Author: Farm Europe

Need breeding techniques: USDA’s report on NBT’s in the UK

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

This April have seen several studies, reports, interviews concerning new variety breeding technologies published.
From the US, the USDA released a report on biotechnology in the United Kingdom, saying that in the short term, the United Kingdom is unlikely to change its legislation, due to the proximity to the EU.

In addition, a study released in the Netherlands states that, if properly targeted, new genetic technologies and agroecology can reinforce each other to make agriculture more sustainable. In Norway, a survey of the Norwegian relationship with genetic editing shows that a majority of consumers are ready to use gene editing tools in agriculture if they provide social, economic and environmental benefits.

 

full note available on FE Members’ area

WINE SECTOR: EU exceptional measures to absolutely reinforced

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

Wine news continues to be marked in this April by the Covid-19 pandemic. Various associations, professional wine organizations (Italian, Spanish, French wine cooperatives, CEEV, EFOW) asked the European Union for help during this month of April following the Covid-19 pandemic.

At European level, the European Commission adopted a package of exceptional measures on the 22nd of April, notably to help the wine sector. On April 30, the Agriculture Commissioner acknowledged the inadequacy of the measures proposed during a meeting of the European Parliament’s Agricultural Committee, without, however, presenting new ones.

The European Commission is announcing declining figures for wine consumption in the coming months.

Finally, at the global level, according to the OIV, low volumes are expected for 2020 in the majority of the countries of the southern hemisphere, with the exception of South Africa and Uruguay, following initial estimates of production.

 

full note available on FE Members’ area 

THE US LAUNCHES A THIRD LAYER OF COVID-19 SUPPORT TO AGRICULTURE

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

Readers might think that they have already read about this, but the fact is that in the US a new layer of support to help agriculture cope with the Covid-19 crisis was launched this week. This support package is the third since the beginning of the crisis, so yes you have read about increased support in the US but you’ve not read about the latest.

This package consist of an additional $ 470 million for commodity purchases, financed by customs revenues. The biggest share goes to dairy products with a $ 120 million allocation. Potatoes, turkey, chicken, pork, come after in a long list that includes a variety of fruits and some fish products.

It is worth recapping how much support US farmers have had so far to cope with the Covid-19 crisis. First came an increase of the main support programmes war chest of $ 14 billion. Second a $ 19 billion package consisting of $ 16 billion direct payments and $ 3 billion commodity purchases. And latest the $ 470 million this week package. In total a staggering $ 33.47 billion, or slightly more than 30 billion euros.

In the EU? The specific Covid-19 support package is estimated worth a paltry 80 million euros.

Comparing per farmer and per hectare Covid-19 support in the US and in the EU, in euros, says it all:

  • US: €15 415 per farmer; €73 per hectare
  • EU: €8 per farmer;  €5 per hectare

THE EU RECOVERY PROGRAMME

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

From what is filtering, the European Commission is preparing an EU-wide Recovery Programme anchored in her revised MFF (2021-2027 budget) proposal.

A word of caution: this paper elaborates on what we know so far, and changes might be introduced on the final Commission proposal.

What we understand

The Commission is planning to propose a revised MFF by mid-May. The main drive of the revised proposal is to generate an EU-wide Recovery Programme that would help the EU to recover from the dramatic Covid-19 crisis.

To that effect the EU would create a new Fund of 320 billion euros, by raising that money in the financial markets against guarantees provided by the Member States. That money would then be used by beneficiaries to raise more money from the markets, the expected total in the Commission estimates could reach 1.5 trillion euros.

The Commission is also planning to propose to front-loading part of the 2021- 2027 budget.

It is not clear which part of the new Recovery Programme will consist of loans, and which part of grants, although the realistic expectation is that most of it will consist on loans. Loans and grants would be made conditional on the implementation of reforms and investment measures to bolster potential growth.

The Recovery Programme will focus on relaunching investments. A small part could be used to restoring capital of viable companies.

