The European Parliament is due to vote on the Commission's Farm to Fork strategy this week, but is facing a lobbying blitz from farmers, agribusiness and even the US Government. It is being argued that the strategy will reduce crop yields and force up prices: https://www.politico.eu/article/meps-vote-eus-green-food-plan-farm-to-fork/
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Monday, October 18, 2021
Sunday, March 03, 2019
US opens offensive on agricultural trade
The United States is playing hardball on agricultural trade as part of any future US-UK trade deal after Brexit. Last week the office of the US trade representative (in effect, America's trade minister) issued a document that said the US was seeking 'comprehensive market access for US agricultural goods in the UK' through the reduction or elimination of tariffs. The US is also looking for the removal of 'unwanted barriers' related to 'sanitary and phytosanitary' standards.
The US Ambassador followed up with an article in the Daily Telegraph on Saturday which said that the UK risked getting trapped in the EU's 'museum of agriculture' approach: Smears on US farms
The EU has shown itself more than capable of innovation in agriculture with a new era opening up with the digital revolution. However, what the so-called 'museum of agriculture' about is a vision for European farming which emphasises the production of high quality products in an environmentally sensitive way, including observing animal welfare standards. An ecosystems compatible agriculture reflects the preferences of European consumers and voters who have no enthusiasm for corporate, industrialised American models.
Wednesday, July 05, 2017
Environmentally sustainable agriculture
The Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology has produced a short but informative briefing note on environmentally sustainable agriculture: Research Briefing
The note places particular emphasis on the notion of 'natural capital'. As part of a new domestic agricultural policy, measures could be taken to achieve natural capital targets referring to the elements of nature that directly or indirectly produce value to people.
It also notes that the Conservative Party manifesto contained a proposal for a 25-year environment plan, but this was not included in the Queen's Speech. If it was proceeded with, it would have implications for a number of aspects of agricultural practice. Among them would be water pollution; greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from crops and livestock; soil compaction from machinery and livestock; the effects of pesticide use on pollinators; and, the degradation and fragmentation of natural and semi-natural habitats.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Too much focus on environment
Conservative shadow minister Lord Taylor has said that there has been strong a focus on environmental considerations in agricultural policy. He said, 'If we want a very productive agriculture we want to re-focus the attention that's been diverted away from farming itself.'
It has been apparent for some time that a Conservative government would adopt a more productionist approach to farm policy, but that has always been foreshadowed by the recent Defra strategy paper which was substantially influenced by the growing influence of the food security discourse.
This comes at a time when a new study by WWF-UK and the Food Climate Research Network estimates the food we eat accounts for 30 per cent of the UK's carbon footprint. Previous official estimates had been below 20 per cent. However, these figures take into account emissions generated overseas. It is estimated that more than half of greenhouse gas emissions are accounted for by livestock farming.
What we do not want are ill thought out responses of the 'Meat Free Monday' type which have been criticised by careful analysts like Tom MacMillan of the Food Ethics Research Council. Too hasty a lurch in that direction could have implications for animal welfare.
It has been apparent for some time that a Conservative government would adopt a more productionist approach to farm policy, but that has always been foreshadowed by the recent Defra strategy paper which was substantially influenced by the growing influence of the food security discourse.
This comes at a time when a new study by WWF-UK and the Food Climate Research Network estimates the food we eat accounts for 30 per cent of the UK's carbon footprint. Previous official estimates had been below 20 per cent. However, these figures take into account emissions generated overseas. It is estimated that more than half of greenhouse gas emissions are accounted for by livestock farming.
What we do not want are ill thought out responses of the 'Meat Free Monday' type which have been criticised by careful analysts like Tom MacMillan of the Food Ethics Research Council. Too hasty a lurch in that direction could have implications for animal welfare.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Productivism by any name
Vaasa, Finland: Geoff Lawrence told delegates at the ESRS conference today that one should be careful about terms like neo-productionism and post-productivism that had been used at the conference. Liked productivism, they amounted to a triumph of output over sustainability.
