Summary February 2001

by Philippe Cacciabue
(Facilitator of the topic)

The relations between agriculture, food and health.

°°° Abstract: How to draw up agricultural, economic and social policies which encourage to put on the market foods which are factors of health? The "decompartmentalization" of the involved contexts is indispensable. There were not much reactions on this topic, that yet concerns all the European consumers. °°°

I have launched a proposal which consists to subordinate all agricultural policy to the imperatives of health. The types and forms of agricultural production must be judges according to their impacts on the health of the Europeans. The aids must back up the products that guarantee the health of the consumers, as much for the sanitary risks as for the balance of the products, of their nourishing values, of their harmlessness, etc. It is proposed that the
system of health is in part financed by taxes on the products such as tobacco, the alcohol, the greases, the glucids, etc. An effort of educational methods and a "decompartmentalization" of the contexts of health and agriculture must come with this policy. Pierre Caro testifies the deterioration of the food through the time: loss of the pleasure to eat, diversity in the food regimes, confidence on its food. He proposes several leads so that agriculture and the food contribute to a better health:

1) to bring closer producers and consumers, to break anonymity and to create a dialogue,

2) to inform the consumers in such a way to make them responsible and to make them conscious of the consequences of their purchases

3) to tax more the products of bad quality

4) to suppress the value-added Tax (VAT) on the products that encourage a good health

There were still not any other reactions on this subject. Yet, this problem is fairly extensively shared all over Europe. The food is considered less and less like a source of good health, and, worse, it becomes a risk for health. Agriculture alone cannot answer to this problem. The food habits, the rhythms of life and the budgetary priorities of the Europeans are important factors. However, concerning our discussion, I still see three leads to study thoroughly:

1) to continue to imagine how the agricultural, social and economic policies can contribute to put on the market food products which encourage a good health: healthy, nutritious and pleasing.

2) to speak of the ways to create some links between the different sectors: consumers, producers, physicians... I think that Ioana Balasoiu, Samuel Feret or Marielle Richard, for example, would be able to, according to their presentation, to help us on these points.

3) to imagine how the countryside can be involved in the field of health. There is the experiences of "health" farm in which the patients, instead of going to the hospital, are taken in charge and followed by physicians. Gerwin Verschuur will surely be able to inform us on these experiences.

The next message of summary will carry on the contributions that have involved the means of support to the farmers and to the rural area.

From agriculture to the territory: the methods of support to agriculture and to the rural area.

°°° Abstract: The Common Agricultural Policy cannot solve other things than the agricultural problems. The other functions of the rural area (the job creation for example) must be given measures and specific policies. The policies of territories slowly replace the policies of industries. °°°

The discussion on the methods of support to the rural activities, of which agriculture, was launched at the first proposal I have proposed, to stimulate the development of the rural area, to affect a single bonus to the hectare, independent of the productions and proportional to the jobs created. Agriculture is not the only way to give life in the countryside, and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) not being capable to solve other things than the agricultural problems, it is necessary to propose some incitements to the job creation, that constitute a general problem.

Iain Farquhar answered twice. In his first message he teaches us that the majority of the NGO British are unfavorable to the principle of modulation of the aids. He also expresses some doubts on the efficiency and the acceptability of such a measure:

- Is it compatible with the diversity of the situations in Europe?

- Would this measure be cheaper than the present policy?

- Would it solve the environmental problems?

Iain suggests to rely on what already exists: the agro-environmental aids, the setting of the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the shy but courageous progress of the agreements of Berlin (see the report of the contribution of Matthieu Calame, below) which increases the budget of the agro-environmental aids and the one of the rural development with regard to
the aids to the production.

Even though Iain is personally in favor to this proposal, he thinks that some abuses can exist: the relocations of activity not linked to soil and the declarations of odd jobs, to allocate financial aids. He asks a crucial question: how to measure work in agriculture?

In his second message Iain moderates the refusal of the British NGO against the modulation. The small producers (family agriculture) defend the modulation. It is in fact difficult to know who is against and who is in favor. The groups that express themselves on this subject (NGO, Unions, Organizations) do not always represent well the opinion of their members. The big owners are often those that have more time to defend their organizations, and it is sometimes their point of view that stands out.

This being said, "small is not necessarily beautiful!" Some big owners can be ecological and socially responsible in their behaviors. It is in fact what makes hesitate the protective organizations of the environment to take a position on the measures that penalize the big structures...

