sou · GLB3151 · 1998-01-01 00:00:00 — The increase in population as we know is taking place at the same time as agricultural land is disappearing for many different reasons and the intense nature of farming in many parts of the world cannot be sustained. Access to water is limited with the result that some soils today are exploited beyond their capacity. The conclusion I draw from this is that the farming land and means of producing food which exist in the world are limited. This leads me to 118 Reservations and comments believe that agricultural policy must be such that the special resource which productive farming land represents must be assured for the future. This is a responsibility we all share. Reservations and comments 119 Reservation by () has the wrong starting point The very title of the report is misleading. The brief was to make proposals for reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. In the title of this report, this brief has been reduced to Food and the Environment. The basic principle - for the necessity of an agricultural policy to create the conditions for continued use both of Swedish and other EU farming land to produce food and preserve a good environment - is lacking. For this reason the majority of the committee arrives at the wrong conclusions on the reform of the CAP. Economic and ecologically sustainable agricultural production It is possible to produce enough food for a growing world population. However, the notion of trusteeship must be the guiding principle, not the short-sighted interests of profit, which have produced systems of cultivation which have leeched the goodness from the soil and caused its erosion: these must be replaced by sustainable methods of farming. A sustainable system of agriculture is based upon a cycle of nutrients and that organic materials bind together the of the soil. This means making use of what nature provides, preventing erosion of the soil. For the sake of the future it must be agreed that continued agricultural production both in and other Member States is a necessity. On a national level this applies to fulfilling a goal for the vitality of the whole of and to a continuing domestic supply of food. From a global perspective it is necessary in the long term that farming land in and Europe remains available for food production. Therefore it is also important that environmental aspects are taken into consideration in any agricultural policy reform in order to promote a transition to environmentally friendly and more ecological farming methods. This also requires that farming land is conserved, since less intensive agricultural production requires more farming land. A central issue for Union should be to make an contribution to the fight against poverty and for improved food security 120 Reservations and comments in the third world. The CAP can be an instrument in this. Within various international forums such as the WTO, , Union should also contribute to the production of an overall strategy for how the influence of the poorest countries can be strengthened. A transition of European agriculture to more environmentally friendly farming methods and organic production would mean less pressure on finite resources and is also necessary from the point of view of solidarity with the third world. Union should also provide aid to developing countries via the /development of ecological production. The principal objectives of the fight against poverty and social development should also be central to trading relations. The theory of the committee that lower food prices in Union will favour the food production of developing countries may be true in parts. Unfortunately, this can also lead to increased distress for the worlds poorest people. The links are neither certain nor clear. A far more comprehensive analysis of these mechanisms is necessary, and moves towards more cautious changes to world agricultural policy so that unwanted and, for sections of the world population, disastrous consequences do not arise. The effects of more environmentally friendly and ecological agricultural production in Europe should also be weighed up in this context. To deprive and large parts of Europe of farming land, as the committee suggests, cannot be a sensible long term policy given the background of the increasing world population. This strong growth in population means that there may be a shortage of land fit for cultivation in a few decades time. To this can be added the increasing problems of the greenhouse effect, land destruction and the drying up of water sources. It would not be use of a global resource such as farming land to operate a policy which leads to its disappearance. In the future farming and pasture land should continue to be seen as a resource in the service of food production. The use of quick growing plants to provide energy may be seen as a good use of the soil since it can normally be taken back into use for food production. The majority has, in large sections of the report, disregarded the fact that agriculture is vital for employment in rural areas and otherwise in the food industry. With the proposed policy hundreds of thousands of farmers will be forced to give up their businesses right across Union. For this could mean that a third of Swedish Reservations and comments 121 farming land will disappear and that some 10,000 full time jobs would disappear from the sector. This in turn would lead to a dramatic decline in the number of people living in rural areas and a weakened position for a number of secondary businesses which depend on agriculture as a primary producer. This is a development which is completely contrary to the principle that there should be vitality in the whole of . The fact that Union has an agricultural policy clearly shows the importance of food production. It is also necessary that the same conditions should apply to farmers throughout Union. A harmonisation of charges and taxes