The advancement of gender equality is today a major goal in the Member States & the EU Institutions. Following this spirit, and in order to guarantee the principles of equality between women and men and equal pay for equal work, Farm Europe’s Gender Equality Strategy presents the main objectives and indicators for the 2022 – 2025 plan period for the commitment to provide an inclusive work environment based on the principle of equal employment opportunity for all its employees irrespective of gender.
The European Commission has recently announced a renewed push to conclude the negotiations of a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with New Zealand and Australia.
The New Zealand case is paradigmatic, but what Farm Europe outlines below can be largely said about the FTA with Australia.
New Zealand has no tariffs on imports of most products. Already today the EU can export to New Zealand free of customs duties. In agriculture only a few products face a low 5% tariff.
New Zealand is a large and competitive exporter of agriculture products, which account for 80% of the total exports of the country. In 2021 New Zealand exported 28 billion euros worth of dairy, eggs, meat, fruits and nuts, wine, and other agriculture products.
To the EU, New Zealand exports mostly agriculture products, whilst importing mostly industrial goods. The EU currently benefits from a positive trade balance with New Zealand.
Which will be EU’s gains with the FTA? It will hardly increase its exports, as New Zealand tariffs are either zero or very low. Only New Zealand can benefit, in the agriculture sector in particular, as EU’s tariffs are currently much higher.
The inevitable result of the FTA would be more New Zealand exports of dairy, meats, wine, fruits, and so on, and no further EU gains in the New Zealand market.
Not even in the industrial area should the EU expect significant trade advantages, as only a few products have a 10% tariff, most others are already duty free. And it should not be forgotten that New Zealand has FTAs with China, Hong-Kong, Singapore, Taiwan. Our agriculture sector will suffer for no good.
This FTA is thus not balanced in terms of gains and losses. It departs from a pragmatic approach to trade, and instead dwells entirely on an ideological approach that sees free trade as a good thing irrespective of its actual impacts.
The economic impact of the Russian-Ukrainian war continues to cause concern. The livestock sector is bearing the brunt of the general price increase, with energy costs and rising feed and fertiliser costs particularly affecting the sector.
World dairy prices have recently fallen. This decline follows high price levels, and is also partly due to disposal problems in China, linked to the Shanghai containment.
African swine fever continues to spread in Europe. With cases reported near the French border, British pork producers have called on the government to introduce import controls to limit the risk of introducing the disease.
The end of the second wave of avian flu marks the return of free-range eggs. This health crisis has generated considerable costs for professionals, due to production stops and the closure of export markets, but also for the governments which are compensating farmers for the animals slaughtered and the economic losses incurred. In response to these disease outbreaks, the Commission and the Member States are called upon to intensify their efforts to develop vaccination strategies for the prevention and control of HPAI.
According to a Commission report, CAP measures have improved animal welfare in some cases in some regions but have failed to bring about a significant change overall. The requirements defined at EU level under cross-compliance have primarily improved animal welfare in those regions and member states that only partially met the EU welfare directives.
Brussels is considering mirror clauses ‘on a case-by-case basis’. The Commission states that the European Union can “take autonomous action where necessary to address global environmental concerns or animal welfare issues”. These avenues remain controversial within the WTO (risks of retaliation, control mechanisms, tariff conditionalities, etc.). Nevertheless, the European Commission could adopt mirror measures in the meat sector (antibiotics, deforestation, animal welfare).
The France Carbon Agri Association (FCAA) wishes to expand its scope to include all sectors. Numerous methods are being developed within the Low Carbon Label (pig farming, poultry farming, small ruminants, arboriculture, viticulture, etc.) and should soon be able to be integrated into FCAA’s calls for projects.
In May, lot of new reports came out for countries such as the US, Australia or France calculating the change in their wine production and export showing a sector bouncing back compared to the economic downturn caused by the pandemic. In France, Marc Fesneau became the new minister in charge of the wine sector, while Italy published its national CMO call for proposals for the 2022-2023 wine year promotions, and Russia is looking for ‘friendlier countries’ to plug the hole on its wine import. In the meantime, wine fairs are slowly coming back with the ProWein and the FENAVIN in Spain.
As the Russian invasion to Ukraine goes on, food markets are still experiencing the repercussions of the conflict, notably on grains and oilseeds. EU ministers of agriculture supported the initiative to postpone the crop rotation requirement to 2024, and well as approved lump sum payment through the EAFRD fund to support farmers. The Commission keeps the Green Deal objectives high on its agenda, but pressure is made to derogate them from co-legislators and stakeholders.