The other elements of the MFF proposal will not be changed, as considered “fit for purpose”. This seems to include the CAP budget and the related commission’s proposals.

 

full note available on FE Members’ area 

The EP’s agri committee supports the strengthening of crisis and risk management tools as of 2021

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

Comagri MEPs yesterday voted on the position they intend the European Parliament to take in negotiations with the Council (and the Commission) on the CAP transitional provisions until the future CAP reform, which they foresee for 1 January 2023 at the earliest, is in place. This position should officially become that of the European Parliament at the next mini-plenary in May.

The package of amendments for crisis management and agricultural risks (concerning articles 37 to 39 of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 – risk management tools : insurance, mutual funds and SRI-, precautionary savings – new article – and the crisis reserve – article 25, presented by MEPs Anne Sander (EPP) – permanent rapporteur for the acts implementing the single CMO – Paolo De Castro and Pina Picierno (S&D) was finally adopted during the voting session on 28 April, notwithstanding the negative opinion of rapporteur Katainen (Finland, Renew). These adopted amendments cover the amendment that J Decerle and I Tolleret (Renew) had tabled alongside A Sander’s on precautionary savings.

These amendments were voted by a very large majority of the Comagri, demonstrating the extent of its responsibility in the face of the crises facing agriculture and a CAP reform whose implementation is postponed until at least 2023.

Amendment 350 to Article 8 reduces from 30 to 20% the rate of destruction of “the average annual production of the farmer … or his three-year average production” necessary to obtain the compensatory aid granted by the mutual fund (provided for in Article 36(1)(b)).

Amendment 352 (identical to 351) to Article 8 lowers from 30 to 20% the rate of decrease “of the average annual income of the farmer concerned over the previous three years or three-year average”necessary to obtain the compensatory aid granted by the mutual fund (provided for in Article 36(1)(c)).

These amendments are in line with the amendments adopted in the framework of the Omnibus.

Amendment 359 to Article 8 aims at anticipating the application of a new regulatory measureproposed in the CAP strategic plans which allows farmers “to set up precautionary savings schemes without falling under the State aid regime”.

Amendment 360 to Article 25 on the “agricultural crisis reserve” provides that the initial capital of such a reserve for the period 2021-2027 must be financed outside the CAP budget (in addition to the CAP budget – in heading 3 of the MFF -) and is placed in the reserve at the beginning of the programming period. Furthermore, in order not to lose this money at the end of the first year, the reform of the operation of the reserve is anticipated to allow the carry-over of uncommitted funds from 2021 to the following years.

 

For details of the amendments:

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/AGRI-AM-648384_EN.pdf

 

MEASURES AND IMPACTS RELATED TO THE COVID-19 CRISIS: EU measures’ introduction

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

The widespread crisis caused by the Covid19 pandemic continues to have major impacts on economic sectors, including agriculture, and to give rise to decisions at national and Community level.

The European Parliament and the Ministers of the Member States require the European Commission, in addition to the technical and administrative measures adopted, to resort to market intervention measures (intervention, storage) and exceptional measures that the CMO Regulation allows.

Until now, the Commission has mainly left it up to the Member States to act and to find funding if they so wish (state aid and recycling of Rural Development funds for countries which have not fully used them).

On 22 April the Commission opened up the benefit of Article 222 at Community level to the milk, flowers and potatoes sectors (capacity of producers or sectors to agree on the volumes to be marketed in particular). It is thus taking up the challenge of giving farmers responsibility at national level for restoring a balance between supply and demand on the European market.

At the same time, it announces the introduction of European private storage aid measures to encourage the temporary withdrawal of quantities from the market in the milk and meat sectors (beef, sheep and goat) and flexibility for the implementation of national programmes in the wine, fruit and vegetables and olive sectors.

Regarding the “farm to fork” and “biodiversity” strategies, which are due to be presented on 29 April, Frans Timmermans said there would be no major delay, of the order of “a few weeks at the most, but not a few months”. Also asked about the content of the F2F strategy and the ambition to reduce pesticide use, he replied that it would be “a solid proposal,” as biodiversity and pesticides are closely linked issues.

