The Agreement in Paris on Climate Change concluded on 12/12/2015 seeks to limit global temperature increases to less than 2 degrees, and to pursue efforts to achieve 1.5 degrees through binding commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

It is up to the individual countries that ratify the Agreement to implement the commitments on a national basis. For the EU that means sticking to the commitments as presented by the EU to COP 21 in the so-called Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC). This now becomes a Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) as a result of the agreement in Paris. There the EU has committed itself to a further reduction of EU Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions) by at least 40% by 2030 in comparison with 1990, and by 80-95% by 2050.

Commission Communication on Paris Agreement follow-up

In its Communication of the 2/3/2016 the Commission has laid out the follow-up to Paris. Implementation by all parties to the Agreement is crucial for success.

The Communication goes through the different areas for the EU in order to implement the Agreement underlining the need to continue to take the lead and maintain momentum. The Communication stresses the significant investments, innovation, changes in practices that are necessary with the consequent fundamental changes in the EU economic model and structure. Energy production, consumption, energy efficiency and renewables are key elements in this process. In this respect the Commission stresses the importance the regular 5 year Review clauses. An idea suggested by the EU, where Contracting Parties will be subject to examination of their progress in meeting emission reduction commitments based on common accounting and transparency provisions still to be defined. It provides a dynamic mechanism to take stock and strengthen ambition over time. Starting from 2023, Parties will come together every five years in a “global stocktake” to consider progress in emissions reductions, adaptation and support provided and received in view of the long-term goals of the Agreement.

The Ministers of Environment discussed the Communication on the 4/3/2016. Some Member States thought the Communication was not ambitious enough in light of the switch to the maximum 1.5 ° increase in global temperature. Several ministers urged an earlier stock-take to be ready for a special UN report in 2018 to get on track for net zero emissions in the second half of the century.This would mean quicker emission reductions. Other Member States warned against with the present ambitions based on the Council conclusions from October 2014 as already very demanding.

In the Communication the Commission confirms that the legislative Proposals on the Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) from July 2015 will be followed up by proposals also covering agriculture.

So what does the Paris Agreement mean for European agriculture?

The Paris Agreement does not as such have specific commitments relating to agriculture. It does however refer to agriculture indirectly as stated in the Preamble: “Recognizing the fundamental priority of safeguarding food security and ending hunger, and the particular vulnerabilities of food production systems to the adverse impacts of climate change”.

How is this paragraph to be interpreted? Is agriculture to be treated lightly in relation to the reduction commitments or does this only targeting more vulnerable developing countries. For certain the farming organizations will seek to use this passage to soften the burden on agriculture.

Under EU legislation agriculture is covered by the so-called Effort Sharing Decision (ESD). Sectors under the ESD are transport, heating of buildings, non-CO2 emissions from agriculture and waste. Overall ESD emissions have to reduce emissions by 30% compared to 2005. In addition GHG emissions and carbon sequestration from Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) will be included in the CC policy for 2030.

Ireland

With the Paris Agreement as a very timely background Farm Europe organized an Event on the 14/12/2015 with the Irish Minister for Agriculture Simon Coveney. The minister outlined how Irish agricultural policy already to-day is very active in undertaking mitigation and adaptation efforts in relation GHG emissions from agricultural activity and from LULUCF. The focus is to be the most Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) as possible which in Irish terms translates into having the lowest GHG emissions per unit of production/output. Research efforts, based on a significant 4 Billion € budget, and education of farmers are undertaken with this objective in mind already delivering positive results. At the same time Ireland is undertaking major afforestation with the view to building up sequestration (sinks) of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Up till now 10 % of agricultural land has been planted with new forest. The idea is to provide space/credits for the expected increase in the animal production with consequent GHG emissions as laid out in the Irish “Food Wise 2025” program. See the Press Release.

The Irish efforts should be seen in connection with the Conclusions in October 2014 by the European Council (EC) on the Future CC Framework up to 2030: A reduction of GHG emissions by at least 40 %, for the ESD to reduce by 30% compared to 2005 and to incorporate LULUCF. The EC has established the principle by which the richer Member State (MS) have to undertake the biggest reductions in GHG emissions. Those MS with high average GDP per inhabitant like Ireland have to reduce their emissions by up to 40 %. At the same time the EC said: “targets for the Member States with a GDP per capita above the EU average will be relatively adjusted to reflect cost-effectiveness in a fair and balanced manner”.

