SPEECH/03/562
Dr. Franz FISCHLER
Member of the European Commission responsible for Agriculture,
Rural Development and Fisheries
Future
perspectives
for
farming in an enlarged EU
organic
Conference on “Perspectives of Organic Agriculture in an
Enlarged EU”
Plovdiv, Bulgaria, 21 November 2003
Ladies and Gentlemen, Minister Dikme,
The timing of this conference really could not have been better. This year’s CAP
reform has enabled our agricultural policy to become altogether more ‘organic’ in its
approach, next year’s enlargement brings with it ten new countries that are well
placed to develop their organic sectors and reap the benefits, and in a few months
time, we will be finalising a European Action Plan for Organic Food and Farming
that should secure the future development of this important sector.
I am sure that the location is not a political fluke either. Two months ago, I read the
headline, “Bulgaria hopes to become Europe’s organic food basket” and from what I
have seen so far, I have no doubt that there is considerable potential to develop
your organic sector. I would like to begin by thanking Minister Dikme and the
Bulgarian Ministry of Agriculture for organising this conference at such a crucial
point in our discussions, and for giving me this opportunity to discuss where organic
farming is going, how our basket is shaping up, and how we can support our
farmers in filling it.
All of these issues have been at the centre of our ongoing preparations for the
European Action Plan for Organic Food and Farming. Since 2001, we have been
meeting with key stakeholders to try and define a strategy that both enhances, and
promotes, the further development of this growing market in a growing EU. And, we
consider its future perspectives, it becomes clear that there are some important
questions we need to address. How, for example, can we boost trade and
consumption of organic products in the EU? How can we facilitate production and
processing? How can we ensure traceability and organic authenticity and, linked to
this, how can we support the co-existence of organic farming with either
conventional methods or genetically modified agriculture?
And, from the various roundtables, and an online consultation that we held in March
this year, public opinion vis-à-vis the future of organic farming is clear:
•
Direct links between producers and markets need to be improved and consumer
information campaigns could be stepped up: 92% of respondents to the online
questionnaire believe that more information to consumers would increase
interest in the products themselves;
•
Support to organic farming should be enhanced: 93% thought it was important
to ensure that the CAP provides organic farming with the necessary support;
•
Research funding for organic farming should be boosted; and
•
Inspection bodies and organic farming standards should be harmonised
throughout the EU.
Political support has also been growing in the last few years. In 2001, the
Götenburg European Council stipulated that, “the CAP and its future development
th
should contribute to achieving sustainable development”. The Community’s 6
Environmental Action Plan specified that we should, “encourage more
environmentally friendly farming”. And the conclusions of the World Summit on
Sustainable Development then recommended we support, “market based initiatives,
for the creation, and expansion, of domestic and international markets for
environmentally friendly goods and services”.
2
June’s CAP reform did just this. By reinforcing the second pillar and making
sustainability a core principle, our European agricultural policy is now in a position to
support the ongoing renewal and regeneration of our rural areas. It has, as I
mentioned at the beginning, allowed European agriculture to become altogether
more ‘organic’ in its approach. It is evolutionary, and it promotes a farming system
that is able to support a living rural whole.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Organic agriculture epitomises the aims of the new CAP: it is environmentally
beneficial, it considers quality production second nature, and sustainability is at its
core. Its producers are therefore well placed to capitalise on certain rural
development measures that have been either introduced or strengthened under
CAP reform. They will be rewarded for quality, welfare and environmental standards
that go beyond the norms of cross-compliance. They are well placed to capitalise on
the reinforced support for processing, and support for consumer information
initiatives will help organic farmers in their promotion campaigns. They can benefit
from support for “innovative” approaches to food processing, and they are eligible
for assistance in adapting to meet new EU standards. Combined with the ongoing
work in the framework of the Action Plan, I am convinced that we are now on the
right track to securing a comprehensive strategy that will underpin the future
development of organic farming in the EU.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
We cannot talk about the perspectives for organic agriculture without also looking at
the perspectives for genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which brings me to my
next point. The issue of co-existence, and the importance of giving European
farmers the “freedom to farm” has, quite rightly, provoked much debate, and it is
another issue that the action plan will address. And, whilst we in Europe are often
quick to vilify biotechnology, there are no two ways about it - it is becoming more
and more common place and, managed responsibly, it also has enormous potential.