 

full note available on FE Members’ area 

THE COVID-19 CRISIS AND EU AGRICULTURE: WHAT WE NEED AND WHAT WE DON’T NEED

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

In all major crisis there is a moment of denial, a moment of blame and a moment of reckoning. We are experiencing a major and unprecedented crisis, a crisis on which states decided to stop economic activity to protect lives. Unfortunately we see many still in denial of the inevitable impact on agriculture.

Farm Europe has written about the likely impact of the Covid-19 crisis in agriculture markets, and what should be done to anticipate the shock.

Here we want to look forward and contribute to what should be the comprehensive response of EU agriculture policy, and what should be avoided at all cost at this stage.

The European Commission indicated her willingness to revise the MFF, the multi-annual budget proposal. You will recall that the CAP was badly treated in the original proposal, with real budget cuts of 12% over the 7-year period.

The current crisis has however showed one thing: we need food security. Some third countries have announced food export restrictions. What would have been the situation in the EU if we were short of food supplies?

Farm Europe agrees with those who point out that food security cannot be delegated, and that the CAP is not a policy only for farmers but rather a policy to the benefit of EU citizens.

Food security is not achievable at local level, only an EU-wide approach will deliver. We are not advocating a narrow and misguided concept whereby each county or region should be self-sufficient, because it is simply not feasible nor desirable. Only at a larger level like the EU, with a functioning internal market, can we achieve actual food security. We are also not advocating that the EU should not trade with the rest of the world, as we can benefit from trade and enjoy its economic benefits without compromising food security.

We also need a reversal of the unfavourable treatment of agriculture in the EU budget proposal. The EU agriculture has been the bedrock of food provision to European citizens even when most of the economy is idle. It is however facing hardship due to reduced demand and demand shifts, as a result of commerce shutdowns, and in the near future reduced purchasing power of many Europeans and world consumers. The last thing EU agriculture needs is further cuts in support. When life lines are extended to whole parts of the economy it would be unaccountable to reduce support to agriculture.

By contrast what we don’t need is a set of policies that increase the burden of producing food in the EU. We don’t need a Farm to Fork Strategy, or a Biodiversity Strategy, that only increase restrictions on the use of inputs, that reduce the agricultural area and productivity, and that reduce already stretched farmer’s incomes.

Farm Europe wishes to be crystal clear: we believe that EU policies should contribute to further environmental protection and to fight climate change. But that has to be done hand-in-hand with furthering the economic situation of farmers and assuring food security.

Increasing the land set-aside for biodiversity goals to 10% and organic production to 30%, as some propose, would reduce the EU production of food by a staggering 15%. Reducing pesticide and fertilizer use without providing farmers with the investments and the technology mix to achieve meaningful environmental goals will result in further food reduction and economic distress for farmers. That is not acceptable.

Thus the second logical “what we need” is a package to promote the right investments in agriculture, those which reduce the environmental foot print and greenhouse gas emissions and at the same time keep or expand agriculture production, ensure food security and sustain farmer’s livelihoods.   

We also need to strengthen the resilience of the sector. As Farm Europe has been consistently advocating, and the European Parliament COMAGRI has taken the lead in proposing, we need a well-financed crisis reserve in the CAP that would have the means and the mandate to quickly intervene in times of crisis, by making use of exceptional measures and shoring-up insurance and mutual funds.

This Covid-19 crisis will leave its scars for some time and we need to learn from past experience that showed that the current CAP crisis management tools are not good enough. The latest dairy or fruits and vegetable crisis are witness to the problems we faced in the past, at great economic and budgetary cost.

What we don’t need is to wait-and-see, to seat back and wait for the crisis to unfold in the dairy, beef, wine, fruit and vegetable, sugar, ethanol or any other sector. The flower and ornamental plants producers are already facing tremendous hardship. Farm Europe calls on the decision-makers, and in particular on the European Commission to change gear and become proactive rather than reactive.

