|
Approaches
to Sustainability
These
are still very much at an evolutionary stage in all EU
countries. There are big differences of emphasis – as well as
common elements – in the strategies different countries are
following, as well as in the specific measures they have already
adopted or plan to introduce. They can be classified under four
main headings:
-
National and/or
regional official measures to implement EU regulations and
programmes
-
Additional/complementary
national and/or regional official measures
-
Commercial
initiatives, particularly by food manufacturers and retailers
-
Initiatives by
NGOs
All
EU member states do now have a strategic commitment to promote
sustainable farming and all have put in place a number of
measures with this objective. But, that said, what is very
apparent is that these measures are a very variable mix of
initiatives under the first two headings above, and the overall
approach varies greatly from country to country.
In
France, for example, sustainability is being promoted chiefly around
the concept of l’agriculture raisonneé. This version of IPM/ICM forms the core
of a national programme with broad environmental objectives and
well-defined rules which farmers can join and receive financial
incentives. This programme is increasingly being linked with
various product label schemes that have marketing benefits. Most
significantly it is coming to provide the basis for food firm
procurement protocols and to provide consumers with an
environmentally-friendly alternative to organic which is
expected in due course to supersede existing conventional
production. For more information see: www.agriculture.gouv.fr
In
contrast, Germany has adopted a rather different approach, with much of the
initiative being left to the individual landers.
The measures put in place so far differ considerably from one lander
to another. At federal level, with a Minister of Agriculture
from the Green Party official policy is putting heavy emphasis
on extending the organic area. For more information see : www.bmvel.bund.de
The
Italian approach is in some respects similar to the French, with a
national programme to encourage the adoption of l’agricultura sostensibile. One
key objective of this is pesticide use (or, more accurately,
pesticide residue) reduction. This builds in part on quite long
established IPM protocols – for examples those followed by the
great majority of Trentino apple growers – that have generated
both public recognition and (in some instances) price premiums.
Italy is also the home of the ‘slow food’ movement
with its emphasis on traditional varieties and methods. For
more information see: www.politicheagricole.it
In
Spain, one powerful driver for the wider adoption of sustainable
methods is currently the need to meet the increasingly stringent
demands of the export market, especially for horticultural
products. The danger is that growers and their marketing
organisations become obliged to comply with a medley of
commercial protocols, creating confusion and adding to costs. As
in France and Italy, there are a number of traditional products
that already have strict production codes – for example for
ham; these can be brought under the sustainability umbrella to
qualify for any special support payments, but this possibility
has so far been little exploited. For more information see: www.mapya.es
In
Denmark, the official focus is on food quality as much as on
environment protection, driven in part by the need to maintain
the reputation of Danish food exports. Denmark followed Sweden
in introducing pesticide taxes. Ambitious targets have been set
for organic conversion, backed up with higher levels of subsidy
than in most other EU countries. For more information
see: www.fvm.dk
As
in Denmark, the heavy concentration of livestock and the
consequent water pollution problems from their effluent is a key
concern in the Netherlands.
The Dutch policy on this has been to encourage a modest shift in
intensive livestock to areas where animal manures can be used
safely, and also to develop on-farm techniques for manure
handling and treatment that minimise the problem. The Dutch have
also adopted a pesticide use reduction programme (particularly
for the glasshouse industry which now makes heavy use of
biological control methods); however, the main thrust of Dutch
policy has been to focus their ecological and biodiversity
conservation efforts on protected areas, avoiding measures that
will reduce production on the main crop – arable and grassland
– areas. While there is official support for conversion to
organic, there is no suggestion that this will supersede
conventional production – albeit modified on
‘integrated’ lines - as the mainstream system.
For more information see:
www.mininv.nl
This
issue is approached somewhat differently in official UK
policy. Widespread public concern about ‘intensive farming’
and food safety, exacerbated by the traumatic experience of the
BSE and food-and-mouth outbreaks, has generated political
pressures for changes in agricultural and food policy. So have
falling farm incomes. Late in 2002 the government announced a
new ‘strategy for sustainable farming and food’. This
includes plans for a new ‘broad and shallow’ agri-environment
scheme that is hoped most farmers will eventually join.
Alongside
this there will be continued support for the more demanding ‘countryside
stewardship’ programme,
and measures whose aim is to ‘improve the efficiency
of the food chain’. Where
this differs markedly from, for example, the French and Dutch
schemes is that it does not provide for official food product
quality certification, which remains matter of private
initiatives (except for organic certification which is legally
regulated as in all EU countries). For
more information see: www.defra.gov.uk
What
must be emphasised is that – with a few exceptions - the
strongest pressure for the adoption of sustainable methods is
now coming from commercial players, with the pace being set
by the larger food firms. This includes the major supermarket
groups – such as Tesco,
Sainsburys, Carrefour, Albert Heijn, Edeka, Migros and many
others – as well as leading food manufacturers such as Danone,
Nestlé and Unilever.
