While the EU is engaged in comprehensive discussions regarding the most efficient utilization of NGTs technologies to foster sustainability in the agricultural sector, the complex issue of intellectual property rights within this context seems to remain untouched. The UK are facing similar regulatory issues, while recent studies have shown that CRISPR-edited rice can produce up to five times more yields than its non-modified counterpart.
Author: Farm Europe
FARM to FORK polices & initiatives
In her State of the Union address, President von der Leyen paid tribute to EU agriculture and farmers,and called for a strategic dialogue on the future of agriculture. That same month, the EPP organised a conference on agriculture, while the Greens reiterated theiropposition to the NGT plan during a webinar on “GMO-free Europe” and TP Organics emphasised therole of organic farming in ensuring food security. European Commission President Von der Leyen explored the possibility of using EU funds to helpGreece tackle climate challenges. Discussions on visions for rural areas and soil health lawscontinued in September, with MEPs arguing in favour of an extended derogation from GAEC inresponse to the difficulties and requests of several Member States. While the Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister stressed the importance of the solidarity corridors for theeconomy, agriculture and food security, and expressed his gratitude for the EU’s support, Ukraine haslodged complaints with the WTO against Poland, Hungary and Slovakia, for the import bans imposedby the aforementioned countries, even though the ban decided at EU level has come to an end. A new FAO report raises concerns about the world’s progress towards meeting development goals, highlighting the essential role of agriculture in maintaining water supplies.
Glyphosate: let’s not undermine the confidence in EU institutions, neither the internal market
Farm Europe is often questioned on the issue of glyphosate. We do not currently have a team of scientists experts in assessing the health and environmental risks associated with plant protection products. We are therefore careful not to take a position on the quality of the work done by scientists and by the European Food Safety Authority in particular.
However, we regret a form of “green populism” that appears every time the glyphosate issue comes up, using fears in an attempt to gain electoral market share or easy visibility at the expense of the farmers who use this product. Currently glyphosate meets a need, including for certain practices that reduce emissions, such as no-till farming. More than ever, with the European elections approaching, we believe that rather than undermining their credibility, pro-European forces committed to a rational debate based on science should strengthen confidence in EU institutions and their ability to manage risks, protect nature and the health of Europeans.
If it turns out that any element has not been properly taken into account, the re-authorisation proposal should be reviewed, as the European Commission intends to do, including if new evidence comes to light. It is for this reason that the authorisation proposed by the European Commission is accompanied by a list of appropriate restrictions on usages. On the proposal itself, we consider that the restrictions must be clearly set at European level in order to guarantee the integrity of the internal market, therefore those decisions must not be left at the discretion of the Member States. In addition, the same rules must apply to imported food products.
In any event, we recognise the political and administrative courage of all those involved in managing this sensitive file, and are convinced that they are fully aware of their responsibilities.
Furthermore, let’s encourage research and innovation !
Agriculture: a priority for the Commission to be confirmed via a strategic dialogue
For the first time in her mandate – and on the occasion of her last State of the Union speech – the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, mentioned farmers 5 times and launched a significant message on agriculture. Without turning her back on the Green Deal, the Commission President underlined her conviction that “we must make it our duty, now and in the future, to secure our livelihoods within and in harmony with nature”.
“Today I would like to pay tribute to our farmers and thank them for ensuring our food supply day after day”, she stressed. “Guaranteeing healthy food: this duty of agriculture is the foundation of our agricultural policy here in Europe. We are also committed to guaranteeing the independence of our food supply”.
A strategic dialogue on the future of agriculture
For her, “these are the guarantees offered by our farmers. This cannot be taken for granted, because our farmers are subject to the growing impact on their work and their incomes of Russian aggression against Ukraine, climate change, with the droughts, fires and floods it is causing, but also new obligations”.
So “we have to take them into account. Many are already committed to more sustainable agriculture. We need to rise to these new challenges alongside farmers. That’s the only way we can guarantee our food security for the future too. We need more dialogue and less polarisation. That’s why we want to launch a strategic dialogue on the future of agriculture in the EU”.
It should be noted that there was no mention of the Farm to Fork strategy, neither of the trade situation with Ukraine. Most of her speech focused on the competitiveness of the European economy, with some strong announcements, notably the launch of an anti-dumping procedure concerning electric vehicles from China.
The President also stressed the importance of ensuring the EU’s strategic autonomy and securing energy supplies, particularly through renewable energies. Mrs von der Leyen mentioned her intention to inaugurate the first container ship powered by Methanol produced from renewable solar energy.