 

Covid19 health crisis & EU agri-food sectors: urgent measures to be taken

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

The Covid19 health crisis has taken hold on the economic sectors with significant effects. These effects are likely to be long-lasting, with a recession threatening the European Union and other world economies.

This crisis also highlights the importance of food security. Some in the European Union may have tended to take it for granted, or even to make European agriculture the banker of certain bi or multilateral trade negotiations.

Food security does not mean retreating into a search for local autarky that has never existed, nor is it synonymous with an autodafé of trade with third countries. It is the right balance between boosting European agricultural sectors, a strong single European market ensuring fluidity of trade, and trade with the rest of the world meeting the remaining needs of the European Union and meeting the demands of world markets for which the European Union must assume its share of responsibility in terms of supply and stability of the said markets.

Food security in the European Union is one of the essential bases of its political autonomy.

For it to be true, it goes:

– by an ambitious European policy aimed at the development of the agricultural sectors in all European regions – Farm Europe will devote a specific analysis to it with proposals for action

– in the very short term by urgent measures to respond to the economic crisis in which many agricultural sectors are currently plunging.

 

FOR ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN WITHOUT DELAY:

– For the dairy sector: this sector suffers from an imbalance between supply and demand due to the seasonal upward curve in production (return to grass) on the one hand and the already noted contraction in the demand for powder in view of the slowdown in exports and the demand for butter from industry and the closure of the out-of-home catering sector on the other. For the record, the recent crises have underlined the sensitivity of the market to any imbalance at a very early stage. A 3% drop in demand leads to a crisis with a collapse in prices.

Remember that in this sector, as in most agricultural sectors, stopping a farm means its disappearance and a decline in production. In view of the investments at stake and the typology of European agricultural holdings (essentially with family capital), the transition from animal production to a plant and vice versa is not and cannot be the reality of European agriculture.

—> in order to avoid a fall in prices and the disappearance of producers, the intervention of products must be opened up, as well as private storage aid for certain products, but above all a European measure to encourage the voluntary reduction of production is urgently needed.

It will then be a question of ensuring that the impact of this measure is not minimized by increases in production by producers who would see it as a windfall effect.

– For the beef sector: major difficulties already exist on the noble (premium) cuts due to the closure of out-of-home catering, the closure of butchery departments in supermarkets. Consumers direct their purchases towards prepackaged purchases and products that are quick to cook. In a context of uncertainty, consumers also tend to deport their purchases on cheaper cuts or meats.

In view of the differentiated evolution of the premium/chopped parts markets, it would be advisable to:

1) Immediately open the private storage aid measure for noble cuts (only for noble cuts)

2) Ensure the balance of this market segment at European level by closely monitoring the marketing and import flows for this category of beef. As a reminder, the market premium for these fine cuts does not exist in Brazil or the USA. In fact, these producers are able to export to the Community market with real profitability at an intra-EU selling price of 7 to 8 euros, which is 1/3 lower than the market price.

3) Activate the clauses provided for in the 2013 CAP allowing farmers to organize together the conditions for marketing their products in times of crisis.

With regard to the meat sectors, attention must also be paid to the sheep sector, a significant part of the annual turnover of which is called into question due to the current crisis and the containments decided.

– For the wine sector: sales via large-scale distribution were maintained in March and should also be in April. However, those destined for out-of-home catering have stalled, those via specialized stores have been reduced, as has the flow of exports, which has contracted sharply. As for the other sectors, the losses in volumes sold will not be made up. In addition to the drop in current turnover, there is the problem of the arrival of the new production in areas where the tanks will be full of stocks. To the financial problem could therefore be added a technical problem, which will amplify the first.

—>  distillation measures in certain regions should be considered as soon as they are well used to respond to the Covid-19 crisis and not to erase more structural problems of market adequacy for certain wines, similarly, use of green harvest could be considered.

