Tag: beef

After the wine, a high-level group on sustainable livestock is needed

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

The recommendations adopted earlier this week by the EU High-Level Group on Wine highlight the tangible benefits of a multi-stakeholder approach, as emphasized by Farm Europe at the outset of this process. Bringing together diverse actors across the value chain, with a clear vision and a concrete strategy, is crucial for supporting the economic sustainability of strategic sectors in the EU and for charting a path forward.
A thorough understanding of the sector’s challenges — whether structural, climatic, or shaped by citizen expectations — is essential to developing effective policy recommendations and legislative proposals.
This significant outcome, along with the renewed approach, should serve as a guiding framework for the livestock sector as well, event if the challenges and solutions will be different.
Given the positive, concrete results from the HLG on Wine, along with the European Parliament’s political commitment to fostering a transparent, non-ideological debate on the livestock sector — exemplified by the establishment of the EP’s dedicated Intergroup — Farm Europe and Eat Europe believe it is time for the European Commission to launch a similar process for this sector.

As Farm Europe’s research shows, the livestock sector is at a critical crossroads. To address its challenges, we must take a scientific and evidence-based approach, focusing on both its economic sustainability and the public discourse surrounding it. This includes presenting, in an objective manner, not only the environmental challenges, but also the positive contributions of the sector:

  • Its role in the bio-circular economy, soil quality: manure and by-products produced by a cow are transformed into a positive and virtuous bioeconomy model as energy (biogas, biomethane, biodiesel), or as organic fertilizer (digestate, RENURE). Eighty percent of the water used in a cow’s production cycle is returned to the land, improving soil quality by enriching it with organic matter, just to give some examples;
  • The vitality of the countryside and remote areas, which, without a solid and profitable livestock sector, would be abandoned with dramatic consequences on the environment (erosion, fertility of soils, etc.) and the economy of those regions;
  • The production of high-quality, nutritious food, essential for balanced diets.

It is time for Europe to boost its animal sector to grasp its full potential, rejecting strategies that would lead to the sector being replaced by lower-quality imported proteins or by lab-grown proteins disconnected from natural cycles. The finalisation of the EU/Mercosur deal generates doubts about the double-standard approach by the European Commission.

At a time when producers are grappling with significant challenges, it is crucial to develop a renewed, shared agenda for the sector that is supported by all levels of government, from the EU to local authorities. The EU’s livestock model must remain economically viable while adapting to increasing societal and environmental demands. Key issues — such as health, biodiversity, climate and environmental impacts, economic potential, and the social fabric tied to livestock activities — must be addressed in a cohesive and integrated manner.

These elements should be fully incorporated into the European strategy to ensure a sustainable future for Europe, starting with the establishment of a dedicated High-Level Expert Group.

Mercosur: EU farmers would be exposed to more unfair competition

Posted on - Posted by Farm Europe

The draft Protocol proposed by the European Commission doesn’t provide answer to the actual environment and climate concerns on the Mercosur deal, and much less in attempting to establish a level playing field for EU farmers. Vague political declarations seem to be what’s on the table. Will they suffice to convince the European Parliament and the Council?

The European Commission is known to be seeking an additional Protocol with Mercosur that would accommodate the European Parliament and Council concerns on the lack of strong environmental and climate provisions in the deal. Without further assurances the political process of ratifying the deal was actually frozen.

A leaked draft of that Protocol, labelled “EU-Mercosur Joint Instrument”, sheds light on the approach being followed by the Commission.

The draft consists on a recollection of previous international commitments of all parties; it lists a set of general good intentions with regard to the environment and to fighting climate change; it sets a single new non-binding target on the reduction of deforestation (-50% by 2025), without any proper independent verification process; and, last but not least, it lacks any enforcement mechanisms whatsoever.

What would be the real value of this Protocol? What is the added value in recalling international commitments? To which extent, if any, would that add to the existing commitments? What are general good intentions worth, without targets, and without any enforcement provisions? Even on the well-known problem of deforestation, what does the draft Protocol add to the provisions of the recently adopted EU Regulation on imported deforestation? Does an aspirational, non-binding target assuage widespread concerns on the preservation of the Amazon? If there are no enforcement mechanisms, to which extent are the good intentions and declarations more than empty words?

It is crucial however to put the current on-going negotiations on the additional Protocol in the right context.

The negotiated EU-Mercosur deal between the Commission and the Mercosur countries was already seen as too weak on environmental and climate protection. Since then the Commission has embarked in a set of proposals – the Green Deal – that are piling up new restrictions and obligations on EU farmers: the SUR proposal to reduce by 50% the use of chemical pesticides; the IED, Directive on industrial emissions, encompassing a large part of the EU livestock production; the proposals on mandatory reductions on chemical fertilisers, and on setting aside land for biodiversity; the additional efforts asked to the agricultural sector to reduce GHG emissions.

Does the draft Protocol address any of the new environmental and climate measures proposed? Does it attempt to set-up real “mirror clauses” on imports from Mercosur? 

We see none of it. The application of the deal would thus lead to increased unfair competition for EU farmers. They would face higher costs, lower profitability, as a result of the Commission Green Deal proposals, that their Mercosur competitors would not. The situation today is worse for the EU agriculture sector than when the negotiation was finalised in 2019, but the draft Protocol bluntly ignores that fact.

Inevitably, if that were to be the case, imports from the Mercosur would further increase with regard to earlier forecasts. EU agriculture production would decrease, and EU consumption would be satisfied by more imports produced under much lower environmental and climate standards. EU farmers would be worse-off with no world climate benefit.

This draft Protocol doesn’t provide answer to the actual environment and climate concerns on the deal, and much less in attempting to establish a level playing field for EU farmers. Vague political declarations seem to be what’s on the table. 

Will they suffice to convince the European Parliament and the Council?