Why we need research across disciplines to change food systems

This call for transdisciplinary research in the transformation of food systems is one I very much endorse and is reflected in my forthcoming book Rethinking Agricultural and Food Policy just submitted to Edward Elgar: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40100-021-00207-2

Call for EU plant protein strategy

France and Austria have national plant protein strategies and have called for a EU level strategy as part of a drive towards a more sustainable food system: https://info.bmlrt.gv.at/dam/jcr:e056d439-b736-439d-a0a2-fe03a02a5e44/Deklaration%20EN.pdf

Green takes agriculture ministry in Germany

The new food and agriculture minister in Germany, Cem Ozdemir, is a Green and a vegetarian.   However, he is seen as a pragmatist and his appointment has been welcomed by German farm organisations: https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-cem-ozdemir-agriculture-minister-farmers-election-greens/

The new German coalition will not manage to overhaul the CAP national strategic plan before the deadline, but aims for mid-term review and possible revisions.

Green food plan under attack

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/

Italy fails to make progress on CAP plan

Italy isn't make much progress towards a strategic view of the CAP, even though it could contribute to a fairer and greener policy: https://www.arc2020.eu/italian-cap-plan-in-progress/

Kiwi view of new style CAP

New Zealand has produced a comprehensive and authoritative report on the latest developments in the Common Agricultural Policy: https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/trade/mfat-market-reports/market-reports-europe/eu-common-agricultural-policy-aims-to-be-fairer-greener-more-animal-friendly-and-flexible/

France still tops CAP money league

Some useful data here about agriculture in each member state and the EU as a whole: https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/farming/facts-and-figures/performance-agricultural-policy/agriculture-country/eu-country-factsheets_en

France still receives the greatest share of CAP expenditure, €9,448m or 17 per cent of the total.  Spain receives €6,908m and Germany €6280m followed by Italy on €5,778m.  These four states account for 52 per cent of expenditure.

Poland is the leading East European state on €4615m.   Malta receives the smallest amount at €19m.

German commission calls for CAP reform

A broadly based German commission has called for the reorientation of agriculture and food policy: https://www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/news/german-commission-urges-phase-out-of-cap-direct-payments/

The report calls for a phasing out of direct payments and a reorientation of the CAP in the direction of environmental, animal welfare and climate change goals. 

The timing is a little odd as the EU has recently agreed the next five year plan for the CAP and the challenge now will be to maintain momentum.

CAP deal looks like business as usual

After months of difficult negotiations, a compromise was agreed on the next phase of the Common Agricultural Policy, but inevitably not everyone is happy, not least in France: https://www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/news/france-still-has-mixed-feelings-over-compromise-cap-deal/

The new five year framework starts on 1 January 2023.  Direct payments to active farmers will account for 70 per cent or €192bn of the budget which still amounts to over a third of the overall EU budget.  However, at least 25 per cent of this support should be spent on eco schemes such as organic farming or integrated pest management.   Worthy those these schemes may be, do they represent any kind of strategy for tackling agriculture's contribution to climate change?

There is also a €450m a year reserve to bail out farmers in times of market crisis.  This is a substantial sum and it will be interesting to see how it will be triggered.

For all the bells and whistles such as member states being able to impose caps and reductions on direct payments to larger farms, this does look very much like a 'business as usual' settlement despite claims of a fairer, greener and simpler CAP: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_21_2711.  Farm organisations have given it a lukewarm reception which suggests that it is not all that bad for their members.

Farmers in Britain are concerned that their competitors will continue to receive direct payments just as they are phased out in the UK.  Their continental counterparts will not be exposed to trade deals that facilitate cheap imports.

Some early reflections on the impact of Brexit

This article appeared in the latest issue of South-East Farmer:

Many farmers breathed a sigh of relief when a last minute trade deal was agreed between the UK and the EU, avoiding the threat of tariffs and quotas on agricultural exports.   Of course, this would have affected some sectors more than others, notably those farming sheep.  Such enterprises exist within the south-east of England, but they are more characteristic of remote hill farming areas in all the four nations of the United Kingdom.

I must admit to having a personal interest as my brother-in-law and nephew are sheep farmers in a remote part of Wales.   They have merged three farms in order to run as lean and efficient an operation as possible.   However, the whole enterprise is reliant on selling sheep for meat and the price they receive is influenced by the 40 per cent or so of total output that goes to mainland Europe.   The price received for wool scarcely covers the cost of shearing, if that, and rental income from properties and telephone masts is very much secondary.   The suggestion made by one politician that sheep farmers could shift to beef ignores the realities of production.