—>  reinforced promotion campaigns, in particular on the EU market, must be financed substantially within the framework of exceptional European measures,

—>  a one-year extension of the validity of authorisations held by producers should be decided by way of derogation from article 62 paragraph 3 of Reg.1308/2013.

– For the fruit and vegetable sector: this sector is facing the full impact of the crisis, while its production period is picking up again. It is facing major labour problems, a drop in the consumption of fresh fruit and vegetable products, with consumers switching to long-life products, whether cooked or simple to cook, and production losses with limited storage time. It is therefore necessary to ensure a balance between demand and offer in order not to degrade prices – and therefore to envisage withdrawals of production in the absence of a reorientation towards processing limited by industrial capacities and the balance of the markets themselves – and financial support in view of the inevitable loss of income for seasonal production and a decline in post-health crisis market until consumption has returned to previous levels. In addition, measures to promote consumption will have to be planned as soon as the health crisis ends.

– For the flower and nursery sector: this sector has virtually ceased activity, resulting in a loss of turnover and harvests. Direct financial aid is required for these businesses by activating the provisions of article 219 of regulation 1308/2013.

– For the sugar and ethanol sector: this sector will face a very deteriorated situation very quickly. The energy market has fallen significantly, leading to a sharp drop in the prices and volumes of fuel ethanol. The slowdown in global economic activity that will follow the end of the health crisis does not allow us to hope for a real improvement. Three consequences for the European sugar and ethanol sector:

– a higher availability of sugar at world level due to the redirection of part of Brazil’s ethanol capacity to sugar production, and thus a fall in world sugar prices,

– lower ethanol prices on the European market

– a slowdown in the demand for ethanol on the US market, which will result in US quantities being redirected to the world market and thus be likely, without precaution, to flood the European market.

—> therefore, urgent measures must be taken to preserve both profitability for European productions on the European market and a certain fluidity in world sugar trade. The Commission must immediately begin an analysis of market equilibrium and define the regulatory actions for imports and their price to be taken in order to preserve the European market, particularly in the very short term for ethanol.

– For the cereals sector: the European cereals and field crops sector will suffer the double impact of a very likely global recession, low energy prices, the foreseeable drop in US corn prices and a aggressive commercial policy of the United States on the agricultural markets; a policy already marked before the health crisis by the China-USA agreement which relegated European sources of supply to the background.

 

In addition to the specific actions to be taken for each sector, a European crisis plan must be prepared for all sectors in order to protect as many structures as possible from the falls in margins that they are likely to have to face. This fund must be able to provide farmers with direct aid to partially compensate for margin losses and cash loan guarantees. A European plan for financial aid for margin losses must be put in place.

All these measures must be financed out of the CAP budget. It would make no sense to reduce CAP direct aid to farmers in order to finance a crisis fund to rescue European agriculture.

WINE SECTOR: the pandemic of Covid-19 hits hard

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

The Covid-19 pandemic is affecting the wine trade, both European and non-European. All wine markets are affected.

In addition to other things, this month of March have seen more than 50 MEPs asking, via a letter, the European Commission to take exceptional measures to support the agri-food sector, including the wine industry, a sector penalised by the increase in US customs duties.

Finally, the CEEV and its British counterpart, the WSTA, called, via a common position, for the wine sector to be taken into account in the next EU-UK trade agreement.

full note available on FE Members’ area 

NEEW BREEDING TECHNIQUES: EASAC RECOMMENDS USING THE NBTS

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

In March, EASAC, the Scientific Advisory Council of European Academies, called for a radical reform of the legal framework for GMOs, and considered that new varietal selection techniques can help, inter alia, to combat social inequalities.

Paolo De Castro MEP, S&D coordinator at Comagri,, agreed with EASAC’s request and called for European agriculture to be allowed to use new breeding techniques to make European agriculture more innovative.

At the global level, researchers in Maryland have discovered a new gene editing system called CRISP-cas12b. Also in the United States, a debate has been held in the Senate on the new regulations on NBTs and on which institution, the FDA or the USDA, should control the foods derived from them in the future.

 

full note available on FE Members’ area