While
their main concerns are food
quality, food safety and traceability,
several of the other issues cited earlier (for example animal
welfare) are either included in suppliers’ production
protocols, or else are taken into account separately in the
procurement process. In an effort to regain the initiative, a
number of producer organisations have set up their own quality
assurance/traceability schemes, in some cases attempting to
promote these at consumer level with logos and PR. An example is
the red tractor logo used in the scheme set up by the National
Farmers Union in the UK. At present the situation is
increasingly confusing for many farmers and growers, with a
proliferation of schemes.
Integrated
and organic systems
There
are currently two principal approaches to achieving sustainable
agriculture – in the wider sense defined above.
First, there has been what can fairly be described as the
fundamentalist response of organic agriculture, with its bans on all synthetic fertilisers and
pesticides, and other stringent rules. This has achieved a
remarkably high public profile, to the point that politicians
and the media often equate ‘organic’ with ‘sustainable’.
For more
information see: www.ifoam.org
The
conversion of farms to organic is now strongly supported by the
EC and, to a greater or lesser extent, in all EU member states.
And though organic production still accounts overall for less
than five percent of farmland in the European Union, the organic
movement’s agenda-setting power and influence is significantly
greater than this would indicate. It has, most notably, been one
vocal advocate of the ‘red flag’ policies pursued by EU
member states, greatly delaying the introduction of GM crops and
foods.
The
organic movement’s campaigns have also contributed to a
climate of opinion which increasingly demands zero pesticide
residues in foods, ultra-low levels of nitrates in drinking
water, and the extension of the ‘precautionary principle’ to
the point that the development and introduction of new crop
protection chemicals and animal health products has become
extremely difficult and expensive.
In
contrast to the situation with organic, the absence of a single
set of standards backed up by an uniform and transparent
independent certification system has arguably done much to
handicap efforts to promote integrated
production systems (incorporating integrated
crop management (ICM) and integrated
pest management (IPM)) and the various animal welfare codes
that constitute the other main approach to sustainability.
For more
information see: www.sustainable-agriculture.org
Versions
of ICM/IPM now provide the basis for most of the commercial
protocols that are coming to dominate the procurement activities
of major food firms across the EU – both
manufacturers/processors and the largest retail groups. Since
such protocols now cover a much greater proportion of total farm
production – over 50 percent of some commodities (such as
potatoes) - than organic, their impact on farming and
‘sustainability’ issues is already very much larger.
Indeed,
if the process continues, integrated
production will become the new conventional. In this context a
key element is ‘traceability’ where the aim is to track products from farm to
final customer. However,
the extent to which the various schemes explicitly include
natural resource management and other ‘sustainable‘
objectives varies greatly and is becoming increasingly
contentious.
These
quality assurance and animal welfare schemes and protocols have
principally been set up and run by food processors and
supermarket chains. Others are under the control of government
organisations, farmer/grower groups or other producer-controlled
organisations. Two issues in particular have bedevilled their
introduction and widespread adoption. One is the precise methods
and products that are permitted under the protocols.
The other is the rules and procedures for inspection and
certification.
Whereas
‘organic’ now has near-universal consumer recognition, for
integrated labels and logos this is at best limited and
confused; indeed many of the protocols linked to procurement
contracts have only a trade rather than a consumer identity. It
has been argued that this will not change until the protocols
converge and acquire a common brand identity.
Linked
to this is the thorny issue of price premiums for those
producers who follow a demanding protocol.
What persuaded the organic sector more than a decade ago
to agree on an uniform set of standards (and their subsequent
incorporation in EU and national legislation) was the
realisation that without uniformity it would be impossible to
prevent cheating and this in turn would make it difficult to
obtain the large price premiums for both crop and livestock
products on which organic production so heavily depends.
The
question is whether food produced under an integrated standard
should be sold at a premium is a matter for the market place. It
has happened with a few products – for example apples grown
under IPM rules in the Trentino area of Italy - fetch a
significant premium. Chiefly,
non-organic products that sell at a premium are those with a
regional/varietal quality claim that consumers recognise and
value (for instance Jersey new potatoes, premium wines, Bresse
chicken …).
It
may be that in future producers of these premium-priced
non-organic products will feel that adding an integrated
certification will reinforce their position. This is the logic
of wine growers in Champagne who have largely adopted lutte raisoneé methods. But for the producers of bulk commodity
products compliance with a particular protocol is more likely to
be the unavoidable cost of obtaining a supply contract. The
issue then will then be whether such a contract provides
sufficient benefits in terms of a guaranteed outlet or price.
The
indications that for most producers it will be hard to say
‘no’. In most
cases the grower has to carry all the costs of compliance –
including extra paperwork, audit costs, the costs of providing a
secure store and so on – without any immediate extra reward.
Such costs bear particularly hard on smaller producers
particularly in developing countries. But the competition to
find markets means that over time those producers who refuse are
likely to find themselves replaced by others who comply.
The
fast-growing importance of both approaches – Integrated and
organic – is increasingly evident at all stages of the food
chain. They are
changing farming methods, the inputs used (and how they are
applied), the way crops and livestock are marketed, the
procurement procedures of processors and retailers, and the food
buying decisions of many caterers as well as much of the general
public.
What
is Sustainable Farming? |
