European Organic Congress
organised by IFOAM
Brussels, Belgium
4 December 2007
Mariann Fischer Boel
Member of the European Commission responsible for Agriculture
and Rural Development
Working for success in the EU organic sector
[Ladies and gentlemen],
It's a great pleasure to join you today.
This conference is about looking ahead. Of course this is
usually a good thing to do: it shows that we have a sense of
purpose and determination.
But I think it's also very important to look at the map from
time to time and see how far we've already come. This gives a
sense of overall progress. It can even be encouraging!
And in the case of the organic sector, I think we have a lot to
be encouraged about. According to our map, we have walked really
quite a long way and climbed at least one hill – so that now, we
have a nice view of the surrounding countryside.
The first reason for encouragement is that the organic food
market is strong.
This is a fundamental point. I always say that the organic
sector must essentially be driven by demand - and we see that
the demand is there.
It's hard to measure, because most Member States don't provide
official figures on sales and consumption. This means that we
don't have official figures at European level, either.
On the other hand, academics carry out studies on this issue
from time to time. For example, we have seen studies comparing
sales in 2005 with those in 2001. These studies reported an
increase of 40 to 50 per cent in that period for a number of
member States.
More generally, it's clear that most of the pioneer producers
and companies have seen continuous growth, while new market
players are entering the field. Interest is increasing among
supermarkets, restaurants and other caterers. Direct marketing
boxes are also still doing well.
In other words: organic products are more and more available in
all market chains.
On some markets, we are actually seeing shortages of organic
products – even though production is increasing steadily in most
countries of the EU-15, and is booming in some New Member
States.
And of course, outside the European Union, organic production
has got its foot in the door around the world. Large countries
such as China, India and Brazil have all taken an interest and
now have policies in place to develop organic production.
A second reason to be encouraged is that there's now a keen
awareness of the societal benefits that organic farming offers.
This is clear from Member States' various rural development
programmes, which contain a huge number of measures in favour of
organic farming and food production.
The third reason to be encouraged is that we're advancing well
with carrying out the European Union Organic Action Plan.
We have at least started putting into action 19 out of 21 of the
measures listed in the Action Plan. In particular, early next
spring we should be ready to launch our new promotion campaign –
complete with the European Union organic logo, which should be
finalised by the end of this year.
Of course, a large chunk of the work set out in the Action Plan
has been to update the rules governing organic food and farming
within the European Union.
No one would claim that we had an easy ride on our way to
agreement on the Council Regulation. But no one should have
expected an easy ride: there was too much at stake, and the
level of commitment in the organic sector is too high. Heated
debates were always to be expected.
The important point is that we did reach agreement. We do now
have the new Council Regulation. And it will bring benefits.
For example:
It's good that the principles of organic farming are now clearly
defined.
It's good that wine, seaweeds and yeast will now be included.
It's good that labelling rules are now much clearer and more
informative.
And it's good that our rules for importing organic products are
now more rational, and will be easier to apply in the long term.
Getting this Council Regulation signed off was a huge piece of
work, and we should be pleased with it!
Of course, in terms of the legislative framework, we now have a
solid foundation, but we haven't finished building the house.
For step two - building the walls and roof of the house - we
need to agree on the implementing rules. I think it would be
good to get the walls and the roof finished as soon as possible:
we don't want to leave the foundations exposed to wind and rain
for too long! So I look forward to further contributions to this
work from IFOAM – and of course, the IFOAM EU group will have
its next meeting on this topic with staff from DG Agri this
week.
Then, in the third step, we'll build extensions to the house, as
announced, by including rules on wine, aquaculture and seaweed.
So, as I say, we've covered a lot of ground, and our lungs can
feel it. We can be pleased with what we've already achieved, and
with the work that's still in progress.
But what's coming up on the horizon?
I should tell you first about what's not coming. I really don't
think that it's time for a new Action Plan.
As I have said, we've now built up considerable momentum with
the current Action Plan, but we're a long way from completing
it. While this is still the case – while we can't see the impact
of measures that we've only recently begun to implement – new
plans are not what we need.
The important thing is to be working in practice to help the
organic sector maximise its success.