He emphasised the way in which the financialisation of the world food regime has encouraged speculative trading which in turn had resulted in more volatile prices. In 2003 $13bn have been spent on agricultural futures trading and it had soared to $260bn in 2006 as traders saw an opportunity as prices rose.
This theme was emphasised by Peter Feindt and Terry Marsden who argued that short-term and long-term resource shortfalls fuelled speculation. They also drew attention to the carbon dependant nature of the current world food regime.
Unfortunately, the articulation of sustainability concerns often di not got beyond reports, leading to an incoherent articulation which did not change policy. Cracks in the current regime offered up real opportunities for change, but more attention needed to be paid to the politics of transitions.
Mark Tilzey presented an analysis informed by Marxist categories, drawing attention to the attempts of fractions of capital to restore class hegemony. Delegates wondered if they had stumbled into a time warp, but Tilzey argued that the export of productivism through globalisation opened up spaces for the affluent at home. He questioned whether the production of staples could be undertaken by a sustainable rural paradigm, but did not call for machine tractor stations.
In discussion it was argued that supply chains were the dominant form of governance in the current agri-food system. These were potentially highly flexible strategic devices, but did they have the absorptive capacity to deal with challenges like the decreased availability of fossil fuels?
Later discussion emphasised the increasingly close links between food, the environment, energy and finance.
He emphasised the way in which the financialisation of the world food regime has encouraged speculative trading which in turn had resulted in more volatile prices. In 2003 $13bn have been spent on agricultural futures trading and it had soared to $260bn in 2006 as traders saw an opportunity as prices rose.
This theme was emphasised by Peter Feindt and Terry Marsden who argued that short-term and long-term resource shortfalls fuelled speculation. They also drew attention to the carbon dependant nature of the current world food regime.
Unfortunately, the articulation of sustainability concerns often di not got beyond reports, leading to an incoherent articulation which did not change policy. Cracks in the current regime offered up real opportunities for change, but more attention needed to be paid to the politics of transitions.
Mark Tilzey presented an analysis informed by Marxist categories, drawing attention to the attempts of fractions of capital to restore class hegemony. Delegates wondered if they had stumbled into a time warp, but Tilzey argued that the export of productivism through globalisation opened up spaces for the affluent at home. He questioned whether the production of staples could be undertaken by a sustainable rural paradigm, but did not call for machine tractor stations.
In discussion it was argued that supply chains were the dominant form of governance in the current agri-food system. These were potentially highly flexible strategic devices, but did they have the absorptive capacity to deal with challenges like the decreased availability of fossil fuels?
Later discussion emphasised the increasingly close links between food, the environment, energy and finance.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Big Phil Lays It On The Line
Vaasa: Philip Lowe is a leading figure in the rural studies community in the UK and he issues a stark warning about the so-called 'new productivism' in an interview that was issued to delegates at the ESRS Congress where he gave the opening plenary.
Asked if we were moving towards a 'new productivism', the Duke of Northumberland professor at Newcastle University said: 'Much of what I hear sounds like the old productivism. The characteristic of the old productivism that prevailed until the 1990s was that it sought recklessly to boost primary production. Although it claimed to do this with attention to efficiency, this only embraced the so-called factors of production: land, labour and capital.'
The RELU boss continued, 'So we encouraged a form of agriculture that was wasteful in its use of water, energy, soils and caused pollution problems and diminished biodiversity. We must not return to the old-style productivism - of expansion of food production at any cost.'
'No,' Lowe declared, 'the new productivism msut be constructed on the basis of economic and ecological efficiency which thereby protects the capacities of individual ecosystems to deliver a range of valued a life-supporting services.'
Asked if we were moving towards a 'new productivism', the Duke of Northumberland professor at Newcastle University said: 'Much of what I hear sounds like the old productivism. The characteristic of the old productivism that prevailed until the 1990s was that it sought recklessly to boost primary production. Although it claimed to do this with attention to efficiency, this only embraced the so-called factors of production: land, labour and capital.'
The RELU boss continued, 'So we encouraged a form of agriculture that was wasteful in its use of water, energy, soils and caused pollution problems and diminished biodiversity. We must not return to the old-style productivism - of expansion of food production at any cost.'
