Brussels, Belgium
June 26, 2007
Mariann Fischer Boel
Member of the European Commission responsible for agriculture
and rural development
Research and the future of agriculture
Conference on the Future of European Agriculture – Consequences
for Research
[Ladies and gentlemen],
It's a great pleasure to participate in the opening of this
conference.
When I looked at some of the advertising material for this
event, I saw that the conference organisers were certainly not
trying to hide from difficult topics. Among the questions to be
asked were:
how climate change will affect agricultural production; and
what role biofuels will have in European farming, and how they
will affect food prices.
Please let me know if you find answers to these questions by the
end of the conference, because if you do, you will probably cut
my workload by half between now and 2009!
In reality, of course we can't give definitive answers at this
stage. But the questions are hugely important.
And what I find exciting at the moment is that these issues -
and others related to farming, food and land use - are breaking
through more powerfully into the awareness of the general public
People want to know about climate change. They want to know what
it will do to the world – especially to the historic landscapes
and valuable farmland of southern Europe.
They also want to know about the possible impact of bioenergy
and biofuels.
The "food versus fuel" debate has exploded into the media in
recent months - in dramatic stories of rising commodity prices,
and food riots in the streets of Mexico. People want to know
whether energy crops will really be a tool for progress, or
whether they will create new problems.
I would add that people also want to know about the implications
of the expansion of global trade. The European Union is a strong
advocate of trade liberalisation – in the Doha Round, and in
other forums. There are good reasons for this. But the public
has questions about what this could mean for our food supply in
the future.
These are all big topics. And along with many others, they need
to be broken down and analysed piece by piece.
The SCAR (Standing committee for agricultural research)
Foresight Process has made a very strong contribution to this
work, in impressive breadth and depth. So I offer my
congratulations and my thanks to all who were involved.
The future of European agriculture needs work like this, because
that future will depend to a large extent on knowledge.
I sometimes meet people who are surprised at the idea that
farming must be part of the knowledge-based economy. They think
of farming as an essentially "different" sector, in which normal
economic principles rarely apply (at least in Europe).
It's true that farming is "different" in some ways. As it
produces a resource which is fundamental to life, it's very
politically sensitive. And it's bound by constraints which are
not felt by other sectors – mainly linked to the weather.
Nevertheless, it's just as important in farming as in other
sectors to be open to new ways of doing things.
Historically, I would say that the plough has done at least as
much to change our lives as the petrol engine!
And look at what we can do now – for example, through GPS
technology. In the air, a satellite detects which parts of a
field of maize are becoming too yellow. It then guides a robot
to apply fertiliser in just the right places. Our ancestors
couldn't have imagined this.
Likewise, previous generations would have been impressed by what
we can do with integrated farming systems – getting the best
possible outputs but dramatically cutting down chemical inputs.
It's also essential in farming to make informed choices.
If this was true in the past, it's all the more true following
recent reforms of the CAP.
The introduction of decoupling has essentially ended the
influence of direct payments over farmers' production decisions.
It gives them financial security and leaves them free to make a
profit as they see fit (as long as they observe certain
standards of environmental care, animal welfare and public
health).
In this environment of greater freedom of choice, more than
ever, the successful farmers will be the ones who understand
clearly what options are open, make sound decisions about what
to do, and find the best way of doing it.
For one thing, this means swimming with the tide of
technological progress, to be as competitive as possible. But
this is only one ingredient of success. Another is a sound
understanding of the markets within which farming operates.
For example, if a dairy farmer wanted to increase his profits,
what could he do? He could decide to stay in the market for
basic commodities, but produce larger volumes and cut costs. Or
he could deliver his milk to a processor which focuses on fresh
products or cheese. This could mean investing in extra quality
controls or year-round production. Or he could decide to deliver
his own local brand. This would need a thorough knowledge of
processing and of the consumer.
In each case, the farmer would have to understand the potential
markets as well as the technologies involved.
If we want to see these things happen – see the right choices
made, and the right technology used – good research is
indispensable.
But not only farmers need access to a good level of knowledge if
we want a successful agricultural sector: so do policy-makers.
Many key decisions have been taken over the past few years about
where the CAP should go. The central ideas of decoupling,
cross-compliance, modulation, rural development policy – all of
these had to be based on very thorough analysis. We will
continue to need such analysis in future. Running the CAP should
never feel like a series of leaps in the dark.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Having underlined the importance of knowledge for farmers and
policy-makers, I would like to make two particular requests.
My first request is that, in future, we ensure that the fruits
of research are transferred as efficiently as possible.
Research can unlock huge benefits for farmers and the food
chain. But the findings of research don't always trickle through
– as I have heard especially from some of our young farmers.
I'm not saying anything new when I say that the transfer of
knowledge and technology is important. But let me ask: what are
we doing about it – especially in the light of recent CAP
reforms?
For example, I know that farmers have participated in three
"technology platforms" – on "Plants for the future", "Food for
life" and "Global animal health". I would be interested to know
what value they gained from them. Would further participation in
technology platforms be useful?
More generally, does the SCAR have ideas for helping farmers to
get hold of new ideas and turn them into profit?
My second request is that we keep up our efforts in research
into socio-economic issues, as a complement to work on questions
of technology.
I have already explained why this is important. And so much
excellent work of this sort has given us guidance in the past.
I'm thinking, for example, of the research which led to the
European Dairy Industry Model. This model gave us a very
valuable assessment of the possible impact on dairy markets from
the 2003 reform, the enlargement of the European Union, and
potential agreements in the Doha Round.
Another example would be the GENEDEC project, which has shone a
light on the socio-economic and environmental impact of the
decoupling of direct payments.
Under the 6th Framework Programme, there was a clear commitment
to socio-economic research into agriculture, and I trust that we
can at least maintain that level of emphasis under the 7th
Framework Programme.
Ladies and gentlemen,
I believe that, if these two requests can be granted, we will
have an even firmer foundation on which to build the future of
European agriculture.
We have a very strong and diverse research base in Europe. Let's
make sure that it remains a useful servant to our farmers and to
policy-makers.
Thank you for listening.
[And as I said at the beginning, if you answer those questions
on climate change and biofuels, please let me know!] |
|