Approaches to Sustainability
These are still very much at an evolutionary stage in all EU countries. There are
big differences of emphasis -
- 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
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-
The organic movement’s campaigns have also contributed to a climate of opinion which
increasingly demands zero pesticide residues in foods, ultra-
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-
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 -
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-
Whereas ‘organic’ now has near-
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
-
It may be that in future producers of these premium-
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-
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-
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 -
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 -
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-
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-
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 -
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.