Agricultural GHG emissions have already fallen significantly by 24% from 1990 to 2012, but based on Business as Usual (BAU), the drop in the GHG will be modest (around only 4 %). The EC has recognized this in its conclusions : “The multiple objectives of the agriculture and land use sector, with their lower mitigation potential, should be acknowledged, as well as the need to ensure coherence between the EU’s food security and climate change objectives “.

With this somewhat ambiguous wording it is consequently not clear how agriculture and LULUCF will be handled in practice under the 2030 policy framework.

Affluent MS like Ireland, Denmark and France with high agricultural production and consequent high absolute GHG emissions will have to undertake major reduction efforts. However there may be tradeoffs with other non-agricultural sectors under the ESD and possible recognition of the beneficial effect of carbon sequestration in forests and soils in relation to agriculture. How LULUCF is to be incorporated is at this stage an open question. One thing is certain: there is no doubt that the challenge for agriculture is going to be considerable and a need for agriculture to obtain high energy efficiency and low GHG emissions per unit of production.

GHG emissions

GHG emissions from agriculture primarily in the form of nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4) amount to about 10 % whilst LULUCF primarily in the form of CO2 amount to about 14%- in total 24 % of total EU GHG emissions.

The most important GHG emissions relate to agricultural soils, wetlands, peats and forests in the form of CO2. Large quantities of CO2 are emitted by ploughing and use of fossil fuels, artificial fertilizers and pesticides. The same is true for wetlands dried and peats converted to farmland not to mention deforestation.

On the positive side agriculture sequesters CO2 in soils and in plants. Grassland is especially important storing 34 % of the global stock of carbon in terrestrial ecosystems whilst forests store 39 % (Nathaniel Page, Fundatia Adept). (According to the ELO the EU soils contains the equivalent of 275 gigatons CO2 or more than 50 times the annual EU GHG emissions).

Same thinking is behind the French government initiative of ‘4 per 1,000’.”To quote the French minister of agriculture Stéphane Le Foll “The idea is simple: to increase the amount of CO2 captured by the soil by four grams per kilo of soil. If the whole planet managed to do this, the world’s carbon dioxide emissions would be cancelled out in one year”.

There is a whole range of farming practices available, which are subject to continuous refinement and development, to make farming more Climate Smart.

With regard to soil management (examples):

• Avoid drainage of wetlands and conversion of peatlands
• Practice 5 year Crop rotation with reduced need for pesticides and fertilizers
• Undertake extensification by way of reduced use of external inputs (fertilizers and pesticides)
• Planting of legume crops fixing nitrogen and substituting imported soybeans
• Soil/Green cover with catch crops and reduction of bare fallow
• Reduced or zero tillage (widespread practice in Argentina)
• Use of natural pastures for livestock rearing and less intensive grazing
• Retaining crop residues like straw, compost on the field
• Incorporation in the field of organic matter like animal manure and sewage sludge
• Afforestation and reforestation

As for CH4 and N2O the following mitigation steps (examples) can be taken:

• Genetic breeding of animals resulting in lower enteric fermentation in ruminants and lower CH4 emissions
• More efficient use and development of feedstuffs with higher conversion rates combined with animal breeding resulting in higher or unchanged production with fewer animals.
• Use of plant breeding with higher yields protecting against heat, drought and pests.
• Better manure management with covered storage and more efficient spreading as natural fertilizer on the fields substituting oil based products.
• Integrated Farming
• Precision farming (GPS) and drones

Further on the farm measures resulting in reduced GHG emissions

• Increased use of manure and silage as biomass for on the farm production of electricity with surplus of electricity sold to the public grid
• Installation of windmills and solar panels
• Higher energy efficiency in heating or cooling and machinery. Better insulation and storage
• Speed up a move away from first generation to second generation biofuels based on using animal waste, biomass like straw and rapid growing energy rich crops like Miscanthus (switch grass) or willow and use of forestry waste and wood pellets in order to ensure sustainability and environmental integrity

In summary there are many measures that can be taken to meet the challenge. This requires however continued innovation and investments to reach the goal of sustainable intensification of agricultural production.