Farmers are generally enterprising and keen to keep input costs under control.   One farmer I know in Yorkshire produces honey with a distinctive taste from the moors, but still principally relies on his contract with a leading supermarket.   The more general point here is that the basic payment received by farmers under the Common Agricultural Policy is being replaced by a smaller domestic payment that is being phased out more quickly than some had anticipated, particularly for larger scale farms.

Other new forms of payment will be available, principally the Environmental Land Management Scheme, although that is still being developed and tested.  Along with other payments, it will fall well short of compensating farmers for the loss of the basic payment which made the difference between profit and loss for many farm enterprises.    It will also involve form filling to obtain, along with monitoring of outcomes, and is likely to be more suitable for farmers in remoter areas.   This is not necessarily a bad thing from an overall policy point of view, but it may prove challenging for, for example, larger scale arable farmers in south-east England.

In areas like the south-east there are, of course, opportunities for diversification that may not exist in remoter areas, particularly those that are less suited to tourism.   In this area as well, farmers have been very innovative in the range of ideas they have put into practice.   There can, however, come a point where one is no longer running a farm business, but a farm that enhances other projects such as wedding venues, restaurants, shops and petting zoos.  [I have just read about a farmer who is made £50,000 by loaning out a goat for video calls].

It is, of course, a personal business decision how far to go down this route.   A note of caution is necessary for late adopters.  Much of the low hanging fruit has already been taken.   The capital costs can be considerable and the skills required can be very different from decisions about what to plant, when to spray and when to harvest.   That said, many farmers manage to both farm and run complementary businesses.

Agriculture was the dog that didn’t bark in the night time in the very long legal text arrived at between the UK and the EU.   Indeed, listening to the discussions during the negotiations, one was left with the impression that fisheries were the really vital sector despite the fact that it accounts for a smaller share of the economy than agriculture.   Fish did enjoy considerable symbolic value in terms of ‘taking back control’.

There was an annex on trade in wine.   This is not really my area of expertise, apart from enjoying it and investing in one well-known business in the South-East.  As with most such agreements, the devil is in detail, but I would have thought that at first glance it was broadly acceptable to those growing grapes and producing wine in England.  [A subsequent article in the Financial Times refers to certification costs which could add £1.50 to a £12 bottle of imported wine.  This, of course, could make domestically produced wine more price competitive, although factors other than price can play a big part in purchase decisions].

In simple terms what the annex says is that EU and the UK should import and consume each other’s wine, although the flow is clearly from the EU direction.   The documentation required is limited to a certificate which can be produced electronically.   The self-certification is limited to eleven relatively straightforward questions.  The agreement will be reviewed after three years, a shorter period than for fisheries.

The CAP in review

The CAP will continue after Brexit, albeit with somewhat less money, but will needed changes be made, particularly in terms of 'greening'?   I give an overview here: https://www.europenowjournal.org/2020/11/09/the-common-agricultural-policy-an-overview/

This has attracted some attention on Twitter and I am grateful for the feedback received.   One comment was that 'Seems to suggest that nitrates have been addressed by the ND....if only that were true. There is large scale non compliance with the ND standards never mind the more ambitious water framework ones.' This is a fair criticism, I simply didn't have the word budget to deal with the issue in more depth.

I should have remembered that 'many years ago the OECD “Producer Subsidy Equivalent” was renamed the “Producer Support Estimate” because not all policy transfers are subsidies but some are payments for public goods.'

'Another quibble, but not so minor: at over 30% of its budget, EU expenditure on agriculture is called "substantial", because agriculture is only 1.6% of EU GDP. Unfair comparison: the whole EU budget itself is less than 2% of EU public expenditure.' I can see where this comment is coming from and it is not without validity, but agriculture still secures a disproportionate share of the EU budget.

EU lays down the gauntlet on biodiversity

The EU has set out a new biodiversity strategy.   When I have studied it in detail I will provide some analysis, but for now the summary can be found here: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/strategy/index_en.htm

The full Communication can be found here: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/strategy/index_en.htm

It is clear that a particular vision of farming is inherent in the document which states: 'certain agricultural practices are a key driver of biodiversity decline. This is why it is important to work with farmers to support and incentivise the transition to fully sustainable practices. Improving the condition and diversity of agroecosystems will increase the sector’s resilience to climate change, environmental risks and socioeconomic shocks, while creating new jobs, for example in organic farming, rural tourism or recreation.'

