Speech: Dr. John Atkin, 1 st Forum on the Future of European Agriculture

Thursday 27 th March 2008

 

Panel session 4: can agriculture deliver what Europe needs?

Do we have the technology?

 

Good afternoon.

 

The quality and variety of the speakers today show the importance of the subject of today’s forum, which we are pleased to co-sponsor with the European Landowners Organisation.

 

I have a simple message.

 

Europe must be clear about its objectives for agriculture against the background of the exploding global demand for food, but current policies on the regulation of technology risk to damage the capacity of farmers to respond. This should not be allowed to happen.

 

Let me summarise the challenges facing agriculture.

 

Most experts agree that by 2030 global food production must increase by 50% in order to feed two billion more people and satisfy the higher quality food needs of many others. More than 80% of the world’s population will live in emerging markets and these people will want to enjoy a life style and diet that we in the West have experienced for decades. They will have the economic power and the determination to ensure that what cannot be produced locally will be imported from other countries, causing a major impact on food prices and availability.

 

Demand is also being driven by the need for energy. The escalating cost of oil, the insufficiency of supply and the environmental impact of extraction and consumption, means that renewable sources must be used and the only truly renewable sources we have are plants. So we have to support the current development of biofuels. This is the first step towards the efficient transformation of plant material into transportation fuel. There is little doubt that within 10 years technology will be able to transform biomass or cellulosic material into fuels. This will make a significant contribution to energy needs as well as being much better for the environment than fossil fuels. Ethanol produced from sugar cane is already more efficient and better for the environment than oil. And yet Europe and some other regions impose tariff barriers to discourage its importation.

 

On the production side of the equation, whether you choose to call it climate change or not, extreme weather has led to droughts, particularly in the South, which has limited agricultural output. As a consequence, some of the world’s biggest grain producing countries in East Europe as well as Argentina are placing export restrictions on wheat. The consequences of exploding demand and poor harvests have been a sharp decline in the global stocks of most agricultural commodities, including wheat, corn, rice, soybeans, vegetable oils, and even frozen orange juice and coffee. And the prices of almost all commodities are rocketing.

 

Food processors are now paying the highest prices for ingredients for 14 years whilst average food prices in the EU are now 5% more than this time last year and in some Member States that rises to nearly 15%.

 

So here is the good news. Whilst the challenges we face in agriculture are significant, technology can continue to increase productivity as it has done so successfully for the last 40 years, during which average yields of almost every crop have increased year on year and food costs have declined in real terms. The reason for this is the application of science and technology in agriculture.

 

Let me illustrate this. The world population in 1950 was 2.5 billion. Agriculture was essentially organic. Food was of variable quality. Shortages were common and food expenditure accounted for around 20% of disposable income in developed countries. Today, there are 6.5bn people, and for most food is plentiful, high quality and accounts for only around 10% of disposable income in developed countries. It is technology in agriculture that has enabled this dramatic increase in productivity and consequently in the quality of people’s lives.

 

But what exactly do I mean by technology; well this includes chemical crop protection, plant breeding and agricultural biotechnology as well as fertilizers and farm mechanization.

 

There is no magic bullet - success will depend on the integration of several technologies, such as advanced crop protection chemicals which have very low application rates and excellent human and environmental safety characteristics, genetically modified crops with in-built protection against insect attack and drought tolerant varieties which enable crops to be productive in adverse conditions. These are all examples of modern developments which are essential to improve productivity. And if we use this technology effectively, we can meet the demand challenge whilst protecting and enhancing natural resources.

 

People are often surprised when I say that intensive farming – maximising the use of the agricultural land already under cultivation – is of great benefit to the environment. The reason is simply that under low productivity systems with reduced inputs, such as organic agriculture, there would need to be much more land under production.

 

If you look at the results of soil and water protection projects which use ‘no till’ or ‘conservation farming’ and modern herbicides – a truth emerges that is inconvenient to the opponents of intensive agriculture. That is, that this approach to farming allows organic matter to build up in the soil, absorbing CO 2. This process dramatically reduces carbon emissions, conserves soil moisture and prevents soil erosion. That is just one example of how modern technology can be used in a sustainable and environmentally beneficial way.

 

I hope that this illustrates that if we fail to embrace modern agricultural technologies the results will be stagnating or falling crop yields, which will mean the destruction of more forest and other fragile habitats as more land is brought into production to try and keep pace with demand. And let me repeat that this demand will increase by 50% by 2030.

 

Given all this, I am sometimes left wondering about the rationale behind the decisions that are being taken by European policy makers and stakeholders in agriculture and trade.

A couple of examples spring to mind.

 

Firstly, agricultural biotechnology in the form of GM crops are not permitted to be grown and yet we allow the import of commodities which have been grown using the same GM technologies outside the EU. This illustrates that many countries are benefiting from productivity increases from GM technology which enables them to export surplus production to the EU but it also illustrates the inconsistency of our policies in not allowing these same technologies to be used to boost European yields.

 

Secondly, there is the intent to take a more hazard-based approach to the approval of agricultural technologies rather than relying on risk assessment which has been the basis of today’s largely successful regulations. The hazard approach simply judges the safety of a technology without considering how it is formulated, packaged or used. On this basis, many everyday products such as gasoline, those containing alcohol including wine, and cosmetics, as well as household cleaning products and even motor vehicles would be also banned or severely restricted because they are inherently hazardous.

 

The European Parliament recently proposed what we consider to be an extreme hazard based approach to the approval crop protection products without conducting an impact assessment. Had this been done, it would have shown that olive growers and wheat farmers – to name but two – would be deprived of the products they need to protect against pests and diseases which can severely damage their crops. Without these products, it is well documented that yield losses can reach 30-40%. This would constitute a major step in the wrong direction.

 

The motives behind this kind of policy, to improve safety to consumers and operators and to reduce risks to the environment are undoubtedly honourable... but they are hopelessly disconnected from the needs of agriculture and the real risk that these technologies pose to human beings and the environment.

 

It is worth pointing out that the regular monitoring of chemical residues in food shows that permitted residue levels are rarely exceeded and these levels have huge safety margins built into them. Any risks are massively outweighed by the benefits of plentiful, healthy and affordable food.

 

Concerning the environment, further improvements can be made through better stewardship and monitoring of in-field use which the industry is committed to, rather than unnecessarily removing valuable tools from the farmer’s tool box.

 

So if we continue down this road, my question is this - how will Europe produce what it needs to feed or to provide renewable sources of fuel? It may be able to rely on imports – although in today’s world market this is questionable – but it will simply have exported the production problem to other parts of the world where, in order to meet the demands of European consumers, marginal land will be brought into production and forests and other natural habitats will be lost.

 

Achieving food and environmental security in Europe in the 21 st Century is possible, but we need to accept and promote the essential role played by agricultural technology.

 

So my concluding plea is for all stakeholders to work together to develop a progressive approach to policy making and regulation in the EU which is based on the science and provides farmers with the tools that they need today and stimulates innovation to produce the agricultural technologies of tomorrow.

 

I look forward to a good debate on these issues.

 

1,508 words

9 minutes