For agriculture and forestry the outcome of Paris COP 21 and subsequent EU legislation to be proposed before the summer break in 2016 for the ESD and LULUCF will be very important in terms of sustainability and providing food security at the same time. In this respect a very important question is the degree of flexibility in relation to GHG emissions that will be granted to agriculture given the reduced potential for climate change mitigation compared to other sectors.

The first de facto review of COP 21 country commitments is likely to be based on the 2018 UN report in 2018 to get on track for net zero emissions. It can be expected that the pressure on the EU to go beyond the at least 40% reduction commitment will be strong given that the sum of commitments agreed on in Paris will not meet the objective of limiting global temperature to + 2° with consequences also for EU agriculture.

Agriculture risks being affected by climate change and the upcoming legislative framework more than other sectors. This requires in my view a serious rethinking of our Common Agricultural Policy, where the emphasis increasingly will be on delivering Public Goods for Public money in addition to agriculture’s role of providing food security. Climate Change mitigation and adaptation will entail costs and income foregone (externalities) for farmers which will be difficult to cover by market prices. The CAP must be tailored to support the EU’s GHG emission targets and the role EU farmers play in meeting that objective.

The UK House of Lords launched an inquiry into price volatility and agricultural resilience before Christmas and started a debate on the topic yesterday.

Farm Europe has been invited to contribute to the debate.

Below our responses:

• What is the role of public policy in mitigating the impact of potential price volatility? To what extent should the response be a shared endeavor between the EU institutions and Member State governments? What are the differing roles of industry on the one hand and individual farmers on the other?

Farm Europe agrees that price volatility drivers are indeed variable and complex. More frequent extreme weather-related events as a result of global warming, increased food demand as a result of population and income growth, and the interlinkages between commodity and financial markets do appear however to play a significant role.

None of the above drivers of price volatility are amenable to appropriate mitigation by individual farmers or other agro-food actors. Therefore public policy should play a role to respond to its negative impacts.

The resilience of the agricultural sector underpins the secure, sustainable and affordable supply of food to the citizens of the EU, as well as providing financial security for EU farmers. A resilient agricultural sector is one which can respond to risk effectively and take steps to mitigate the wider effects of global price volatility.

The agriculture policy being a long-standing European Union common policy, the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) should thus be the right framework for adequate policies to mitigate the effects of price volatility.

The CAP cannot achieve that goal without engaging with, and delegating to, Member States authorities and private sector actors. Diverse and detailed instruments would be called upon to implement its policies, and that is best done at national or sub-national level, and with public and private actors. Public private partnerships could be a model in this area.

Farmers are by far and large the most affected and interested group, and they should benefit from the mitigating measures to be applied. Farmers should also be called upon to participate in those measures to a reasoned and balanced extent.

The role of industry should be to provide as far as possible stability to the farming sector, and a more balanced distribution of benefits across the value-added chain.

• Should public policy responses make a distinction between support for the resilience of the industry as a whole, support for the resilience of specific sectors and support for the resilience of individual units of activity?

It is difficult to support the resilience of the whole industry, without supporting first and foremost the individual units of activity – the farmers.

In addition to that support targeted to specific sectors which face specific difficulties could be a means of increasing the effectiveness of the measures. There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all measure, and well targeted support is more effective than blanket policies.

• Currently, what are the key elements involved in the industry’s management of price risk? What further tools are needed?

Effective risk management can mitigate the adverse effects of price volatility. In the words of the OECD, “Risk management in agriculture is now an essential tool for farmers to anticipate, avoid and react to shocks. An efficient risk management system for agriculture will preserve the standard of living of those who depend on farming, strengthen the viability of farm businesses, and provide an environment which supports investment in the farming sector.”