In other words, intensive forms of farming may face challenges.

The Commission's new Green Deal also has implications for agriculture and it has been leaked ahead of publication: https://www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/news/commission-hikes-caps-second-pillar-spending-to-deliver-green-deal/

The recovery plan from Covid-19 'aims to digitalise and modernise the farming sector to increase the EU's resilience and to lower EU's dependency on third countries.'

Something similar may find favour in the UK after Brexit.

How can the CAP reduce GHG emissions?

Climate change has been an absent element of the CAP. A proposal for a third pillar was put forward in the last round of reforms, but was quickly squashed - I suspect by agri-business interests. However, the pressures to do something are now substantial, but what policy instruments should be used?

In that respect an article in the latest Journal of Agricultural Economics is helpful: M Himics et al, 'Setting Climate Action as the Priority for the Common Agricultural Policy: a Simulation Experiment.'

They examine the possibilities of re-directing the direct income support provided to farmers to a direct greenhouse gas reduction subsidy. They find that such a reallocation of financial resources could reduce agricultural non-carbon dioxide emissions (nitrous oxide and methane) by 21 per cent by 2030, compared to a business-as-usual baseline. Two-thirds of the emission savings are due to changes in production levels and composition.

A table lists various technological mitigation options, e.g., feed additives for livestock and breeding programmes to increase ruminant feed efficiency. Crops could use measures such as precision farming and better timing of fertilisation.

The special needs of remote island farming communities like the Orkney Islands would be respected

The greening top up of Pillar 1 would be retained, as would coupled supports for sectors and regions in competitive disadvantage. There would also be support for farmers in areas with natural constraints. My example would be the Orkney Islands which receive coupled support via the Scottish Government.

However, the removal of the basic payment could be associated with accelerated structural change and variable income effects. This does raise questions of political feasibility.

In future member states will have more flexibility to choose from a menu of greening policy options. However, it is not clear how the new CAP design would enable agriculture to meet the EU's emission reduction targets.

One area of difficulty in terms of the article's proposal is the impact on the livestock sector, already under economic pressure. 'The ruminant meat sector is most affected (-10% decrease in herd size and -9% in production), but pig production is also negatively affected.' Prices for beef and sheep and goat meat would go up, but would be offset by increasing imports and decreasing exports.

There would also be a six per cent decrease in the total utilised agricultural area, particularly of fodder activities and a 34 per cent increase in set aside activities and fallow land.

Emission savings in the EU are partially offset globally due to increasing production in less emission efficient trading partners. (Not given as an example, but Brazil comes to mind).

The scheme might also penalise farmers who have already invested in emission-efficient technologies and might require above average financial incentives to achieve further GHG reductions.

The authors argue that 'taking the current status quo of the regional pattern of basic CAP payments as a benchmark for direct agricultural GHG emissions-reduction policy would be suboptimal'. In terms of political acceptability, that might be problematic.

Nearly half of Kiwi greenhouse gases come from farming

Caroline Saunders, the president of the Agricultural Economics Society writes in its latest newsletter: 'Climate change is impacting on agriculture, both through consequences such as extreme weather events and through major changes in policy.'

'New Zealand [where she is a professor] is in an unusual position with 48 per cent of its greenhouse gases coming from agriculture. The New Zealand government has passed a Zero Carbon Bill with zero emissions by 2050. The agricultural sector has until 2022 to show how it will achieve this; otherwise, it will go into the Emissions Trading Scheme in 2025. In the UK, agricultural emissions are about 10 per cent of the total, but the UK also has the ambition of net zero emissions by 2050.

Both countries must work out how to measure the emissions, the point of obligation, the treatment of methane and the methods available to farmers to reduce emissions, and how to support farmers through the transition. There is also the issue of trade and the potential substitution of imports produced with higher emissions (New Zealand has relatively low carbon emission per unit of output).

New Zealand and the UK have strong links and it will be interesting to see how negotiations between the countries address these issues. Given WTO rules, this may be through a new trade agreement and/or through promoting consumer preferences for products with low carbon footprints. New Zealand was the first country to adopt a formal well-being budget in 2019.