'No,' Lowe declared, 'the new productivism msut be constructed on the basis of economic and ecological efficiency which thereby protects the capacities of individual ecosystems to deliver a range of valued a life-supporting services.'
Sunday, May 31, 2009
EU could do better on environmental farming
Millions of pounds of txapayers' money intended for environmental projects is instead being used to prop up damaging farmning practices across Europe, according to a report Could Do Better compiled for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds by Birdlife International.
The report highlights some of the positive work being done in EU member states with CAP funding which is helping farmers create and protect habitants for wildlife. 'In principle this European funding is great news for wildlife because it supports agri-environment schemes which protect biodiversity - but the truth is that implementation of the policy by many member states is weak,' warned RSPB's head of agriculture policy Gareth Morgan.
'In compiling this report we found examples of agricultural schemes receiving large amounts of public subsidy from the EU which had no environmental benefit at all, in fact some were causing the degradation of the environment.'
Farmland bird species are in decline across Europe and this is often linked to changes in agricultual activities. Many of these threatened species are extremely senistive to changes in their habitat caused by intensification of farming. For example, the Spanish imperial eagle requires large areas of sparse wood picture rich in rabbit and the eastern European red-footed falcon requires traditional farmland with ponds rich in dragonflies.
'The findings of this report make it clear that the CAP is still not functioning properly and requires radical reform,' Gareth added. 'Agri-environmental schemes can and do deliver great results for farming and wildlife, but only if member states commit to them properly - otherwise it is simply an exercise in handing out money for nothing.'
'Some EU governments are clearly unprepared to stand up to the vigorous lobbying of their agricultural sector. If they continue to put forward dodgy agri-environmental schemes which have no positive impact on biodiversity then Brussels should have the backbone to kick them out.'
Examples of money down the drain included €790m in Portugal that has been invested in irrigation projects which will destroy wildlife habitats and increase water over-abstraction. In Cyprus conservation money is being spent on opening forestry roads and creating forest firebreaks which fragment bird habitats and disturb populations. Italy, France and Ireland also get the thumbs down for spending money on agri-environmental schemes that have no impact on normal farming practice and no benefit for the environment.
However, in England agri-environment schemes are judged to have been well designed and to be delivering benefits for biodiversity.
The full report can be downloaded here: Birdlife
The report highlights some of the positive work being done in EU member states with CAP funding which is helping farmers create and protect habitants for wildlife. 'In principle this European funding is great news for wildlife because it supports agri-environment schemes which protect biodiversity - but the truth is that implementation of the policy by many member states is weak,' warned RSPB's head of agriculture policy Gareth Morgan.
'In compiling this report we found examples of agricultural schemes receiving large amounts of public subsidy from the EU which had no environmental benefit at all, in fact some were causing the degradation of the environment.'
Farmland bird species are in decline across Europe and this is often linked to changes in agricultual activities. Many of these threatened species are extremely senistive to changes in their habitat caused by intensification of farming. For example, the Spanish imperial eagle requires large areas of sparse wood picture rich in rabbit and the eastern European red-footed falcon requires traditional farmland with ponds rich in dragonflies.
'The findings of this report make it clear that the CAP is still not functioning properly and requires radical reform,' Gareth added. 'Agri-environmental schemes can and do deliver great results for farming and wildlife, but only if member states commit to them properly - otherwise it is simply an exercise in handing out money for nothing.'
'Some EU governments are clearly unprepared to stand up to the vigorous lobbying of their agricultural sector. If they continue to put forward dodgy agri-environmental schemes which have no positive impact on biodiversity then Brussels should have the backbone to kick them out.'
Examples of money down the drain included €790m in Portugal that has been invested in irrigation projects which will destroy wildlife habitats and increase water over-abstraction. In Cyprus conservation money is being spent on opening forestry roads and creating forest firebreaks which fragment bird habitats and disturb populations. Italy, France and Ireland also get the thumbs down for spending money on agri-environmental schemes that have no impact on normal farming practice and no benefit for the environment.