in the agricultural sector is necessary for Swedish farmers to be able to compete with other Member States on equal terms. Reform of the CAP The CAP should be reformed, taking the 1992 reform as a starting point. This would mean development of the current CAP, not a closing down of the agricultural policy which the committee majority proposes in line with the erroneous Swedish agricultural policy decision of 1990. In the light of what can be expected from future negotiations and WTO rounds, European agriculture must be adapted to international, more market-led conditions. Changes in levels of support must take place at the same rate as in other WTO countries and with regard to remaining internationally competitive. This means a gradual adaptation at the same rate as others adapt. It is vital that forms of payment and measures of regulation in the future CAP, including Eastern Europe, should be able to ensure food safety and reasonable income levels for European farmers. This should not have any negative effects on food safety in developing countries. Analyses of the consequences of these measures must be produced on an ongoing basis. Prior to the forthcoming WTO round, and Union should adopt more firm positions based upon the environmental and animal welfare demands made upon Swedish and European agriculture. A more aggressive position is required to promote Swedish and European interests in matters of agricultural production, a 122 Reservations and comments development towards more ecologically sustainable agriculture, environmental issues and the position with regard to animal welfare. Even if market price support is gradually reduced, border protection, intervention and export refunds must be retained for the time being, albeit at a lower level. Compensation for reductions in price support via direct, more environmentally related payments is a necessity. The basic principles for the CAP should be: ·Food production cannot be compared to other kinds of business. Against the background of current regulations within Union, a special support and regulation system will certainly be in place for the foreseeable future. Reform of the CAP should take place in such a way that the same conditions for competition for farmers in different EU countries are maintained. Similar rules and principles should apply, with the possibility of local variation depending on such things as climatic conditions. ·General agricultural payments should be distributed in the form of area payments for all farming land, including fallow land. Environmentally related payments to maintain open landscapes, promote biodiversity and preserve cultural heritage should be available along with special regional policy payments depending on the conditions for food production in various regions. ·Agriculture should provide food of maximum biological value. The objective that Swedish agriculture should move towards a 10 per cent level of organic farming by the year 2000 should be applied at level. Clear objectives for the transition of agriculture towards more environmentally friendly methods and organic production should be determined at level. ·In order to stimulate organic farming, compensation should be paid for putting less strain on natural resources, causing less pollution and thereby having beneficial effects on preservation of biodiversity in farming landscapes, and the ambition to produce sound food. ·Swedish environmental and animal welfare norms should be minimum requirements for European agriculture. should apply pressure on Union to harmonise environmental charges for chemical pesticides/herbicides and commercial fertilizer, and push for equal conditions to apply to animal production. ·An important piece of consumer information is where food has been produced and under what circumstances. A common system of labelling with regard to origin and production methods should be an objective. Reservations and comments 123 Interim measures in an enlargement towards the East The farming land of Central and Eastern Europe should not be seen as a problem, but rather as an asset to be used in common food production. The argument that the CAP is costly must be seen in the light of the fact that the EUs total costs for the CAP amount to of the countries total GDP. To be able to manage integration with the Central and Eastern European countries and their agriculture cannot in this light be considered an insurmountable problem. The enlargement of Union to the East will mean that the CAP will encompass more countries. So that the changes for agriculture in the potential Member States should not be too dramatic, special interim measures should be introduced which allow for a cautious introduction of their agricultural production. These interim regulations should be based on the principles outlined above. This would mean placing great emphasis on the transition towards ecologically sustainable agriculture. Special payments to stimulate a transition to organic farming methods in new member Eastern European countries should be considered. 124 Reservations and comments Reservation by () The () s upports the objectives for agriculture in a future European Union which are presented in chapter 9 of the report. It is important that future agriculture must be sustainable, something which must be achieved in the near future, and for which current agriculture can lead the way. Only agriculture of that type can provide the conditions for the other objectives to be fulfilled: safe food, promotion of biodiversity in cultural landscapes, creation of a varied farming landscape, and minimization of pollution, together with other objectives presented in chapter 9.1. It is therefore important that the measures proposed by in any change of the CAP should bear this in mind, and that those measures should be analysed with regard to the determined objectives and their ability to meet them. Since the report does not do this, I would like to