Matthieu Calame intervened then to specify that the proposal doesn't have an exclusive objective of only encouraging the employment in rural world. It is clearly a policy of the employment, that concerns the whole European population. It has the merit to be clear and simple (we will see in Iain message from that it is important) but it also has some limits: it doesn't replace a policy of the environment, of the food or of the rural development. It also supposes another fundamental policy, the farmers having today almost the monopoly of the use of the soils.

This proposal is perhaps expensive at the level of Europe, as Iain suggests it, but it can also be applied at the scale of a township or a region.

Matthieu also intervened to affirm that the agreements of Berlin are a success for three reasons:

1) It accentuate the visibility of the direct aids and therefore of the cost of the CAP

2) It announce a re-balancing of the aids in favor of the animal productions

3) It limits the budget of CAP but not the one of the structural funds

The next message of summary will be about the contributions about the sustainability of the forms of agricultural production.

 

The sustainability in agriculture and the means to succeed it.

°°° Abstract: The preservation of the natural resources must be a precondition, in the choice of a policy. It is necessary to institute the agro-environmental rules that are equitable, transparent and efficient. The question of "who" institutes these rules is fundamental. °°°

In his message Iain presents the problem in a general way: one cannot continue to consume like this, without losing irreversibly the capital of humankind's resources.
There is resources such as the watertables, oil or soils, which serve only once ! There is of resources such as the diversity of the races and kinds that can disappear forever. If one wishes a future, it is therefore necessary to preserve these resources. Iain notes that, if everybody is okay for a sustainable development, the attitudes and the practices are not at the height of the challenge: our survival.

He proposes that the conservation of resources is a pre-condition to accept such or such process, such or such technique of production.

He proposes that the support to the farmers is conditioned by the preservation of soils, of water, of the sources of energy and the biodiversity,:

* Soils *: its capital fertility must be preserved, and its capacity of de-pollution respected.

* Water *: the use must be moderated, and adapted to the quantity available. The stock of underground waters must absolutely be protected.

* Energy *: Iain proposes that the agricultural system of Europe has to be the minimum in autonomous energy. The public support would be reserved to the farms of which the balance in carbon would be reached.

* Biodiversity *: the principle of prudence must drive us to stop disregarding any plant or animal kind.

Brigitte Decrauzat takes up this topic and confirm the need to develop international rules to identify some products resulting from the sustainable agriculture
On the basis of the model of support to the Swiss farmers (direct payments condition by the respect of environmental practices) and the case of the organic farming, Brigitte proposes to be inspired by the indicators of sustainability of the OECD to establish common and recognized rules, and a label saying "produced resulting from the sustainable agriculture."

She also suggests that the market pays the additional cost of these environment-friendly practices. The public support must be considers when there is not enough market for these products.

Alain Ruellan, suggests not to establish a priority in resources to preserve. All are essential for the future, and it is necessary to learn to use it without destroying it.

Otherwise, he proposes to not include the energy like an identifiable natural resource, but proposes water, soils, air and life.

He also proposes to not reduce the considerations on the sustainable development to agriculture, but to widen to all the rural area, including in its relations to the cities.

In another message, Iain highlights three paradoxes linked to the conditionality of the public aids.

1) the regulations and the controls that are necessary to condition the public aids penalize the small producers. The administrative working quantity, the needs of appraisal, the sanitary and regulatory requirements that driven this evolution of the practices are more expensive, the smaller the exploitation is.

2) the regulations often end up concentrating the structures and encouraging big facilities. Iain gives the example of the disappearance of the small slaughterhouses which don't allow the circuits of local production / distribution, and therefore distant the consumers from the producers.

3) even though harder regulations are necessary, it didn't prevent the apparition of the encephalopathy bovine spongiform (ESB).

There is therefore a dilemma to solve: how to institute efficient agro-environmental rules (because the challenge is vital), just (without penalizing the small structures), trustable and transparent (so that the consumers agree) and economically acceptable?

Marielle Richard signals us that in Germany (Low Wurtemberg), and in the west of France, several experiences in which elected, farmers, consumers and environmentalists succeeded, together, to improve the agricultural practices.

Marielle introduces here the idea that the evolutions of the agricultural practices are linked to the nature of the partners that involves himself to it. The question is not only "how", but "with who" one attempts to solve the problems.

The next and last message from summary will consider the contributions on the case of the protection of soils.

 

The protection of soils in Europe.

