultural sector? • We want a significant proportion of the food that Europeans consume to be produced within the European region. Moreover, we want to maintain agriculture in all the regions of the EU. We have therefore to ensure that we are not driven out of the market by cheaper products from elsewhere. In order to reconcile these different aspects with each other, we must try to find a delicate balance. First, performance/competitiveness and sustainability must be ensured; secondly, the CAP should maintain an extensive and diversified base of farmers in order to satisfy consumer demand. • There is also an area of tension between competitiveness and sustainability, and it is no easy task to find the right balance between the two. It is essential that farms operate more efficiently and that entrepreneurship is further encouraged. The annual exodus from the farmer’s profession, as is seen in Western Europe, should come to an end. • Supporting the family farm would help break the trend. The agricultural profession must again be made economically and socially attractive so that the negative spiral will be stopped and young, enthusiastic people will again be motivated to choose the farmer’s profession. • The EU has opted for ecological and social sustainability, a method of farming that entails additional costs. That is a choice on which we must insist, despite the fact that it results in a competitive disadvantage over other regions that have not opted for sustainability, and regions with the same sustainability standards but with a lower cost structure. We must therefore apply the same sustainability criteria for imports. • The same differences in performance and competitiveness can be found within the EU itself. We are assuming that the agricultural models of the newest Member States will undergo a major evolution over the next few decades, and that it will not be possible to sustain super-small-scale
21
farms. It is necessary that they can be offered alternative employment opportunities, but in the worst case, social security nets as well. The development of the farms into economically, socially and ecologically performing farms in the wider European context must be provided with every opportunity for success. It will not be easy to achieve this in a way that also offers economically and socially attractive prospects to those who are leaving the agricultural sector. • The authorities have the task of encouraging and promoting best practices for each of the three dimensions of sustainability. 4. Is direct income support for farmers in the long term justified? Is the reform of direct aid desirable, and if so, in what direction? Are the new opportunities for specific, targeted assistance (Article 68) a good or bad development? As already stated under 2, it is much better that in the future, agriculture should not depend on subsidies - including direct payments - except in the short term, as long as farmers are unable to get their income from the market. We will have to provide a solution for the market-distorting effect of direct income support when products are exported. But without such support, the products cannot even be produced, let alone exported, since the price that the farmers will obtain for the same is lower than their cost of producing those products. The products can therefore be sold and exported at a price below cost. And this causes a loss to the farmers of the regions where these products are distributed. Vredeseilanden recently funded a study on how the European dairy sector affects the development potential of the African dairy industry.21 This does not mean that income support should be abolished. The support is required as long as farmers do not receive a price for their products that covers their costs. In fairness, export duties must be levied in order to countervail the effect of income support. Export of agricultural products is of vital economic importance to the agricultural sector in Flanders, and for the EU as a whole as well. A ruthless economic logic applies when playing external markets. Assuming that the EU alone will be applying fair trade principles, the market will be usurped in no time by others with fewer scruples about dumping, ethics or sustainability. Such steps are preceded by conclusive agreements at the international level. The WTO is the appropriate forum for the same. But such agreements can only be concluded if Europe holds its ground. You cannot simultaneously ask for protection for your own market, while at the same time you export with direct or indirect support. It is almost impossible to have such a conclusive agreement in the short term. Hence the need to allow at least developing countries the opportunity to protect their own markets against cheap imports whether or not they are subsidised. 5. When and how should Europe intervene in market operation? Is there still need for a safety net for crises, and what would that look like? Are improvements in the market operation possible? How must the CAP respond to this? A stable market operation ensures that prices do not fluctuate excessively and that they always remain above production cost. In order to achieve this, we have to combine supply management with tools that regulate market access to third countries. This certainly applies for example to the grain, dairy and sugar sectors, which face strong competition from third countries, and in which the internal competition within the EU itself could lead to downward price spirals. The challenge will be to allow the internal market to operate freely as much as possible, i.e. to allow the price to be set through supply and demand forces. In After application of tools for supply management and to give access to the EU market, we assume the total production volumes circulating in the European market will better match the consumption levels and that little government intervention is needed to maintain the price paid to the producer above the production costs. The government may impose a minimum price to achieve this. A suitable formula for supply management may be developed based on the lessons we have learned from experience with the quota systems for milk and sugar. The following imperfections of the milk quota system should be corrected in a future system. • The quota must be spread over the European territory in a more balanced way. A complex matter, since some regions of the EU are more suitable for certain crops than others, and ideally this should be taken into account. The Mediterranean countries for example are less suitable for the
22
production of sugar beets than the Western European countries. The need for irrigation is making cultivation more costly and environmentally damaging. • When granting production rights, the development toward more sustainability should be built-in. • Ways must be sought that do not entail additional capital for obtaining quotas. • Speculation on quotas (i.e. the purchase or sale of quotas in anticipation of expected increases or decreases in price) only provides income for financial speculators, with no added value to the sector, and should be prohibited. 6. How should the CAP contribute to vitality in rural areas, and in rural areas facing strong urbanisation pressures? The proximity of urban and rural areas in Flanders provides excellent opportunities for reciprocity and synergy. We are thinking of short links between farmers and consumers in the vicinity of the cities, farm shops in the city, farmhouse visits by urban dwellers, processing and sale on the farm, including through partnerships with other farmers. Such intensive contact options offer a strong foundation for mutual respect, better understanding of each other’s expectations and limitations. Farmers obtain more appreciation for their work, and are more motivated to provide quality products. It encourages them to take extra efforts to ensure greater sustainability. If there is more contact between farmers and other people, it will also be easier to approach farmers to become part of community life. The high pressure for urbanisation is also expressed in the great demand for land. Farmers feel compelled to join in the competition for housing and recreation space requirements. The use of the land should remain affordable for farmers in the future as well. Rural development is a catch-all concept that comprises very diverse activities, ranging from village centre modernization, farm walks, through to the restoration of the agricultural heritage. There is need for a debate about the components that should be financed from the agricultural budget, and components that can be funded with other budgets.