add the following, in which my opinion differs from that of the majority of the committee. The CAP and the rest of the world Production of food cannot be compared with any other production. We can live without most things, but not without food. It is therefore absurd to deal with agriculture as a sector in which current economic arguments can be applied. Access to land suitable for cultivation is essential for the future, and is certainly not something we have inherited from our ancestors, it is rather something we have borrowed from our children. Despite this, that people should take care of the land is not something which can be taken for granted. In chapter 3.5 there is a discussion concerning the rest of the world and how it has been influenced by the Common Agricultural Policy. In my opinion the scenario presented by is the most credible of the scenarios to be found in the report. In this years edition of the report on the state of the world, a bleak picture is painted of the future, unless we change our behaviour today. The report states that it will not be possible to feed the worlds growing population - currently approaching 5.8 billion, with an extra 90 million per year, most of them in developing countries - in the near future. The report states that there are several reasons for this. The proportion of cultivated land in the world has been falling since 1981. In terms of cultivated land per person the area has fallen from 0.23 hectares Reservations and comments 125 in the 1950s to 0.12 hectares in 1995. Much of this land is built-up, or covered with asphalt. Soil is eroding, becoming polluted with salts, or destroyed in other ways. Added to this are more extreme weather conditions, with major droughts, caused by the greenhouse effect. In many places the level of ground water is falling. For example, the ground water under has fallen from 5 metres below the surface in 1950 to 50 metres below the surface in 1995. Rivers such as , the in the and the in Central never reach their recipients. This obviously creates problems for the often rich agriculture close to river estuaries, with, as in the case of the Aral Sea, a total ecological collapse, a virtually dead sea, which was previously very rich in fish. In many places fossil water is used by way of irrigation. In the , for example, of irrigated land is watered with fossil water, something which cannot be sustained in the long term. The tendency in the world is for the proportion of irrigated land to fall. To this dark picture can be added the fact that in industrialised countries there is a consumption pattern with high consumption of pork, poultry and other products which require large amounts of cereals, intensive animal husbandry and one-sided farming. The average American needs of cereals per year, of which the major part is consumed indirectly as meat or dairy products, whereas the average Indian needs , must of which is consumed in its natural state. In many developing countries, such as and parts of South East , the consumption patterns of the industrialised countries are now being copied. The demand for cereals for feed is increasing, and many countries which previously were are no longer self-sufficient in cereals. At the same time, the rich industrialised countries - the , , , and - supply of world exports. In those countries which export major amounts of cereals, agriculture is carried out in a chemically-intensive way, a way which we know is not ecologically sustainable. The report does not present this as the most likely scenario, but opts instead for the more beneficial pictures painted by the and the FAO. These scenarios estimate that there will be sufficient food, and production increases will be greater than increases in consumption up to the year 2010. In such a scenario it is possible to reduce domestic production and import food instead. There are no arguments in the report on changes to the CAP which are based around the scenarios outlined above. If one believes that there 126 Reservations and comments will be a surplus of cereals on the world market in the future, the motivation to assure domestic production will naturally decrease. On the other hand, if one is more inclined to believe in scenario, the value of domestic land and production will increase. In my opinion, land for cultivation will be needed in the future, partly for a growing population, but also because ecological farming methods require larger areas. It is therefore important that the changes proposed for the CAP by keep this in mind, along with the more fatalistic picture of the future painted by . Unfortunately, this is not the case in the report. The WTO and future demands on Union In several chapters, e.g. 4, 5 and 9, there is a discussion of the forthcoming round of WTO negotiations and the demands which may be placed on Union. It is predicted that the negotiations will mean major changes for the CAP since the has recently changed its support for its own agriculture and also because the - , , , , etc. - is demanding increased liberalisation. It is also stated that Union should reform the CAP to achieve a better negotiating position prior to the new round of negotiations. Agriculture in many of the above mentioned countries takes place in ways which are unacceptable form the point of view of the environment and of animal welfare. The use of additives, hormones and antibiotics is widespread, and the level of intensity is extremely high. Agriculture such as this can naturally produce cheap food today, but this is not sustainable for the future. Furthermore, it is not only contrary to the objectives for EU agriculture proposed in the report, but also to current consumer thinking as to how agriculture and animal husbandry should be carried out. Food stocks are on the decline in the , irrigation is taking place in many cases using fossil water, and there are major effects on the soil in the form of compression, salt