View Research Topics | View Complete Article List | Visit the Library
Changing Roles of European Producers
2007-11-04
Changing Roles of European Producers by Cees D. Roele, Consultant on Sustainable Rural Development Throughout Europe we are seeing an evolution in the roles agricultural producers are expected to play. Many of these changes revolve around an intense, on-going discussion of the need for "sustainable agriculture." However, the meaning of sustainability differs in different countries. In northwestern Europe, talking about "sustainability" is commonly considered as being a discussion about environmental affairs. In southern Europe, more attention is paid to social aspects. The discussion about sustainability can also be divided into two "mental maps": one group of people is in search of concrete, consistent and scientific definitions of "what sustainability is." The other group considers sustainability more as a process, even a political or societal process. We have seen difficulties in understanding between those two mental maps. Still, there is a growing consensus that sustainability, however defined, is the key to agriculture’s future. Some developments in European agriculture Since World War II the importance of agriculture to the rural economy of Europe has declined enormously. In most of Europe, agriculture now accounts for only 10-15% of the economy in rural areas. So there is an important difference between the economic position of agriculture and the use of land: for instance, 70% of the land in the Netherlands is agricultural, but only 5% of their GNP is agricultural (primary sector). Especially in areas near urban concentrations there is a political and social tension between values like biodiversity and landscape (bound to land use) and social welfare and income (bound to GNP). The distinction between land use and income is most striking when we note that the major part of agricultural earnings is made in horticulture and intensive livestock, two sub-sectors which use very little land. Because of high land prices, there has been a tendency to intensify production as much as possible. During the last decade, the dairy sector underwent a move towards a more landless approach (zero-grazing). It might be that two "sub-sectors" will emerge in dairy-farming: huge farms with only a little land and cows in the stables, and a sector of smaller farms with more land and cows in the meadow. These smaller farms will also depend on other income sources such as tourism. Throughout Europe, but especially in the Netherlands, because of the dense population and the competition for roads, towns, natural space and recreational development, there is tremendous pressure on agriculture. This pressure is increased due to the tension between the expectations of "the citizen" and "the consumer" as two faces of mankind. The citizen expects animal welfare, care for the environment, a nice landscape, and if possible an organic agriculture. On the other hand, the consumer is not always prepared to pay a proper price for these demands. Many producers feel themselves sandwiched between these two expectations, often mentioning that foreign competitors can sell food at lower prices since they have fewer environmental rules. Sometime this is true, sometimes not. Psychologically, many farmers feel trapped between the supermarket (as a representative of the consumer) and the government (as a representative of the citizen). Farmers are also considered by non-farmers to have two faces: one as an entrepreneur, focused on maximum profit, the other as a peasant of Arcadia, living in a wonderful area, taking care of lambs and green meadows, and so on. Changes in expectations of producers translate into political agendas which demand that producers guarantee food safety; maintain an attractive visual landscape and natural spaces for leisure and recreation; protect the welfare of animals; significantly decrease the amount of pesticides and manure they use; and keep sufficiently accurate and detailed records to maintain transparency and traceability in production. These new requirements on producers come without significant new sources of compensation from either government or the marketplace. Environmental Problems The use of pesticides per hectare is high in the Netherlands. It is about double compared with the European average. However, the amount of pesticides per kilo of agricultural produce it on average one of the lowest within the European Union (EU). During the 1990s the aim was a reduction of around 50%. A recent covenant between most stakeholders gave new impetus to the reduction plan. It is important that environmental groups, water companies as well as producer groups participate in these discussions together. Results have been quite good till now, but there are persistent problems in potatoes, in flower bulbs and some of the smaller crops. Since the pesticide use per farmer shows huge differences, there is still a high potential for reduction of the use. One of the problems we face is the development of new, less harmful pesticides, especially helpful for organic farmers or for small crops. But global companies are often not interested in dealing with these needs because of low returns. Water pollution is often diminished by adopting "crop free zones" and by using specialized spraying equipment on land. Also, spraying in high winds is forbidden. At present in Great Britain and the Netherlands, animal welfare is the most striking item in the public debate over sustainable agriculture. Animal welfare organizations have been concentrating their attention mainly on the surface per chicken in poultry farming and on the use of animals for fur-production. In the coming decade the existing cage system in poultry farming will be phased out. The first step is to enlarge the surface per chicken. Since the 1970s, a lot of attention has been paid to the struggle over the landscape. Prior to that, it was agreed that producers needed the landscape for food production; they typically had large, straight parcels and (low) water levels, adapted to agriculture. The report of the Club of Rome and the activities of the environmental movement gave impetus to maintenance of the landscape and, even more, natural values. After a period of fierce struggle, an integrated policy was initiated, creating in certain areas a nature management fee for farmers. The Center for Agriculture and Environment (CLM), a private institute, has been very important, since it brings progressive farmers and environmentalists together to invent new methods of cooperation and coexistence. There are still conflicts, but on a more rational level dealing with the targets of nature policy. Transparency for the Consumer: Labeling Both the consumer and the citizen want to know how food products are produced and who is responsible. There have recently been very intense discussions throughout Europe over the question of labeling. The