Harvest marked by mildew attacks
Highlights of July-August:
– The wine industry and a number of producer Member States have reacted strongly to the additional impact assessment published by the Commission on the effects of its proposed SUR regulation on pesticides on European production.
– Following authorisation from the European Commission, the crisis distillation measure has been implemented in a number of producer countries (France, Portugal, Spain), although some regions have not opted for it, notably the Spanish region of Castilla-la-Mancha.
– Weather conditions in the spring and early summer favoured the proliferation of diseases, which particularly affected Italian production. By 2023, France is set to overtake Italy as the world’s leading producer.
– In retaliation for European support for Ukraine, Russia has decided to raise its customs duties on European wine production from 12.5% to 20%.
Full note available on FE Members’ area.
Laboratory meat: worse for the climate
The European elections scheduled for June 2024 are already influencing policy-making in the European Union. Any directives or regulations that are not approved before April 2024 will depend on the future composition of the Parliament and the new Commission.
The impact assessment on the recast of the animal welfare rules has been approved by the European Commission’s Quality Control Committee. The EU executive authorities are optimistic that they will be able to propose the new legislation before the end of the year.
Although still pending, the revision of EU rules on food labelling remains a long-awaited proposal from the Commission. The German government appears to have abandoned the idea of an EU-wide origin label being included in the Commission’s proposal on food labelling. Last month, Berlin adopted a regulation extending the scope of mandatory origin labelling for meat.
Parliament voted to exclude cattle farming from the scope of the directive on industrial emissions, and to maintain the current livestock unit thresholds for pigs and poultry.
A workshop was organised by the Natural Resources Committee (NAT) and the Environment, Climate Change and Energy Committee (ENVE) to discuss solutions for the sustainable coexistence of livestock farming and large carnivores in Europe. Workshop participants stressed the need for the European Commission to revise the Habitats Directive.
The European Commission’s recent annexes to the Mercosur agreement have been rejected by the key states. Environmental protection measures are the main obstacle to the trade agreement.
The French Council of State has decided to refer the case of the terminology of plant substitutes to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
The FAO recently published a summary document on the risks associated with cell-based foods. More than 50 potential hazards to human health were identified.
According to new studies, lab meat is not intrinsically better for the environment than conventional beef. Analysis of the levels of CO2 emissions from cultured meat shows results that are much higher than the data commonly found in the literature. It emerges that investments aimed at promoting more climate-friendly beef production could lead to greater emission reductions, and more quickly, than investments in cultured meat.
Full note available on FE Members’ area.
Long term solutions needed to cope with the surge of imports from Ukraine
Yesterday, Agriculture Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski intervened in the Agriculture Committee on the situation on the European cereals market in relation to the war in Ukraine and the end of the “Black Sea grain deal”.
The Commissioner wanted to explain in detail the enormous pressure that the import of Ukrainian cereals has brought to the market of the five neighboring countries (Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria) and which has justified the block of imports of maize, wheat, rapeseed and sunflower seeds in these countries until 15 September.
This protectionist measure will therefore soon expire and the Commissioner said he was concerned about the impact this could have on the markets. Mr Wojciechowski recalled that in 2022 Ukrainian grain poured into the five countries to the value of EUR 5 billion more than before the war. The Commissioner then presented his proposal -and he emphasized that it is his proposal that has not been validated by the Commission and will be discussed at the College- to break the deadlock.
According to the Commissioner, today it is possible to export from Ukraine through the solidarity corridors, but cereals still remain in the EU (and do not go to third countries as was previously the case) due to the increased transition costs of passing through several European countries and ports, greatly increasing the cost of Ukrainian cereals and making them uncompetitive for third countries. This is why the Commissioner is proposing European transit subsidies to cushion these additional costs and proposing compensation of €30 per tonne. The Commissioner believes it would therefore take a budget of EUR 600 million to cover 20 million tonnes of cereals.
According to our assessment this proposal of a transport subsidy would equal an export subsidy which would directly compete with local production in third countries. Therefore it will not probably not be accepted internally after the European Commission legal assessment. Instead, we consider that the focus of the European Union should be in fostering alternative logistic facilities and processing within the European Union in order to rebalance markets and invest in sustainable, long term solution instead of short term quick fix that are legally uncertain and not viable in the medium to long run.