In responding to this question Farm Europe believes it is useful to distinguish between farm level and agro-industry. There are currently big differences between sectors. Those sectors who have strong cooperatives are in a very different position than those which have only private actors. The farmer owned cooperatives have to a certain extent more possibilities and means to soften the impact of price volatility. At farm level the instruments available are contained in the CAP. They concern public intervention prices for some commodities (grains, beef, dairy), which are set at a low level to make sure they are only triggered in extreme situations; support to private storage when prices fall below established levels (pork, dairy); and indirect support to producer organizations in the fruit and vegetable sectors to withdraw surplus production. In addition to these instruments there is the possibility for Member States to support insurance schemes through ‘second pillar’ funds.

At the agro-industry and cooperative levels there are also some financial hedging mechanisms which are available to a few selected commodities and in a few selected markets. Currently in the EU future markets concern only two commodities and are available in only two markets– wheat (in Paris) and sugar (in London). Future markets, even if extended to other commodities, cannot but partially cover the agriculture output. For instance it is conceivable to have a future market for skimmed milk powder, but not for the highly diverse cheese production. To these limitations inherent to the instrument should be added the fact that it requires highly specialised knowledge to be used.

The existing mechanisms have proven to be insufficient when crisis strike, as demonstrated by the recent crisis in the dairy sector. In particular the insurance mechanisms are too few, and too weak to provide appropriate support for sectoral price falls.

At present the CAP spends 1% of its budget on supporting insurance, in contrast with 60% which are spent in direct income aids (direct payments) irrespective of market fluctuations.

A new framework for strengthening insurance mechanisms, with adequate support from the CAP, is a fundamental tool to be developed.

• What effect has the commoditisation of agricultural goods had on the ability of farmers to respond to risk effectively? How are farmers to mitigate the on-farm effects of volatile global commodity markets and currency fluctuations?

Commoditisation of agriculture goods should be seen in conjunction with

increased interlinkages between commodity and financial markets, and within commodity markets between agriculture and other commodities (energy, metals).

The effect of these developments has been to increase price volatility and therefore to further expose farmers to price swings stronger than what should be expected from usual supply and demand forces. The instruments farmers dispose to deal with these risks are at present rather limited – a few scattered insurance schemes, even fewer hedging instruments. Availability of relevant and accurate market information is also an area where there is still room for improvement.

• What are the barriers to more effective on-farm price risk management, including longer term pricing mechanisms, diversification, co-operative working and leasing? How can those barriers be overcome and what is the role of EU and national public policy?

It is the view of Farm Europe that on-farm price risk management is impaired by the lack of well funded instruments, in particular the lack of across the board insurance schemes.

Diversification helps, but there are limits to how far a farmer can diversify operations. Land, climate, technology and capital are well known constraints.

Cooperatives can help stabilize prices, but only up to the point of their financial and contractual capabilities. Future contracts are also helpful, but they are very limited in scope.

Farm Europe argues that EU and national public policies have a role to play, by providing appropriate insurance schemes across sectors and countries.

EU and national public policies should also set the right framework for better price transmission and a more balanced distribution of the added value in the food marketing chain.

• How ‘fit for purpose’ are market-based instruments? Could the marketplace help to mitigate risks by providing ways of smoothing out the impact of volatility? Are there ways in which EU and national public policy could encourage, and reduce the risk of introducing new financial products?

Insurance against significant price drops or crop failure could be provided through the marketplace, with adequate backing from EU and national public funds to guarantee stop-loss coverage to private insurers and to make premium affordable to farmers. Due to the very large financial requirements associated with price insurance schemes Farm Europe believes that they should be designed and supported at EU level, with CAP funding. It is unrealistic in our opinion to expect price insurance to be implemented only at national or sub-national level, as it is highly unlikely that the financial needs to cope with sharp price falls would be available. Another avenue open to market actors is to expand the use of contracts between farmers, or their cooperatives, and buyers (agro-industry, wholesale and retail), that could increase price stability and forward pricing.

• How realistic are terms for access to investment finance? What role is there for the European Investment Bank to support on-farm investment at a low cost? What other instruments could improve access to finance in a volatile environment?

Investment is key to the sustainable and competitive development of farming. One of the biggest problems facing farmers that are willing to invest or have invested in the recent past is how to cope with paying back loans in a volatile price environment.

