Sustainable Food

See Our CAP Commentary on the debate - 2011

Farm Miinisters agree CAP Health Check Reform Nov '08

Role of Sustainability in CAP - F. Fischler

Who gets what CAP subsidy

Implementation of CAP in 27 states, (goes to UK)

Food Ethics Council
on CAP

EFFAT 'Berlin Declaration' on CAP - from EU agricultural trade unions

Quiz
Does CAP make us fat?

Points for discussion

1. Do the new proposals improve sustainability?

2. How easy will it bbe to moniotr environmental improvements?

3. Should primary producers co-operate more?

4 What should the research concentrate on?

From Common Agricultural Policy (CAP Budget is £55Bn = 40% EU spend) To Sustainable Food Policy..

EU Executive announce (Oct '11) CAP plans for 2014-20 that it says will be fairer and greener. Summary FT Analysis STWR Comment UK minsters say it is not green enough

Spelman (UK SoS), pleased it reflects UK environmental lobbying, but says it does not go far enough. She wants the budget to be cut for farmers, especially as food prices higher - although she was against the Russian export ban which has helped maintain those high prices. Spelman dissappointed

Key Points:

Ciolos on 3 elements of competitiveness,
capping money to big farms,
general evening out subsidies across EU,
more money for Pillar 2 - environmental requirements for 30% subsidies (see what we would do with that below); 7% land now fallow - 'doing neither conserving nor producing' - but called 'ecological focus area',
more for research and innovation - linked with farmers,
non agric (ie airports. golf courses) to loose subsidies.

PAST

EU Commission Blueprint for future CAP (Nov 2010) outlined "3 options for the future direction of the CAP, in order to address these major challenges – 1) adjusting most pressing shortcomings in the CAP through gradual changes; 2) making the CAP greener, fairer, more efficient, and more effective; and 3) moving away from income support and market measures and focusing on environmental and climate change objectives

The two big world trading blocks that control world food trade and agriculture are US and EU - the former a loud exponent of free trade capitalism, and the latter an emerging model of social capital. While the Doha round is stuck over the failure to reduce their subsidies, commentatoors tend to blame EU & US equally. Yet each approach the main problem of food production - that of overproduction, in different ways. The US invests in its agriculture, depending on aggresive exports to get rid of their surplus. eg Right-wing Republicans are lobbying Bush at the moment to remove the embargo on trade with Cuba - so they can get rid of their present surplus to Cuba, who pay cash. The US likes to see itself as "feeding the world". Then there is China, but that must wait.

The EU developed CAP to deal with food security aftert WW2. This created the ensuing and inevitable overproduction. In order to deal with this tendency to overproduce (and hence low prices), the EU tried on just about every trick to alter this simple market fact. They dumped and stored, using 6 mechanisms at various times - Guarantees minimum prices set by farm ministers, Import Taxes (Ensures external prices cannot undercut internal EU prices), Intervention (Supports by selling surpluses), Stock Disposal (Disposes of surpluses by other means e.g. Free Food Scheme), Subsidised Exports and Production Control (e.g Quotas, Set Aside). The manipulation of the market madness had to stop.

PRESENT

Farmers now receive a direct subsidies under the Single Payment Scheme. As the Telegraph put it "farmers will be paid a subsidy for owning their land. It is as strange and straightforward as that. They will not have to do anything explicitly "environmental" to get the cash, which will vary from £60 to £100 an acre. If they want to do something "environmental", such as not ploughing up the edges of their arable fields, or putting in beetle banks, or planting new hedges, they will get extra money for that."

Farmers need to comply with complex "Cross Compliance" rules to get all their subsidies. These rules are linked to Statutory Management Requirements SMRs with penalties relating with the amount of subsidy received. These rules came in as the 'Fischler reforms' and require farmers to improve environmental conservation measures, and ensure decent animal welfare - not much above UK legal requirements. There seems to be a general acceptance of this subsidy system. Markets round the world have yet not collapsed as a result and there has not been a challenge re "barrier to trade".

FUTURE

Why not make the SMRs (simpler) and more sustainable with 50% funding for looking after the land and 50% for promoting more sustainable measures? The SMRs could drive more susbstantial - and more SUSTAINABLE requirements, that conform to the overall aims of sustainable deveelopment - more environmentally, socially and economically balanced. Instead of paying for "good agricultural practice", it could be used to drive what we need our food and farming practice to look like in the future.

The Single Payment (Pillar 1) could be reduced to half - over a number of years. There could be a transfer of 10% per year from SPS to Pillar 2 funding - ie 'more sustainable' X-Compliance. Subsidies could be allocated to promote more sustainable food & farming - healthier for people and the planet. Simple as that!

1. 10% linked with reducing carbon dioxide emissions. This would be a good starter as agriculture is NOT in Emissions Trading Scheme, yet is a major contributor to GHGs. So as a sector, it could help meet the EU targets of 2.5% reduction/per. Set an SMR = a 2.5% reduction - either by less emissions or greater sequestration (carbon in soil!!). This could "feed into" checklists/audits etc, which retailers developing.

2. 10% could be for demonstrating healthier food. There would be debate about the link between production & healthy consumption?  While there would be much debate, it is clear more local vegetables would be good all round, yet there is little subsidy to them at present. There is a new Common Market Organisation for fruit and vegetables. Yet lots of subsidies are not good for planet. One suggestion we received - and helped by the Barilla Center for Food & Nutrition is to develop famous food "pyramid" to include sustainability

3. 10% for social concerns. Farms are still most dangerous workplace in Britain, and I bet that applies across Europe. While migrant labour is used more and more throughout EU, better protection should be built in - eg do all EU countries have the equivalent of the Gangmasters Licensing Act? This could encompass "Fairtrade for EU" and "Ethical Trade Initiative" standards/requirements as SMRs.

4. 10% for better animal welfare. Go beyond present SMRs to take in free range & organic standards.

5. 10 % to do more for biodiversity. Could use BAP species as starting point. Farmers could demonstrate x% improvement in selected range of these species.

These are just suggestions to give a 'flavour' of a possible way forward. The big retailers are already thinking this way and this could help them deliver their products. The SMRequirements could be the subject of extensive consultation, involving Industry, NGOs & Trade Unions want from their food. This would provide the Food Policy to determine subsidies. The subsidies use existing money so that the choices about environment/health are made easier for people - ie they don't cost them as much at the checkout.

This form of of control has the advantage that it is not regulatory - nobody HAS to do it. The control schemes would be run along similar lines that have been developed for quality systems (eg ISO 14001) and including Assurance Schemes & LEAF that retailers are driving. It is interesting that ISO 14001 is NOT considered a barrier to trade by WTO! These systems could easily be developed to conform to the each 10% SMRs. Examples of Systems, Standards & Sustainability.

This Policy fits the more social form of capital of te EU. Instead of consumers driving the process in a curious fashion at checkouts, there would be a social construct guaranteeing certain environmental, health and social conditions. The original CAP was driven by Food Security (Policy) while this would be driven by Food Sustainability Policy.