On animal welfare, a study from the Commission reveals that the CAP efforts in this sector did not contribute enough to the reduction of antimicrobial use nor to the improvement of animal welfare at large. In parallel, NGO attacks the decision of expanding crop production for animal feed.
In Asia, several countries have adopted – or are about to adopt – nutritional labelling solutions, such as Japan, where the government introduced a voluntary scheme for alcoholic beverages, or in Singapore, where beverages industries adopted the ‘Nutri-Grade’ to inform consumers about the nutritional quality of the beverage. Meanwhile, research in China shows that Chinese consumers would tend to prefer a ‘traffic-light’ design for a possible labelling on food.
The expansion of the synthetic foods industry is growing, with Israeli start up committed to scale-up processing and reduce costs, Impossible food products that hit the UK market, Austrian start up that developed the first automated process platform to produce fermented casein, and trends in meat consumption that lower in Germany.
During the Queen’s speech in the UK, a definitive opening towards gene-edited was assured by the government and the Queen herself. At the same time, Argentina allows the commercialization of trans-genic wheat, and Egypt starts the firs harvest of a salinity-resistant wheat.
In the EU, the Commission opened for public consultation on the legislative initiative to regulate the outcomes of new genetic techniques. The consultation runs until July 22. The debate on NGTs sees German ONG gathering signatures for a petition to stop “deregulat[ion of] new genomic techniques”, supported by MEP Häusling.
After one year of activities, the Conference on the Future of Europe (CoFoE) reached its conclusions on the recommendations on the future steps the European Union will take in the world of tomorrow.
Farm Europe welcomes both the open and democratic process that led to the conclusions as well as the balanced and forward looking conclusions that emerged from the conference in relation to the agriculture and food systems. These recommandations will certainly be an important contribution to the future sustainable food systems strategy.
The concepts of sustainability, circularity, fairness, affordability, investments in research and innovation in the field of agriculture and nutrition policies are anchored in the recommandations and largely confirm the relevance of the current EU Treaties when it comes to agriculture and the need for a strong Common Agricultural Policy that delivers on their expectations. The Conference advocates for a balanced approach promoting effective environment and climate friendly agriculture in the EU, showing openness to a wide range of solutions as long as they put Europe in a position to « produce more food with less whilst reducing emissions and environmental impact but still guaranteeing productivity and food security », which is the most challenging equilibrium to find for policy makers. The Citizens also call to step up the effort to achieve climate goals incentivising agricultural systems like « organic farming and sustainable agriculture » and to introduce a certification of carbon removals, based on robust, solid and transparent carbon accounting».
Regarding the use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides, the complexity of the topic is well reflected in the recommandations of the Citizens. They are calling to « significantly reduce the use of chemical pesticides and fertilisers, in line with the existing targets while still ensuring food security ». Citizens also want to address more specific topics such as plastic use in agriculture.
When it comes to the livestock sector, they call for « reasoned breeding and meat production with a focus on animal welfare and sustainability, focusing in particular on clear labelling and high standard and common norms for animal farming and transport.
In addition, the Conference also see the EU agricultural sector as an energy provider. It encourages the development of electric cars, but also underlines that « at the same time, it should invest in the development of other non-polluting technologies, such as biofuels and hydrogen for those vehicles whose electrification is difficult to achieve, such as boats and lorries ».
As far as health promotion, the reflection groups considers food -and diet- as a tool to improve health, approaching health from an holistic approach. Notably, the Conference rises the attention on the importance of education on the topic of food, diet, nutrition from an early age, as well as underlying the impacts of ultra-processed foods on health, proposing a tax on those products that have detrimental effects on health. The recommendations do not provide clear definition of ‘healthy diets’, and ‘healthy lifestyle’, leaving this to personal interpretation.
The CoFoE concluded that food production should be guided by the principles of sustainability, climate responsibility, affordability, safety, and social justice, while aiming at food security and to the safeguard of biodiversity and of ecosystems. Moreover, the Conference commits to ensure that all Europeans have access to education on healthy food and access to healthy and affordable food, as a building block of a healthy lifestyle. The round of talks proposes, in concrete to:
Educate people about healthy habits from an early age
Develop at EU level a standard educational program on healthy lifestyles
Taxation on non healthy processed food
Promotion of healthy, varied, and affordable food procurement
Promote production methods that allow to produce more food with less
Apply circular economy principles and fight food waste
Reduce the use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers & invest in research
Introduce carbon removal certification
Improve the social side of farming, assuring high quality safety, health and working conditions
Enforce animal welfare standards
Improve transparency and communication to consumers
Protect insects and pollinators
Support reforestation, afforestation, enforce responsible forest management
Ban single use plastics
Protect water sources
Stakeholders from all across Europe and from all backgrounds — including Farm Europe — were consulted during the process. The Conference reached its conclusions in the fields of climate change and the environment, health, economy and social justice, the role of the EU in the world, education, democracy, migration, culture, digital transportations and the values, rights, rule of law and security.