Farm Europe sees the potential for the European Investment Bank to step-in and provide financial backing to lenders in the EU. The EIB could offer credit to lenders tailored to soften the terms under which farmers access investment credit.

• What level of information is available to farmers to engage with market-based instruments and to consider alternative options for on-farm actions? How might knowledge availability be improved? How can farmers be encouraged to acquire the skills needed to operate a modern business-like operation?

National advisory bodies provide information to farmers. A case should be made for that information to include how farmers could benefit from market-based tools to mitigate volatility and increase resilience, including insurance, contracting and future markets.

Also national authorities could provide training for farmers or their representatives to understand how to engage in contracting and in future markets.

• What role should innovation play in creating a more resilient agricultural sector? Should more be invested in scientific research which could have the potential to transform agricultural practices?

Innovation is in Farm Europe’s opinion a key to the future of the agriculture sector. Innovation could help farmers cope with more extreme weather events, through for instance more resistant seeds and improved soil management.

To foster innovation, research is paramount. The increase in productivity has slowed down in the last decades, questioning the ability of the farm sector to satisfy increased demand from a larger and wealthier population, in particular in emerging economies.

Worth underlining that the last decades have also witnessed a drop in agricultural research that needs to be reversed to provide enough food for the world increased demand.

Public and private bodies, at the EU and national level, should work together to foster agriculture and food research, and to disseminate its results.

• How effectively does EU agricultural policy currently assist farmers to mitigate the impact of potential price volatility? Is there a need for management of price risk to be an explicit objective of the Common Agricultural Policy? What long term changes should be made to the Common Agricultural Policy to support the agricultural industry in responding to price risk more effectively? Should insurance schemes play a more prominent role?

The current CAP attempts to stabilize farm incomes through direct income aids irrespective of the evolution of prices. As mentioned above 60% of the budget is thus spent, as compared to only 1% in insurance. In addition to that the CAP provides a number of safety net measures to some key sectors- grains, dairy, beef, pork, fruits and vegetables. However these measures have proven insufficient to address more important price falls, resulting in severe income losses for farmers on more affected sectors, which in turn jeopardizes farmers’ ability to invest and modernize and better cope with price volatility.

Farm Europe defends that to increase the resilience of the farm sector explicit and strong measures should be implemented to respond to price risks in the CAP. In particular insurance schemes should become a central feature of the CAP with adequate funding. These insurance schemes should be provided at national or sub-national level, by private or public bodies, and be well adapted to farmers’ needs. They should be available across the EU for all farmers to subscribe. As said above, public funds should provide the right incentives for insurance companies and farmers to make these insurance schemes viable, and that can only be achieved with EU level support. The cost of insurance should be affordable to farmers, and insurance companies should have appropriate guarantees to cover catastrophic losses.

Farm Europe sustains that progress in this direction could be made in a two-step approach. In the short-term additional resources could be transferred from direct income aids towards increased support to insurance schemes. That would require a mid-term review of the current CAP that would make it possible, by increasing the share of ‘first pillar’ direct income aids that could be transferred to the ‘second pillar’.

However the CAP in the medium to long-term needs a more fundamental review. For Farm Europe there are three key objectives for a common policy – support the resilience of the sector, promote sustainable farming, and spur growth through innovation and investment in particular. It is questionable whether to commit 60% of the resources to income aids irrespective of market price fluctuations is the right way forward.

In a second step, Farm Europe has thus the vision of a CAP that would be structured around these three key objectives. In that new, reformed CAP insurance schemes would be a fundamental pillar, the one that would foster resilience.

Farm Europe attended the 4th SCAR Foresight Conference at the European Commission on 8 October 2015.

The conference, titled ‘Sustainable Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries in the Bioeconomy – A Challenge for Europe’, brought together experts and sectoral representatives to discuss the principles which would enable the primary production sectors – agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and aquaculture – to confront the growing challenges of climate change, food security, and sustainability.

Speakers included Fernand Etgen, Luxembourgish Minister of Agriculture, Viticulture and Consumer Protection, John Bell, from DG Research and Innovation at the European Commission, Ken Ash, Director of Trade and Agriculture at the OECD, and the experts responsible for the production of the SCAR report around which the conference was structured.

