The trend in the voting in the online debate has been clear since the start: the majority of participants have been opposed to the motion “European agriculture is a good model for the rest of the world to follow”. What has evolved over the last weeks is the share of the votes. On the first day, 80% disagreed. By the end of the debate, the proportion of voters opposed to the motion fell to 73%.
The voting results mirror the vast majority of comments made by people joining the debate. Most participants were critical of European agriculture for a variety of reasons. Many pointed out that the system of direct payments favours large farmers and big landowners such as the Queen of England. Alan Matthews, who was opposing the motion, and Ariel Brunner of Birdlife Europe point out that despite claims that farmers should be paid for farming in an environmentally-sustainable way, European agriculture faces problems such as nitrate run-off and water depletion.
The closing stage of the debate came in the week that MEPs were voting in Strasbourg on reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. As Brecht Lein points out, the initial reforms from the European Commission were designed to “regain public confidence in an agricultural system based on direct subsidies and protective market measures”. A key aim of the reforms was that “public money should go to providers of public goods”, meaning farmers would be motivated and rewarded for taking climate-friendly measures. But the vote in the Parliament suggests that many of the Commission’s initial ambitions were watered down as MEPs sought to protect payments for farmers.
As I noted in previous remarks, defenders of the CAP were strikingly absent from the debate, perhaps because their attention was focused on the parliament. What remained was a line of argument that was encapsulated by Sjamme Höschen who posted “the European model is not the worst in the world, but it could be way better”.
This was a line followed by Staffan Nilsson, who spoke in favour of the motion, and commentators like Falkenherz who argued that, without the CAP, European agriculture would be more industrial and consume more natural resources. More family farms would disappear in the battle for survival of the fittest, they warned.
In concentrating on the failings of the current European model of agriculture, the attempts to highlight the achievements of European farming were rather unconvincing.
I would like to thank Staffan Nilsson and Alan Matthews for their stimulating and thoughtful contributions to the debate, as well as their willingness to engage with opposing arguments. Thanks are due also to the guest speakers who enriched the debate with their perspectives.
This debate has now finished and voting is closed.
Featured comments
Alan Mathews is right when he says that the old model of agriculture based on plentiful land, cheap energy and chemicals is no longer fit for purpose. The reform of the CAP should have been an opportunity to drive forward the move to a new sustainable model of Agriculture that is more resource, energy and carbon efficient. Unfortunately the Commission plans are at best a half hearted attempt at tackling this problem. Too often the rationale for the reform has been about justification of the policy and the payments instead of setting out a clear road map in the reform on how to use the 50 billion Euros per year spent on Agriculture to build that new sustainable model of agriculture able to respond to the new challenges. This is a missed opportunity.
I am pro-EU but despair at the power of the agri-industrial lobby which helps large farmers rather than small farmers and does not use its subsidies to reduce fertiliser and pesticide use and promote planting of hedgerows and woodlands to break monocultures. The loss of biodiversity---most recently the threat to bees-- is truly alarming and the common agricultural policy should adapt urgently; gradual change is not enough.
Whilst the CAP can provide some valuable lessons for the rest of the world to follow, in the case of Africa, the African Union is already setting out its own, African-led and African-owned programme. Indeed the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) of the African Union (AU) is key to ensure food security on the continent, including through contributing in the future to the opening up of regional agricultural markets.
Last December officials and experts from both the regional and national level met, at a joint Ministerial AU Conference, to facilitate exchange on overlapping work and find synergies between the trade and agricultural sectors. The overall theme was ‘Boosting Intra-African Trade as a Key to Agricultural Transformation and Ensuring Food and Nutrition Security’. Whilst there was not a full turnout of high-level representatives from all African states, we feel Ministers made some important commitments. Particularly: accelerating implementation of the the Plan for Action for Boosting Intra-African Trade; ensuring the national and regional compacts and investment plans of CAADP are the tools to define collaboration between trade and agriculture; strengthening institutions and producers to participate in these processes; and mandating the AU Commission, NEPAD (New Partnership for Africa's Development) and the Regional Economic Communities to realise synergies between the two sectors. The Ministerial sowed an important seed. Immediate follow up on such common agriculture-trade agenda is now crucial for achieving food security in Africa. This is important for Africa at a continental level, but also for smallholder farmers at the local level.
For a full analysis of regional approaches to food security in Africa go to www.ecdpm.org/dp128.
There wouldn't be enough land or water on the planet to go around if everyone adopted the model of agriculture practiced in Europe. For example, we import vast amounts of animal feed - including the virtual land and water associated with growing that (genetically engineered) feed - to rear livestock often in factory conditions to produce "cheap" meat and dairy. Manure produced by the livestock often goes on to pollute waterways.....or is burnt; what a squandering of nutrients! while we overload the soil with synthetic fertilisers. Surplus livestock and dairy production is exported to the South with generous public subsidies to undermine smallholders in Africa and elsewhere who cannot compete with the subsidied prices. What kind of model is that?
Comments from the floor
No one has commented on this phase.
No one has commented on this phase.
No one has commented on this phase.