I would like to thank IFOAM for its contribution to the Health
Check of the Common Agricultural Policy – which is of course at
the centre of debate on the CAP at the moment.
Different groups have been expecting different things from the
Health Check. I have made it clear that the Health Check will be
more than fine-tuning, but won't be a "new reform". And both the
Council and the European Parliament have reacted very positively
to the Health Check communication which the Commission tabled
last month. Clearly, we have a good springboard from which to
launch the discussion.
In the ideas set out in the communication, there are clear
potential benefits for organic farming. This is true with regard
both to the "first pillar" of the CAP (so, direct payments and
market measures), and to the second pillar (rural development).
Concerning the first pillar, I've made a number of proposals
about how the Single Payment Scheme works in practice. One of
these is that some Member States should be allowed to reduce the
differences between individual farmers' decoupled payments.
This would bring larger decoupled payments to many organic
farmers, because in many cases the financial contribution from
direct payments was relatively low in the reference period of
2000 to 2002.
Concerning the second pillar, I've proposed that we channel
extra funding available into rural development by raising the
rate of "compulsory modulation".
This would give Member States more money to spend on measures to
assist organic farming, if they chose to do so.
Let me comment briefly on some of the specific points raised in
the IFOAM position paper on the Health Check.
Regarding the Single Payment Scheme, you want to see the
"regional" model applied throughout the European Union. As I
have said, I think we should at least give certain Member States
the chance to move towards a model with a flatter rate – which
would be a regional model in many cases.
You want to see changes to cross-compliance. I think there's a
danger of loading too many ambitions onto cross-compliance, but
I certainly want to make sure that it's doing its job
effectively, efficiently and simply.
You draw attention to climate change. This topic gets a lot of
coverage in the Health Check communication. Organic farming can
be part of the solution, though not the whole solution.
I don't agree with you that the CAP should in no way support the
biofuel sector. Biofuels do have a role to play with regard to
climate change and energy insecurity – if we use them in the
right way. But I do agree that the current energy crop support
system is no longer appropriate.
Finally, you want to see compulsory modulation of 20 per cent.
As I have said, I also want to increase compulsory modulation,
but I think a level of 20 per cent is politically unrealistic at
the moment.
What I have not done in the Health Check communication is set
out thoughts on organic farming specifically.
I see no need to do so. We already have a detailed Action Plan
that is specific to the sector. Also, organic farming is part of
the solution to some of the challenges that farming must face –
but not the whole solution. As we define and examine these
challenges, the role of organic farming will enter the debate
quite naturally.
What about the future beyond 2013?
Of course, on this issue I can speak with less certainty for the
time being.
I very much hope that the organic market will continue to grow.
That will depend on many different factors. But most experts
seem to forecast that there will be further steady growth.
That's good news.
With regard to policy, I can't say anything in detail. But what
I will say is this: in the European Union, there is an
ever-sharper focus on environmental issues, and I would expect
organic farming to gain from this.
At (or near) the top of our list of environmental worries is
climate change.
Overall, organic farming can make a contribution to fighting
climate change, but we need to know more about this. So I'm
looking forward to learning about the research results which
will be presented here today.
As in other forms of agriculture, in organic farming we must
introduce smart techniques to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
And it goes without saying that we must keep an eye on the whole
picture: for example, we want clean groundwater and low energy
use. We want to make the overall environmental impact of organic
farming as positive as possible.
Alongside climate change, there's also growing concern about
biodiversity.
In this area, the science is very clear: organic farming scores
high marks.
Wider crop rotations, the absence of herbicides, and other
particular efforts by organic farmers, are a big support to
biodiversity.
Nevertheless, a high score is not necessarily the best score
that could be achieved. It's possible that the rules on organic
farming could be sharpened up with regard to biodiversity.
Let's look at this together, and see what's possible. And let's
be creative. Not all ideas need to end up in a Regulation. We
might get just as much benefit out of good models for specific
agri-environmental measures involving organic methods, or from a
code of good practice.
In conclusion: I would emphasise once more: we've been walking
at a good pace. The map shows that we've made good progress.
Of course, we haven't finished! Let's keep at it – but let's
also recognise the value of what we've already done.
Thank you. |
|