The nature of the event called for questions to be raised and discussed, rather than for conclusions to be reached. The perspectives offered were nonetheless enlightening, and the lively debate offered much food for thought. Although common agreement was not the primary aim of the conference, a number of issues were repeatedly emphasised by various speakers, some relating to Research and Investment in the agricultural sector, and others reflecting on the broader nature of European agricultural policy:

• The urgency of the issues at stake: regardless of the scale of the challenge, ensuring food security and respecting the demands of climate change are urgent problems requiring immediate solutions.
• The global nature of these issues: the role of international politics, with such agendas as the New York Sustainable Development Agenda and the upcoming COP 2015 meeting in Paris. The resulting implications of the effectiveness of European policy-making in this area were also raised.
• The need for cooperation among stakeholders: joint priority-setting processes lead to more lasting solutions.
• The need for multiple views, and for the broadening of the debate. This refers to the importance of both public and private sector involvement – including the consultation of civil society and consumers – in agricultural research agenda-setting. The involvement of practitioners can reduce the risk of policy failure, and this holds true for the education of practitioners in new technologies.
• The need for waste reduction, regardless of the eventual importance of biomass to the future of European agriculture, and the related question of the role of consumer behaviour.
• The notion of food systems, rather than ‘food security’, inviting a more holistic approach to the challenges to global food and agriculture and focusing on the potential opportunities for innovation, trade, health, job creation, wealth generation… offered by food security.
• Above all, an overarching theme was the requirement of policy coherence in terms of agricultural policy. This was raised in various contexts – between member state and EU level; in terms of priority-setting; and ultimately in relation to the coherence between different EU policies, such as environment, climate, and development. A primary reason given for this was the need to reduce uncertainty in the sector in order to encourage investment. A related issue was the EU’s obligation to take leadership on the issue of the bioeconomy, and securing European policy coherence was raised as a measure for assuring a strong global role for the European Union on the issue of the future of the agri-food sector.

The closing panel discussion provoked a lively discussion regarding the feasibility of the ‘bioeconomy’ concept, and participants highlighted both the potential for biomass to offer far-reaching solutions to the issue of sustainability and the remaining question marks – including the implications for land use and resource exploitation – which are still to be fully addressed.

Read more about the SCAR process and access the 4th SCAR Foresight Exercise at https://ec.europa.eu/research/scar/index.cfm?pg=foresight4th.

In summary, it is clear that the Commission does not wish to rush out measures. We will have to wait for the outcome of the informal Council of Agriculture Ministers Mid-September before commenting on the ambitiousness of the measures announced yesterday. At this stage it is difficult to predict what impact they may ultimately have on the market.

At this stage the package contains a varied if somewhat motley assortment of measures, some of which offer promising prospects however, and in particular:

–       The creation of new financial instruments through the European Investment Bank (EIB): This could prove useful for farmers burdened with significant debts when commodity prices are plummeting. It will take time to put in place and it may be a while before it bears fruit. The idea is nonetheless viable and promising, not least because it addresses a real need facing many farms, especially those that have invested in preparation for the end of quotas.

Other measures being put forward include:

–       Enhancing support for private storage: an increase in the level of public aid for private storage could encourage operators to choose to store more. However, the Commission has not yet announced either the new level of aid or details about storage duration requirements. It is therefore difficult at this stage to judge whether the measure will work. If it is well calibrated, it could, to some extent, offer a more politically acceptable alternative to other stronger forms of intervention. If the incentives are sufficient, it could help to rebalance supply and demand over the short term.

–       Encouraging a wider use of income stabilisation tools, especially insurance. This is possible under the current CAP’s second pillar, although the provisions are embryonic. In a context of volatile markets, of which the current crisis is just the latest episode, such tools offer a promising approach that the EU should actively pursue.

In addition to which the EU has announced:

– €500 million Euros of ‘targeted’ aid for the dairy sector to be shared among the Member States. Negotiations will undoubtedly be difficult and so there is a risk that the impact of this budget will be diluted. If it is to have an impact, it will need to be carefully targeted. Otherwise the €500 million budget will have to be shared among more than a million farmers, which is unlikely to achieve very much.