pollution, etc. Animals are in poor condition. Recent discussions on the use of hormones in beef cattle show differences of opinion between the and Union, as in the case of use and handling of the new genetically manipulated crops. The use of the Roundup bean has increased from only a few per cent last year to of this years . Reservations and comments 127 unwillingness to separate the GMO soya from the non herbicide resistant beans also demonstrates that attitudes in this respect are different. Since it is an important party in the coming negotiations, Union must push hard to protect domestic production with stringent environmental and animal welfare requirements against competition from production which does not meet these requirements. Without this it will be very difficult for Union to maintain the requirements for domestic production which exist today, and even more difficult to develop it in the direction proposed in the report, proposals with which we are in full agreement. The principal objectives of must be to promote sustainable agriculture. I do not find this in the report, and do not consider it would be possible for Union to reform the CAP in the ways proposed without a risk that production which meets stringent environmental and animal welfare requirements within Union would be in danger of losing ground. It may be even more difficult to lead the way. Competition and the free market Many parts of the report sing the praises of the promises of the free market. According to the report, producers are to produce those things that consumers want, and by interaction in a free market, production will be developed and prices lowered. I do not share in the beneficial view of the market and market forces, nor of their current development so long as there is no environmental consideration shown and no right to demand it. Agricultural production tends increasingly to be linked to large multinational companies. This is true of crop seed, additives and processed food. An increasing number of farmers today grow crops on contract, and this is a tendency which limits the freedom of the individual farmer, both in the industrialised and the developing countries. The recent development of GMO crops shows that this tendency is increasing. It has also resulted in the fact that many local crop types, which have adapted with the course of time to the precise conditions which prevail in a particular place, are being replaced by the types produced by the major companies, types which are often F1 hybrids, impossible for the farmers to propagate themselves. Today, the alone produces one quarter of all cereals which are exported. Multinational food companies increasingly dominate trade, thereby 128 Reservations and comments controlling the price and availability of food. Radiation gives longer sell- by dates, whilst food is declining in quality. The idea that the market should take care of development ties in neither with the above, nor with issues of health. To demand of consumers that they should take responsibility for the way in which various types of food is produced, and also that they should be so well informed on content and quality is a high demand indeed. Nutrition contents cannot be seen from the outside, and the fact that British doctors have warned children and the elderly about radiated foods due to their lack of nutritional quality shows how difficult this is. Neither do I consider that everything which is produced has come about because there has been a demand, but rather that the food industry to a very large extent creates demand, reinforcing it with major advertising spending. The market pays no attention to the environment. The prerequisite in my opinion for the creation of sustainable agriculture is that society should present the framework within which producers and the market can operate. In the case of food this means that society must apply measures in terms of economic controls, e.g. taxes and charges on additives, and the support necessary to create the conditions for ecologically sustainable agriculture, the type of agriculture which is needed if fair system of world supply is to be possible in the future. With a totally free market there is a clear risk that the players will be fewer and fewer, thereby gaining all the more opportunity to control world food supply. New Genetically Manipulated Crops The report deals only briefly with the new genetically manipulated crops alongside the description of the novel foods directive and labelling. In my opinion these crops should have been more fully dealt with, and the report should have made clear that disapproves of them. The crops in question have in most cases been made resistant to herbicides. The fact that the producer is also the manufacturer of the herbicides in question shows as clearly as one could wish the purpose behind the manipulation. These crops are not something which consumers have demanded. Neither do they contribute to a long term sustainable development, nor increase food safety throughout the world. On the contrary, the link between farmers and the giant chemical companies is strengthened, contract growing increases, and both cultivated and natural diversity declines. The herbicides Roundup and Reservations and comments 129 Basta, which various crops have been made resistant to, are total destruction poisons, which remove everything else growing in the fields other than the cultivated crop, even weeds which do not compete with it. These herbicides and the components into which they become broken down into have demonstrated that they spread to both surface and ground water in ways which were previously considered impossible. By way of adaptation to these crops, the rest content of Roundup has been raised in from to per kilo, a 200-fold increase. Research also shows that gene manipulation can have completely different consequences from those expected, and in my opinion GMO crops reduce the safety of food.