So how can these two apparently contradictory systems exist alongside each other?
It is an issue that has been the subject of much discussion at local, national, and
international level and, with the question of environmental and safety risk
assessment already well addressed under existing EU legislation, we presented a
number of recommendations to Member States in July this year to suggest how and
what could be done to limit the potentially adverse economic effects of co-existence.
For example, cross-pollination can be prevented by introducing pollen barriers, or by
using low-pollen varieties. Monitoring, training and advisory services will also have a
role to play. But most important of all I think, is to promote co-operation between
farmers at local level, for example through the voluntary grouping of different
farming types, and this is something that can be much more effectively managed
further down the ladder.
I believe that the issue of co-existence is another example of where we in Brussels
should step back a few paces to allow national and regional authorities to determine
what is the most efficient and cost-effective method of preventing the admixture of
GM and other crops. The measures taken must address regional specifics such as
the location of farms, the crops involved, the local climatic conditions etc.
3
There are also the legal aspects to consider. The EU has no competence when it
comes to private liability law, so it is up to the Member States to explore the
possibility of providing insurance schemes that cater for the accidental admixture of
GM and non-GM crops.
And it is up to the farmers and suppliers to make sure that they know what their
rights are in this respect. With so many regional variables, I believe that national
and local authorities are much better placed to draw up co-existence strategies.
But the issue of co-existence is not just about giving farmers the freedom to farm.
We also have to take consumer choices into account as well, which is where the
labelling issue becomes very important. Just as farmers have the right to choose
what to grow and how to grow it, the public has a right to know what they are
buying, what it contains, and where it has come from.
Currently the labelling threshold for the adventitious presence of GMOs in all
produce is 0.9%. And, whilst I know that some producers would like to see a lower
labelling threshold for organic food, I am concerned that without more research into
the practical consequences of this, we could create an unnecessarily complicated
two-tier system to little or no benefit.
I am also aware that labelling threshold for the unavoidable presence of GMOs in
seeds is a very important issue for organic farmers, and this is something else that
we will be addressing in the context of the Action Plan. Although there is currently
the option under the organic farming regulation for organic farmers to set a specific
“de minimis” threshold for adventitious admixture in seeds, a more specific, EU-wide
measure is still under discussion with stakeholders. What is certain, is that any
decision in this respect must be considered in the context of recent research, and
must ensure that it is economically viable for our organic farmers.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Just as the issue of labelling is important to indicate the presence of GMOs, so too
should it be used in the marketing of organic produce, and here, I think producers
can still make better use of the possibilities open to them to help promote their
produce. The use of organic logos for example, is not only important for traceability
and proving organic food authenticity. It also helps the public to make an informed
decision, and wins their trust and confidence, which is the key to the future of
organic farming. In particular, with many of the people who buy ‘organic’, wanting
locally produced food, reinforcing the use of national logos could play an important
role in marketing these goods on the domestic market.
It is not just a lack of labelling though that could be seen to be hampering the
development of organic farming. Shortcomings in the processing system are also
contributing to the high price differential between organic and conventional produce.
Just as labelling is needed to promote these products, so too is adequate and
efficient distribution if they are to become more ‘accessible’ to the wider market.
The demand for locally produced organic food also has implications for new farmers
entering into the EU market, be it through conversion from alternative types of
farming, or through enlargement. Let me just remind you of the pace with which this
niche has expanded over the last decade. Between 1993 and 1999, organic farming
in Europe tripled. Since 1998, it’s estimated to have grown by some 30% per year.
But on top of this, the market for organic produce is estimated to be growing even
faster, and some of the EU’s key consuming countries are still importing significant
amounts of produce. There is clearly room for growth in this sector.