The crisis in Ukraine and its geopolitical consequences are leading to an increase in feed prices, production costs, energy and gas costs, which is putting a strain on European livestock farms. States continue to provide emergency aid to support farmers. Spain, which is particularly concerned by the consequences for monogastric farms, has set up several aids.
In the beef sector, a drop in meat production and a stagnation in milk production is expected. The pig sector is experiencing a delicate situation, with a drop in meat prices and the consequences of the international situation. In the poultry sector, the outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza has led to the slaughter of 15 million animals in France, which encouraged the Commission to address the issue of vaccination.
Tensions on the feed market – particularly maize – are a reminder of the structural deficit between supply and demand in the EU. A drop in world production is also expected next year.
Europeans are therefore putting in place measures to allow the production of this food. In the short term, with stocks accumulating in Ukraine, the Commission is trying to find other ways than the inaccessible Black Sea ports to import Ukrainian grain.
On the link with the ecological transition, the Industrial Emissions Directive and the recent rule to take account of livestock farming considered as industrial are criticised for the apparent disconnection with reality that it demonstrates.Finally, other concerns relate to animal welfare, to a new European Citizens’ Initiative criticising the aid allocated to livestock farming and to the development of non-meat alternatives on the market (vegetable alternatives and cultivated meat).
Joe Biden just decided a few days ago to increase the blending of biofuels in the United States to step up the climate ambition and help the American families struggling with high pump prices. At European level, key negotiations are taking place now, and the pressure from NGOs lobbying for a radical 100% electro-mobility is very high to get a reduction of the crop cap, which is currently set at 7%. Nevertheless, many black and white arguments used in their narrative require to think twice, taking into account the reality of the agriculture sector.
Some are using the food versus fuel narrative to ask for a phasing out of conventional biofuels. This argument on food security is just wrong when it comes to conventional biofuels produced in Europe. With a very small share of farm land dedicated to biofuels in Europe, the processing through bio-refineries not only contributes to the energy supply, but also to the food and feed production.
Which other sector is in a position to achieve both energy and food sovereignty? Today, 13 million tonnes of high value proteins are coming from this dual supply chain – 30% of the total EU production of top-quality proteins that help reducing imports from South America. This creates a stable and predictable market for EU farmers. It helps them investing on their farm – including in the ecological transition and carbon farming practices.
Second, renewables made from EU agriculture already represent the equivalent of 8 nuclear plants (biogas), and fuel to 20 million of cars (biofuels). This is far from insignificant. This is a concrete and tangible solution to fight against climate change, reduce our dependency on Russian oil and gas. Even the IPCC underlined the need for biofuels in its recent wake up call report, referring to the Renewable Energy Directive in the EU as a good example of a sustainability framework helping to manage trade-offs and synergies between energy and food security. Via photosynthesis, agriculture is the biggest and most efficient solar industry, not using any imported rare earth!
Third, the biofuels are perhaps not a magic wand, but the European Union needs them to build an energy mix. They have a role to play, not only for climate reasons, but also for their cost-effectiveness. Biofuels today offer the most affordable solution for European families. Without changing their car, Europeans can reduce their emissions at a low cost – that’s probably why those willing to sell quickly a lot of electric cars fight so aggressively against them. Biofuels help reducing the fuel price at the pump by 10 cents.
Fourth, the ambition to develop advanced biofuels is most welcome, and the agricultural energy sector has already shown its willingness to invest. It is clear that the synergies between conventional and advanced biofuels are very important, including for logistical reasons. The overall biomass should be taken into account. The availability of waste and residues largely depends on the availability of crops. Less crops means less waste and residues. Reducing the cap would reduce agricultural outlets, reduce agricultural production, thus undermine the capacity to develop advanced solutions.
In the European Union, the coming weeks will provide the responses not only to those advocating on the climate ambition and on the capacity of its decision-makers to design a credible way forward, but also to investors willing to contribute to decarbonation. A new attempt to undermine biofuels in the EU would further undermine the flow of investments in the transition on the Continent, and certainly channel it elsewhere in the world. It would favour fossil fuels.