Whilst it is early days to see how this will transform policy, it is a step in the right direction. One consequence is a shift in policy thinking to put more weight on the well being of those in the agricultural sector, given the changes mentioned above. A key challenge for the [agricultural economics] profession is to research the distinctive role of government to ensure transitions that consider farmer wellbeing.'

One interesting consideration is how Brexit will affect any future trade agreement which is likely to be sought by the UK. One issue could well be trade offs between financial services (for the UK) and agriculture (for New Zealand).

A new type of CAP?

The French Government has supported the idea of a CAP based on creating farmer employment rather than being based on the area cultivated: Supporting farmers jobs

The second pillar would become a set of incentives and penalties with an emphasis on tackling climate change.

New farm commissioner from Poland

With Phil Hogan promoted to be trade commissioner, the new agriculture commissioner is from Poland. Janusz Wojciechowski is a 64-year old Polish politician and has 15 years of experience in European politics, having been elected to the European Parliament in 2004, a seat he held until 2016 when he went to the Court of Auditors.

He has specific experience in agri-politics at European level, having served as the vice-chairperson of the European Parliament Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for most of that time.

Wojciechowski was nominated as a commissioner by the Polish government after the countries original nominee for this commission, Krzysztof Szczerski, decided to withdraw his candidacy. This was because, as Szczerski explained in the Polish media after it was first mooted that he would be given the agriculture and rural development job, he felt that someone with experience in agriculture would be better suited to the role.

Wojciechowski started his European political career as part of the European People’s Party (EPP), of which his national party, the Polish People’s Party. However, he was dismissed from the Polish People’s Party after leaving the EPP for the Union for Europe and the Nations, a political grouping that is considered more conservative and eurosceptic.

He will face the challenge of dealing with a reduced farm budget after Brexit.

Intergenerational renewal in farming

An interesting report on the challenge of intergenerational renewal in European farming, an important issue given the current age profile: Farm demographics

The report argues, 'farming as occupational choice often becomes a very particular lifestyle choice. Hence, policies to increase the attractiveness of farming as an occupation should consider the fact that it often becomes a lifestyle choice. Several features of this lifestyle choice are considered unattractive, such as the hard work, often isolated occupational activity and the difficult work-life balance. Policies that address these issues can have a positive impact on the attractiveness of farming and thus enable intergenerational renewal.'

The report recognises that the increasing capital intensive nature of farming raises financing issues for those that do not inherit (and inheritance raises often difficult succession issues). In the UK the reduction in county council tenancies has reduced the availability of one entry route.

Farmers back no deal Brexit

A surprising number of farmers back a no deal Brexit given that many of them would suffer financially as a result. At least that is the case if one believes polls from Farmers Weekly. A health warning is always necessary about these polls as respondents select themselves and the Ns are often small. A poll which purported to show that a majority of farmers backed Brexit in the referendum has nevertheless embedded itself in the public mind.

43 per cent of 'about 300' farmers said they would be happy with a no deal Brexit while 57 per cent said they would not. Concern about leaving without a deal was strongest in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Yorkshire and Humberside. Optimism about farm business prospects is at its lowest level since the survey started a year ago.

A snapshot 24 hour poll found that 53 per cent would choose to leave the EU with no deal if they could vote again. 38 per cent said they would vote remain and just 9 per cent said they would back the withdrawal agreement backed by Theresa May.

It is interesting that the first poll is below a story about the impact of a no deal Brexit on the sheepmeat sector. About one-third of the UK's production of lamb is exported and 95 per cent of this goes to the EU. 40 per cent tariffs and regulatory barriers would almost wipe out exports.

The Government has ruled out culling as a response to such a crisis. It looks as if they favour a combination of a headage payment on breeding ewes and a slaughterhouse premium. The UK breeding flock already reduced by about 30 per cent in the 2017-18 breeding season as farmers responded to an uncertain future.

Mike Gooding, director of Farmers' First, one of Britain's biggest lamb exporters, told Farmers Weekly: 'Essentially, Brexit risks excluding UK produce from the EU market. A no-deal Brexit would result in the same outcome - but with that risk greatly increased.'

He predicted a substantial fall in sheep farming in the UK. 'My own personal view is that there will be far fewer farmers managing what sheep there are in larger flocks - possibly across multiple holdings.'

The New Zealand experience of removing subsidies

Caroline Saunders, the current president of the Agricultural Economics Society, writes about the experience of removing subsidies in New Zealand in the organisation's latest newsletter.