options are very different. Supermarkets have an interest in building up their own supermarket name brand. Food processors try to establish their own brands. Neither of these groups is very interested in having labeling legislation. Many environmental, organic, consumer and animal welfare groups are promoting non-company labels. Though they have made some headway, these labels face several problems: there are ongoing discussions about criteria for inclusion; producers have to participate in the costs; advertising is still limited due to limited funding; and the attitude of big food processors and supermarkets is not always supportive. Who Will Set the Standards? The bottom line under the present discussion is the question of who controls the market. Will it be the food processors and the supermarkets or will it be more in the hands of the government in cooperation with some NGOs? Labeling has become a global affair. Supermarkets with world-wide buying capacity need an efficient global system. They came up with the EUREPGAP concept, a certifying system to guarantee that food products are produced according to national laws in the country of production. This means that products still are produced with different standards but all according to their own national law. However, it also means that supermarkets are attempting to take control of setting and enforcing production standards. This is a severe point of contention for several governments. In the future it is thinkable that EUREPGAP will set its own international standards. For the time being we only can expect more confusion on the role of the market sector and the governmental sector, which might even lead to discussions at the WTO level. One thing must be kept in mind: he who sets the standards is in the driver’s seat, and has both the responsibility and the power to define acceptable practices. The Social Agenda In the Netherlands, deserted areas do not present the problem faced by many European countries. Deserted lands were one of the key reasons to establish a rural policy separate from agricultural policy. In the highly populated areas of Europe, urban society has a need for rest and recreation. This means that all rural houses and farmhouses can be sold easily. Land near towns is very expensive. Still this does not mean there are no problems in rural areas. Rural income levels are often low. In certain areas, the level of services (shops, medical care and public transport) is declining. In other areas, social organizations (local social structures, local associations) are at the end of their lifecycle. Traditional rural society near big towns is also under pressure. The question is whether this rural culture is worth maintaining and, if so, how this can be done. Within agriculture, some producers have decided to redirect their activities from pure production towards recreation, social care, nature management and other activities. From the point of view of income, at least one third of Dutch farmers depend on these activities or on the income of their partner, working off the farm. The tendency of farmers to depend on off-farm income to sustain food production is also very strong in other parts of Europe. Discussion within the agricultural world is fierce. After many years of having one common goal—efficient food production—there are now a great many goals and this means there are also many different interests to serve. A European Agricultural Policy Since there is a European Agricultural policy as well as a European Trade policy, over the past 30 years the national policies within Europe have become less important. However, the shift away from a market and prices policy towards an income support policy (and with that also a shift towards a rural development policy) brought back discussion about the need for central (EU level) policy making versus the autonomy of member countries. With ten new countries joining the European Union in 2004, there are many uncertainties about agricultural policies, not only about what the policy should be, but also how it should be executed and what will be the role of local and national governmental bodies in financing and setting targets. Despite the new uncertainties, the major changes begun in 1992 are still visible, and every three to four years it seems a next step is taken. The trend is from a market and price support policy in the 1980s towards an income support policy. The other trend is that not just food production is important, but also environmental values and rural livelihood. Recent steps include a general introduction of Cross Compliance. To get subsidies farmers have to prove that they are fulfilling environmental conditions as well as conditions on animal welfare. In the coming years these rules will expand. Funds for rural development will be increased by reducing a portion of funds now targeted to income support. The question still is whether this money will be used for others than farmers. Also, a ceiling has been put on EU agricultural expenditures till 2013. This means there will be hardly any extra money for agricultural policy in spite of the ten new members in the European Union. Since EU policy always depends on getting member nations to come to agreement, we can expect fierce discussions on the national divisions of the EU budget as well. All these steps mean that, within the EU, agriculture will become more environmentally friendly and will have higher priced products than they would have in a totally unregulated market. For the near future, we can anticipate that the following questions will be of central importance to producers: · What is the relationship between agriculture and landscape? · Will certain areas within Europe become deserted? · How can we maintain a level playing field within Europe and between Europe and the United States? · Is the core business of agriculture only food production or is it something more? The roles played by European producers seem to be changing significantly. Instead of just managing food production, successful farmers are more and more being asked to manage food safety, food traceability, environmental well-being, rural development, natural landscape, and animal welfare. The son of a Dutch farmer, Cees Roele graduated from Wageningen University with a degree in agricultural economics. From 1980 through 1997 he served as an agricultural attaché in Spain, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and Germany. Since then Cees has worked on rural development at the European level, and organized a national debate on strategies for making a transition to sustainable development in agriculture. In 2003 he began work with the Dutch Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning to implement this transition. He was elected to the Provincial Parliament in 2004. Cees can be contacted at: Wogmeer 105, 1643 NH WOGMEER, Netherlands; e-mail vorsweide@tiscali.nl; telephone +31 229 563414 or +31 6 51325547.
