CONCLUSIONS
Participants are worried about the global trends in population, and economic growth, western consumption patterns, agricultural land availability, crop yields, soil and water availability - which is in the agriculture sector more troubling than energy availability-, as well as environmental degradation, biodiversity loss, and the threat to the cultural landscapes. These trends make food supply and environmental security serious, interacting challenges threatening our future. They acknowledge market failure in both respects. Neither received sufficient government attention, or is being generally tackled with the necessary degree of urgency. This includes the WTO, which has so far ignored to consider the way production takes place, and may be weakened as a result.
Participants understand that European agriculture has the responsibility to do more to meet world food demand and fight against world hunger, and to do so in a more sustainable way. To that effect, more research and new technologies are called for, including on 2 nd and 3 rd generation biofuels.
The ongoing CAP reform process needs to continue also after 2013. As European agriculture is increasingly market driven, appropriate tools need to be put in place to address widespread market failures. These market failures, partly related to technology shortfalls, are reflected in the looming world food imbalance, growing water shortages, and rising energy prices, as well as by the damage caused by competitive farming. Moreover, the delivery of public goods such as low-impact farming and maintenance of landscapes and wildlife habitats cannot just emerge from the market system alone. They require farmers to take specific actions that carry extra costs, which the market does not cover. They need to be remunerated by specific and targeted public payments if society is to enjoy those public goods.
Conference participants were mostly alarmed on trends and prospect regarding world food and environmental security with their economic, social and political implications. The response by the EU and others to this double planetary challenge is insufficient to heed the warnings of UN and other official bodies, NGO’s, and academia and research institute.
The vast majority of us (70%) consider that the main objective of the CAP should be food security as well as environmental security. Only 5% think the objective should be farm income supplies and only 4% want to scrap the CAP.
This is why our press release says that we call for an integratedfood supply and environmental security policy. Let’s hope that it proves a wake up call.
Is enough being done by governments to address the food challenge? More than half of us say: not enough and 29% feel that governments have been doing nothing at all.
We are therefore saying loud and clear that we do not wish to rely only on the invisible hand and that food and environmental security are foremost public goods that require public attention.
Regarding the question as to whether European agriculture is environmentally sustainable, 70% think it is to some extend, an only 18% think it is very much so. More than 50% think that all environmental challenges in EU agriculture are “most important”: land use, soil erosion, water quality, biodiversity. So, here is where much work needs to be done. Four times as many consider EU policies on environment are ineffective as compared to those who think they are effective (32% against 8%), and more than half prefer to wait and see how EU policies are implemented. To the question whether EU and national resources are sufficient to secure food and environmental security, 55% call for more resources, while 40% are content with the status quo. The message is clear we need to do a lot more on sustainability.
As to the demands we make on EU agriculture, food supply comes first; 26% wants price management as well, while 26% wants agriculture to secure neither food supplies nor manage prices. Some 94% want more investments, more innovations, and more frequent sustainability assessments. They are right; these are weaknesses we have to address.
Regarding the role of rural development, 65% want it strengthened and 28% want it reduced. About 40% of us believe rural development support as the best tool to deliver public goods to the CAP, 24% call for new, (additional?) tools, and 13% prefer to keep their direct payments. The number of don’t knows is very small but significant for the last two questions.
As to what Europe needs from agriculture, a majority (44%) was in favour of limiting government’s role to securing food supply, but many wanted Governments to get involved in crisis management as well, while others wanted to exclude them even from any food supply role (1/4 each). By contrast, there was a massive support (94%) for more investments, innovations and adequate sustainability.
The fourth panel about the capacity of agriculture to deliver Europe’s needs, nearly half believes philanthropy to be able to play a key role, and nearly as many not to be likely to do so.
There was no agreement on any single critical factor enabling agriculture to respond to the challenges we face, nor as to the farmers’ ability to respond to the demands placed on them.
However, among the factors revolutionising European access to better food, the use of a range of agriculture technologies was clearly standing out.
This conference has clearly made a call for attention and for action. It stressed that two key objectives of European agriculture, food and environmental security, had to be pursued with appropriate tools and not just left to the market only. In this process biotechnologies had an essential role to play, but EU public opinion needed to accept them beforehand. In order to secure their support it was necessary to carry out exhaustive impact assessments and convince consumers of the advantages of bioteck products.
May I conclude by quoting Neil Parish when he said “we were sleep –walking on the food front, and have now woken up”? High food prices are a wake up call to politicians and interest groups to urgently discuss about food security and the sustainability of food production as public goods, agree on their importance for our food and environmental security, devise the tools to achieve it, and provide a good basis for serious, and informed discussions on the means that are required to that effect before deciding about the necessary financial resources.
I wish to thank the sponsors, Syngenta and ELO, and all the staff, notably Corrado, who have worked so hard to make this conference a success. But without a lively attendance, which rarely answered “don’t know” to our questions, we would not have achieved our purpose.
Hope to see you next year to discuss the role of rural development, and tackle the public goods produced by our farmers, how they should be remunerated, and which deserve priority public and/or private support in order to slow down the flight from the land. The conference will be prepared by a task-force led by Allan Buckwell.
Good by until then, and thank you for staying with us throughout the whole conference today.