However, in England agri-environment schemes are judged to have been well designed and to be delivering benefits for biodiversity.
The full report can be downloaded here: Birdlife
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Vision for the future of the CAP
The influential Land Use Policy Group will be launching their vision for the future of the CAP after 2013 in Brussels on March 30th. This will be an important event in the long-term effort to clarify thinking about future policy so that it delivers benefits to the environment and rural communities.
The Group wants to progressively transform the CAP so that it is focused more clearly on rewarding the environmental services arising from land management where the market fails to do so. These rewards should reflect the services provided and the costs incurred. The new policy should in the Group's view:
• Have a clear role in mitigating and adapting to climate change, addressing water and biodiversity management and ensuring that farming and forestry have the capacity to deliver environmental security and sustainable production in the long term.
• Promote the sustainable use of the natural resources on which all production depends through the use of good practice guidance together with agreed environmental standards, enforced by risk-based regulation which is binding on all land managers.
• Reward the positive management of existing biodiversity, cultural landscapes, carbon and water resources whilst securing improvements in the environmental quality of all rural land.
• Help reduce the environmental footprint of agriculture and forestry, by targeting capital investment on environmentally beneficial technology and infrastructure.
• Integrate sustainable land management with economic and social policy in order to encourage integrated land use that enables rural communities to benefit from the economic potential of their environment.
• Ensure that progress towards environmental, social and economic objectives is monitored, evaluated and regularly reported on.
The group admits that, 'Transforming the CAP in this way will take time. Any income support retained in the short term should be targeted, with conditions, on those farming systems making the greatest contribution to the management of environmental services for the benefit of society. Research and development should be focused on the challenge of enhancing long-term productivity in ways that reduce environmental impacts and help adapt to climate change.'
The Group states, 'We see our proposals as providing a sustainable justification for a “new contract” between predominantly urban taxpayers and those who manage rural land.' It will be interesting to learn more about the proposals when they become available. The principles are good ones, but to an extent the devil is in detail.
There is also the political problem of overcoming the resurgence of support for productionist solutions, the argument being advanced that protecting the environment is a luxury good that can be set aside in a recession. As evidence accumulates about the effects of climate change and their possible acceleration, future agriculture and rural policy must embed measures to mitigate climate change as a key priority.
The Group wants to progressively transform the CAP so that it is focused more clearly on rewarding the environmental services arising from land management where the market fails to do so. These rewards should reflect the services provided and the costs incurred. The new policy should in the Group's view:
• Have a clear role in mitigating and adapting to climate change, addressing water and biodiversity management and ensuring that farming and forestry have the capacity to deliver environmental security and sustainable production in the long term.
• Promote the sustainable use of the natural resources on which all production depends through the use of good practice guidance together with agreed environmental standards, enforced by risk-based regulation which is binding on all land managers.
• Reward the positive management of existing biodiversity, cultural landscapes, carbon and water resources whilst securing improvements in the environmental quality of all rural land.
• Help reduce the environmental footprint of agriculture and forestry, by targeting capital investment on environmentally beneficial technology and infrastructure.
• Integrate sustainable land management with economic and social policy in order to encourage integrated land use that enables rural communities to benefit from the economic potential of their environment.
• Ensure that progress towards environmental, social and economic objectives is monitored, evaluated and regularly reported on.
The group admits that, 'Transforming the CAP in this way will take time. Any income support retained in the short term should be targeted, with conditions, on those farming systems making the greatest contribution to the management of environmental services for the benefit of society. Research and development should be focused on the challenge of enhancing long-term productivity in ways that reduce environmental impacts and help adapt to climate change.'
The Group states, 'We see our proposals as providing a sustainable justification for a “new contract” between predominantly urban taxpayers and those who manage rural land.' It will be interesting to learn more about the proposals when they become available. The principles are good ones, but to an extent the devil is in detail.
There is also the political problem of overcoming the resurgence of support for productionist solutions, the argument being advanced that protecting the environment is a luxury good that can be set aside in a recession. As evidence accumulates about the effects of climate change and their possible acceleration, future agriculture and rural policy must embed measures to mitigate climate change as a key priority.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)