°°° Abstract: The attention carried to our soils is extensively insufficient. Can one accept the rules that officialize the possibility to pollute a soil (pollutant-payer principle)? A better knowledge of soils and a bigger awareness raising of the citizens are necessary. Works already exist on this issue. °°°

Following the exchanges on the protection of the natural resources, I have brought some thinkings on the management of soils. The suggestions or proposals are:

1) the pollutant-payer principle ratified the right to pollute. It proposes, as in the industry or the construction, to forbid all technique that damages soil insofar as another technique more gentle or less polluting is known and available.

2) the states and the users, property owners, farmers, etc. must be capable to follow the state of soils of which they are responsible, and must get involved to preserve it, to the minimum, in the state where they have it finds. A work of cartography and characterization of soils is indispensable, come with procedures of follow-up (indicators) and of controls.

3) the ignorance of the citizens on the challenges of the protection of soils deserved an important effort of awareness raising and education.

Samuel Feret reacted to these first proposals while essentially confirming a point: the general ignorance of soils, due to several factors :

1) the classic agricultural teaching has "forgotten" the soils during a long time, presenting the earth like a simple medium whose chemistry can correct such or such deficiency.

2) research on soils is under-developed, in particular with regard to research on water.

3) soils are more a public good and collective. The market not enabling to take into account the costs of the protection of soils, it is necessary to find some means to link the public aids and the environmental requirements: eco-conditionality, ecological taxing system, or contractualization.

Alain Ruellan reminds us otherwise that the group that works on soils within the Alliance for a responsible, plural, and socially responsible world, has published a first "SOS2 Proposal file" (Save Our Soils to Sustain Our Societies).

For memory, I have proposed a first message on water. It takes up the questions and the first proposals already formulated by the group that specifically works on water within the Alliance:

- How to measure the value of water?

- The collective management of water and the sharing of this resource

- The mobilization of the sciences at the service of the needs in water

In conclusion, this first phase is very encouraging. The considered questions are well at the heart of the discussion: the future of our countryside.

I propose three directions to pursue the exchanges:

1) to study thoroughly the topics considers: the food and health; the policies of public aids; the indicators and the sustainable methods of production; soils and water.

2) to start on other questions: the enlargement of Europe to the East and to the South; the evolution of the fundamental right; the cultural functions; the social functions of the countryside, etc.

3) to vary the geographical and cultural horizons of our contributions. It is a call to the participants who manifest themselves yet !

There is of work! More before long on the forum.

 

The European model of sustainable rural development: the multi-functionality.

°°° Abstract: In his first message, Gerwin Verschuur presents the problem of the development of the rural Europe with regard to the rest of the world. Is the multi-functionality of agriculture the specificity of a "European model" of rural development? °°°

Gerwin took the voice of a work group (TAED: Transatlantic Environmental Dialogue) on the position and the role of agriculture, its trade and its environment. On both sides of the Atlantic, a finding: agriculture is not only the production of food, and its effects go beyond the borders and the time of one generation. Europe defends itself in the negotiations of the World Trade Organization with the argument of its "development" model and the multi-functionality of its agriculture. But this multi-functionality also exists in the USA, in Africa, and everywhere in the world. It means that agriculture is not an isolated and independent activity.

For this reason, one cannot be satisfied with the rules of the classic trade, nor only with the technical logics of production.

- It is necessary to protect the systems of production of the developing countries to guarantee the food security as quitting the practices of dumping to the export, while encouraging the forms of agriculture and trade that maintain the farmers on their territories.

- It is necessary that the policies of aid to agriculture integrate the multi-functionality of this activity, according to the degrees and the nature of this multi-functionality, that are very different from a region to the other, from a country to the other.

- The rules of the trade must recognize the right to the consumers to choose the labeled products, to express their interest or their indifference for the different forms of productions. It refers to the message of Brigitte Decrauzat about her proposal of a label saying "product that come from the sustainable agriculture".

- It is necessary to stop the concentration of the powers on all food paths to the hands of some big multinational businesses, concentration that goes against the diversity of the production systems, and that unifies the techniques, the products and the "cultures" in both meaning of the word.

I allow myself to make some comments on Gerwin message, and solicit your reactions:

Multi-functionality: of what does one talk about precisely? of the multi-functionality of agriculture? But agriculture in itself, it is to say the art to cultivate the plants or to raise some animals is not, in my view, multi-functional. A hectare of wheat has for function to produce some quintals of wheat.

What has several functions, it is the combination of trade (farmers), with the territory where it can exercise by itself this trade (the countryside), and with the raw material (soil, water, the trees, the genetic heritage...).
This nuance is not innocent because if one speaks of multi-functional agriculture, all policies of aid to the other functions (biodiversity, landscape, employment...) risk to be taken away by the agricultural world. However, we think that the agricultural world is not capable, alone, to propose other forms of management of the rural areas.