23
References 1
Figures from the European Commission (December 2009): http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=STAT/09/186&type=HTML
2
http://agritrade.cta.int/en/Key-topics/CAP-reform/News/Farm-incomes-down-12
3
Not all of these organisations have actively participated in the dialogue sessions. The active participants have been mentioned below the consensus text. 4
Between 1995 and 2005, the number of farms in the EU15 fell from 7.4 million to 5.8 million. Between 2003 and 2007, that number in the EU27 fell from 15 million to 13.7 million – Source: Eurostat, see http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/agriculture/data/main_tables
5
http://www.nyeleni.org/spip.php?article290
6
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mundo/america_latina/2009/11/091009_soberania_alimentaria_pea.shtml
7
http://www.economiasolidaria.org/files/Ley_Soberania_Alimentaria_Ecuador.pdf
8
http://www.tinku.org/content/view/3372/4/1/5/ - article 407
9
http://www.grassrootsonline.org/news/articles/nicaragua-peasant-movement-achieves-milestoneroad-towards-food-sovereignty 10
Ley Aprobatoria del Acuerdo de Seguridad y Soberanía Alimentaria de los Países Miembros de Petorcaribe y el ALBA, ALBA Alimentos. http://ve.vlex.com/vid/soberania-alimentaria-petorcaribe-alba-57832085 11
http://loa-mali.info/spip.php?article5907 – zie titre 3
12
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mundo/america_latina/2009/11/091009_soberania_alimentaria_pea.shtml
13
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/55/2/38525905.pdf
14
Compared to 1990, production of N fell by 17% and of P by 25% in 2007. This happened due to the combined effect of reducing livestock and raising feed efficiency. Since the 1st of January 2007, the whole of Flanders has been designated a sensitive area, so that only 170 kg N of animal manure can be spread per hectare. This limits the manure sale options. This creates opportunities to improve the water quality. This objective can be achieved if animal manure is better used for judicious fertilisation, lowernutrient fodder, manure processing and if necessary, reduction of livestock. See http://www.milieurapport.be/nl/feiten-cijfers/MIRA-T/sectoren/landbouw/dierlijke-mestproductie/ dierlijke-mestproductie-in-de-landbouw/ 15 De The pressure on marine life due to crop protection has achieved the target for 2005 in 2002 and 2003: 50% reduction compared to 1990. The decline stems from a ban on using the most environmentally harmful pesticides. But a slight increase was recorded for 2005. Missing statistics prevents an upto-date review of policy on plant protection. See http://www.milieurapport.be/nl/feiten-cijfers/MIRAT/sectoren/landbouw/eco-efficientie-van-de-landbouw/eco-efficientie-van-de-landbouw/ 16
The acidification and eutrophication emissions decreased by 28% and 67% during the period 20002007. The driving forces behind this decline were the manure policy implemented and the economic climate. This was manifested in a declining herd size. The fertiliser policy led to a decline in the use of fertiliser, the application of low-emission technologies, a lower nutrient content in the feed and increase in manure processing. See http://www.milieurapport.be/nl/feiten-cijfers/MIRA-T/sectoren/ landbouw/eco-efficientie-van-de-landbouw/eco-efficientie-van-de-landbouw/ 17
http://www.organicfqhresearch.org/downloads/homepage/nut_qual_organic_foods_ajcn_09.pdf
18
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/48605/title/Junk_food_turns_rats_into_addicts
19
Aurélie Billon, ENESAD Dijon ; Emmanuelle Neyroumande, Cyrille Deshayes, WWF-France; Janvier 2009; Vers plus d’indépendance en soja d’importation pour l’alimentation animale en Europe - cas de la France 20
see http://www.epfs.eu/uploads/documents/EPFS%20research%2009%2003%2019%20Discussion% 20paper.pdf 21
The CAP’s impact on African agriculture: focus on milk; GRET, Charlotte Fontan Sers, March 2010
24
Editor: Editor Gert Engelen, Vredeseilanden Final editing: editing Jan Bosteels
March 2010
Foto: Patrick De Spiegelaere