'New Zealand famously removed all subsidies to agricultural producers as part of its post-1984 reforms. Prior to those reforms, New Zealand (NZ) had a relatively high degree of regulation throughout its economy. With a change in government in 1984 accompanied by an exchange rate crisis and a looming fiscal crisis, NZ undertook widespread liberalisation.

The pace and extent of the reform programme was impressive (Paul Dalziel, New Zealand’s economic reforms: an assessment. Review of Political Economy, 2002). In summary, NZ removed all financial controls, floated its exchange rate, undertook major privatisation of state enterprises, relaxed labour market controls, and removed most import tariffs and regulations.'

'The agriculture subsidies were relatively short lived. Until the mid-1970s, support levels were relatively low. However, the introduction of Supplementary Minimum Payments (SMPs) in 1978 – a form of deficiency payment that favoured the sheep breeding flock – followed swiftly by a raft of other measures, marked a rapid escalation in support levels. These measures included: incentives for land development; concessionary livestock valuation schemes; preferential credit for farm purchase; tax concessions; and fertiliser subsidies. Most were phased out in 1984, with some transitional arrangements persisting until 1986.'

'The main impacts were a drop in sheep production and increases in beef and dairy. Farm incomes for beef and sheep farms fluctuated from NZ$23,000 in 1983 to NZ$18,000 in 1984, NZ$34,000 in 1985 and $15,000 in 1986 before rising again to around $25,000 from 1987 to 1990. The impact of the reforms on fertiliser use was significant, since fertiliser subsidies had been in existence since 1963. Between 1986 and 1991, fertiliser use fell considerably, from around 2 million tonnes per annum, to around 1.2 million tonnes. The real value of farmland doubled from 1972 to 1982, then falling from 1982 to 1988 by 58 per cent.'

'The New Zealand experience of liberalisation of agriculture offers some useful insights. There were clear changes in land prices and production decisions in response to the changes in incentives. However, some caveats also need to be observed, notably that New Zealand had a relatively simple and short-lived support system and the removal of subsidies was accompanied by liberalisation throughout the wider economy. The impact was felt by those who had changed or bought farms during the period with subsidies, and subsequently had debt that was not sustainable after the prices fell. The changes also happened within a generation, which certainly would not be the case in the UK.'

Why are there more GIs in Southern Europe?

Geographical Indications (GIs) can be seen as a way of giving consumers more information about the provenance of niche food products, but they can also be seen as protectionist instruments. The EU has the most GIs in the world (makes the Americans suspicious) but they are concentrated in the south of the EU.

In the Journal of Agricultural Economics Martijn Hysmans and Johan Swinnen explore this phenomenon. They set out a series of hypotheses for further testing, although some already look more likely runners than others.

Historically, GIs were first developed in the EU wine sector. 89 per cent of wine GI are to be found in the south of Europe, but southern member states also account for 70 per cent of food GIs (excluding wine).

H1 relates to better and more differentiated food in the south, but there is little evidence to support this (and see the discussion of Scotland below). There may be some evidence for H2 that more GIs are to be found in regions with low productivity, leading to protectionist lobbying. H3 is that globalisation may have an effect, although I would word it rather differently in terms of resistance to globalisation by informed consumers leading to a search for authentic local products.

H4 is that the decline of traditional protectionist instruments may lead to their substitution for new instruments. But why particularly GIs?

I found H5 and H6 on spillover effects persuasive. Economic spillover relates to the use of the knowledge and capabilities derived from the development of wine GIs. H6 relates to the political capacity to design successful lobbying strategies.

No Terroir in the Cold? But what about Scotland?

A farm on Sanday in Orkney which, as the name implies, has particularly good topsoils.

Scotland is one of the more northerly places in the EU, particularly in the Highlands and Islands. There are currently 15 GIs in Scotland. Four are cheeses and three are fish products and, of course, Scotch whisky is there. Four are from the northern isles of Orkney and Shetland, three from Orkney. Orkney has a very well organised farming community with its own farming magazine (Orkney Farmer) and was a pioneer in relation to action on the cattle disease, BDV.

One of the products from Orkney that has a GI is cheddar cheese ('Orkney Scottish Island Cheddar') which might often be regarded as a commodity product. However, the cheese has its own special method of production: Our tradition

There has been concern that Brexit might threaten the system of GIs seen as key to the success of traditional food and drink products in Scotland: Scottish Parliament. In particular, there has been concern that a future trade deal with the US might threaten GIs.