However it is clear that solutions must be put on the table. Our infographic with the latest figures from European customs highlights the continuing dynamic of cereal and oilseed imports from Ukraine, a minima jusqu’au mois de juin pour lequel les données sont disponibles. Sugar imports, which did not exist before autumn 2022, have increased to significant levels, upsetting the balance of the domestic market.
During the 5 first months of 2023, the EU imported 3 Mt of wheat (meaning the whole 2022 imports), has increased by + 60 % its imports of maize compared to the same 2022 period (Jan-June), + 200% its imports of soja and by a dramatic 1180% the sugar imports.
Therefore, measures are needed to help Ukraine to export its productions while preserving a fair and balanced EU agri market. The EU should support investments in infrastructures and processing.
NGTs: DIFFERENT REACTIONS TO THE NGTS REGULATION PROPOSAL
On the 5th of July, the European commission presented a proposal for a « Regulation of the european parliament and of the council on plants obtained by certain new genomic techniques and their food and feed ». This proposal provides a good working basis on this file to boost innovation, and meet the health, climate and environmental challenges. Now, this proposal will be discussed under co-decision by the European Parliament and Council. Both ComENVI and ComAGRI will be involved until the end of this mandate. Most probably it will be up to the next Parliament to finalise the deal and negotiate with the Council
Full note available at Farm Europe’s Members site
Nature restoration law: a major setback for VP Frans Timmermans
Whatever the outcome of the vote on the Nature Restoration Law in Strasbourg tomorrow, the situation of extreme polarisation of the debate is already a major failure for Vice-President Frans Timmermans and his personal vision of implementing the Green Deal and Farm to Fork.
Ultimately, it raises the question of a European Commission that claims to be « political », and no longer has the capacity to play its role as “honest broker”, able to facilitate dialogue and to shape compromises leaving no one behind. The inclusion of agriculture in this text raises questions as far as the co-legislators have just reached an agreement via the Common Agricultural Policy on important points included again in the Nature Restoration Law. This creates mistrust in the political decision-making and the feeling among the farming community that the European Commission is coming back via the back door, despite the political balances recently established.
The Nature Restoration Law is far from being the only text aimed at protecting natural resources. The aim of this law is above all to bring the protection of biodiversity and environmental policy under the jurisdiction of the Courts, placing a legal risk on the Member States and political leaders, and ultimately to put pressure on all those in direct contact with natural resources, in particular farmers, fishermen and foresters.
In this respect, Article 16 proposed by the European Commission (which makes it easier for individuals to take legal action against political leaders) is indicative of this approach: with this law, it is not a question of encouraging and promoting a positive dynamic. It’s not about incentives, it’s about sanctions. The European Commission is positioning itself as a supervisor who validates or distributes sanctions, without taking any political responsibility for defining the path to achieving the targets — the how to implement transitions —, and if necessary relying on the courts. The European Commission would approve national plans.
No political group, with the exception of the Greens and part of the far left, feels truly comfortable with the approach defined by the European Commission. An analysis of the amendments tabled in plenary bears this out.
- The EPP profoundly rejects this text. In the end, it decided that there was no point in trying to improve the draft law. It has tabled a motion to reject it.
- It is joined in this approach by the ECR and ID groups. The ECR also tabled amendments aimed at deleting the 10% target for areas of ecological interest (equivalent to set-aside land) and deleting the “butterfly” indicator, which would force Member States to observe the growth of certain species.
- The Renew Europe group is attempting a compromise by proposing the Council’s general approach, a proposal which does not, however, resolve the most divisive agricultural issues.
- In addition, individual MEPs from Renew Europe and the Socialists tabled amendments on these subjects in order to limit the potential negative impact on agriculture, and in particular the deletion of any reference to the 10% target.
- The Greens support the overall approach of the Vice-President of the European Commission, Frans Timmermans.
However, no amendments were tabled in relation to the recital making “extensive agriculture” the alpha and omega of an effective environmental policy. Yet this type of approach, which moves towards de-growth in agricultural production, poses a problem, not only from a food sovereignty point of view but also from the point of view of protecting natural resources. It would mean more land being farmed, and therefore more deforestation and less biodiversity. Following this “extensification” path, the nature restoration law would be bad for nature.
Our analysis of the initial proposal is available here.
New Genomic Techniques: Commission to move forward on NGTs Regulation
While the US debate over the similarities of CRISPR Crops to the ones in nature, and the Canadian government’s lack of transparency is being criticized, the EU and the Commission is willing to move forward on developing different regulations for NGTs with a proposal of regulation tabled on the 5th of July.
Full note available at Farm Europe’s Members site