4
And when you consider that enlargement will bring with it another 100 million
consumers, and that the organic potential in many of the new member states
remains largely untapped, I am convinced that there is considerable scope in this
sector for farmers in the new Member States.
Bulgaria, and indeed the Plovdiv region, is a good example of the potential that
could be harvested from a switch to organic. In September this year, your Ministry
for Agriculture was quoted as saying that more than 80% of your farm land is
suitable for organic farming. You’ve got the right climate, you’ve got lower labour
costs than the EU-15, and you’ve used relatively little fertiliser and pesticides over
the last decade, all of which lends itself naturally to organic agriculture. On top of
this, the political support and the ambition is there too.
But this is not something that is unique to Bulgaria. These are conditions that
farmers in all the future member states could capitalise on and, more importantly,
many have recognised that they can capitalise on.
The trouble is that the rhetoric on its own is not enough, and I would urge you now
to identify comprehensive strategies and regional action plans for the development
and marketing of your organic sectors. This doesn’t just mean promoting it amongst
your farmers, it also means introducing consumer information campaigns as well,
and letting the public know why these unique and consistently high quality products
are worth paying the money for. Bulgaria for example, has for some time been
renowned for its natural yoghurt and its rose oil. And, as a leading producer of rose
oil, whose fragrance and medicinal properties are equally well recognised
worldwide, I am sure that you know that this niche contains new possibilities.
Although I have been encouraged by the progress that has already been made to
boost organic production in the future member states, there is still more that needs
to be done. Only the Czech Republic and Hungary, for example, have so far
established organic inspection systems that have been approved in line with the EU
regulation. As a result, they are the only two that export a substantial amount of
organic products to the EU. Inspection systems are all the more important for
certifying organic produce that is intended for foreign consumers, and if they are not
up to scratch they will limit the opportunities.
Co-ordination between organisations and farmers could also be improved. I was
pleased to hear about Bulgaria’s new organic co-operative “Biobulgaria” because I
believe that it is through exchange of information and good practice that producers
will be able to develop their enterprises. And finally, there is the opportunity to
implement support measures for organic farming under the agri-environmental pilot
arm of the Sapard scheme. I know that Bulgaria and Lithuania have listed this as a
priority action, and I would encourage them now to establish the relevant control
bodies as soon as possible to allow the conferral of management to the national
authorities, and for support to reach the intended parties. And I would encourage
Slovakian organic farmers, for whom support has already been accredited, to
capitalise on the experience and knowledge they acquire with Sapard.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
When I was considering what I would say to you today, there was one thing that
really struck me about the future of organic farming, and that was its potential. It is
one aspect of the common agricultural policy where I really feel I can be on the
offensive, where I find I cannot come up with many hurdles, and where I believe that
the negative can be transformed, with a little work, into the positive.
5
I have talked about enlargement, and I have identified potential. I have talked about
the improvements that need to be made, but I have also talked about the
opportunities that will be gained for them.
I have also talked about demand. There has always been a certain amount of
speculation that organic farming was just a ‘fashionable’ alternative to more
conventional methods of farming, and that once the season passed, the interest in
its collection would dwindle. But the evidence to date has been to the contrary, and
with enlargement, and increased purchasing power in the new member states, this
is set to continue.
I have also talked about the future policy perspectives. We have identified a number
of areas where we can improve this in our preparations for the action plan, but at
the same time we have recognised many of the ways in which we already support
and promote organic farming in Europe. There is no doubt that more still needs to
be done before we can present the final version of the Action Plan early next year,
but I hope that, following next January’s hearing, we will be in a position to present a
comprehensive action plan for the development of this sector.
But whilst we in Brussels will concentrate on establishing and putting in place the
appropriate regulatory framework, Member States must also concentrate on
developing the regional strategies necessary to give organic farming a perspective.
It is by working together that we will be able to secure the future and ensure that the
EU’s organic basket is filled to capacity.
Thank you for your attention.
6