It would not be more accurate and efficient to speak of multi-functional "territories", and to consider the European rural area like a source of employment, of landscape, of biodiversity, etc. whose farmers are a essential component, probably but certainly not the only one.

The inhabitants of the countryside, the retired people who live there, the small business, the unemployed, the children of the rural schools or from cities, the house mothers who spend part of their life furrowing the countryside for their home, the tourists who go there to walk, all of them participate to the multi-functionality of the territories, and should be involve in its management.

 

Soils and the energy.

°°° Abstract: Concerning the protection of soils and energy policy, Europe has the means to propose other controls and other laws to frame the production. °°°

The discussion on soils continues on the forum. Iain, in a long message from February 21, explain us how, by lack of technico-economic alternatives, because it is easier to use chemical substances and by a vision of short term, the farmers of the United Kingdom neglect their soils. Paradoxically, these are the least conscious farmers and the less involve by the deterioration of soils and by the pollution that results from it.

The situation is completely blocked: the decrease of fertility of soils obliges the farmers to increasingly use chemicals, and fertility still decreases. The erosion of soils and the pollution increase with the fragility of soils, but the farmers are not more able to pay for the damages. Then the society pays the accidents of the road after flooding, pay for the de-pollution of waters, the sewers to clear...

Iain also learns us that the university of Essex has calculated the downstream costs of the cultures that represents about 330 Euros! Would not it be worth better, with this money, to help the farmers to stop polluting?

Matthieu Calame confirms the idea that it is necessary to use " politically the disastrous effects of the erosion of soils" (out-flows of mud on the roads...).
He proposes three simple indicators to follow the state of soils:
1) the organic matter rate: objective of 2%, in agreement with Iain;
2) the C/N rate(Carbon on Nitrogen): objective between 10 and 60;
3) the number of earthworms by squares meter.

About energy policy, Matthieu submits two proposals:
1) a progressive Tax to the Consumed Fossil energy, that will make more expensive a product manufactured with the fossil energy (including the nuclear);
2) a bonus to the business that improve their overall energy assessment, it is to say their capacity to capture the renewable energy.

For soils as for the energy, it seems that the ideas, the indicators and the tools of measure exist.
Before formulating more precise proposals, it would be useful to have the other Europeans opinion on these methods.
This being said, it seems increasingly clear than Europe is able to propose the rules and laws that encourage the environment-friendly practices.

 

The inhabitants can take their territories in hand.

°°° Abstract: to understand one's territory and to participate collectively to its development is a beginning of citizenship. The rural area is a place where Europeans can get involved to build their identity and to assume their responsibility in the evolution of their living environment. The scattering of a spread out habitat in a rural zone close to big cities is not a viable solution from an ecological, energy and aesthetic point of view. It is better to encourage the constitution of networks of small and medium-sized towns densely populated, but well distributed on the European territory. °°°

Three messages have considered the question of our way of living in a place.

Martine Muller, in her message of 16/02, mentions the ignorance that we have about the relationships that men and women maintain with their place of life, and between them on this place. We measure the flows, the densities, but nohing else. However, for her, the nature of the links, the desires of people, their determination "to do things together", their attachment to their territory, should be better-known. These links and these desires are identity, integration and solidarity factors.
However, the present Europe is sick of isolation, uprooting, solitude and indifference. The rural area can offer a setting to learn the collective action, the responsibility, the appropriation of one's environment again.

In her 2nd message, Martine Muller underlines the need, to be able to be an actor of one's life, to understand and to have an influence on one's territory.
There, too, the rural area offers possibilities for the inhabitants to mobilize and becoming responsible as far as local life is concerned. Martine Muller indicates that the contexts where the socio-cultural and professional horizons are varied, the capacity to innovate and to take one's territory in hand is stronger than elsewhere.

Provided that people are able and know how to make aliances and to build democratic discussions at all levels.

Matthieu Calame, in his message of the 07/02 considers the question differently. History built in Europe the megacities where millions of Europeans crammed, whereas whole areas were emptying out of its inhabitants. But the desire of "nature" and the growing oppresion of the cities push a lot of Europeans to escape the city centers and the suburbs to settle down in the near countrysides. The scattering of the habitat is a disaster in terms of pollution, of energy cost, of landscape.
Matthieu asks himself about the possibilities of densifying the network of small cities, and puts forward a system of adjustment between the zones which are too dense (30% of the average for example) and the "empty zones", where the money would serve to develop employment and the habitat.