Should French agricultures grasp on the environmental
opportunity?
1. The fundamental assets of French agricultures are still
going strong
2. However the vulnerabilities of production systems are
worrying
3 Taking Advantage of the Assets of French Agricultures in
a Necessity to overcome their Vulnerabilities
Conclusion: taking the right direction
Box 1: Indicators for the Integration of Environmental Concerns
into the Common Agricultural Policy
Box 2. OECD agri-environmental indicators, 27/11/2000
For France and the European Union, the agricultural issue represents far
more than its share in the gross domestic product (GDP) and demography. It
is also at the base of food security, a major feature of its international
image, a key file for its political credibility, as well as a source of trade
surplus, a major financial stake as regards the CAP (Common Agricultural
Policy), an essential land management and resource management tool and, perhaps,
the touchstone of motivations for its extension to Eastern countries. It
seems to be an established and accepted fact that agricultural products should
not be viewed in the same way as raw products such as metal or petrol, at
the mercy of speculation, but that their production and price must be
sufficiently stable to ensure their regular supply. Besides, climatic change
confers to them a new dimension.
This is the reason why current uncertainties demand a strategic analysis
of the assets and vulnerabilities of the "French farming enterprise" (as
some call it, although this includes a widely diverse types of agriculture),
from the angle of context and prospects. This is all the more important as,
in spite of the diversity of production systems, products and
terroirs, the farming world is considered as a single whole by French
as well as foreign citizens and consumers.
Our paper, therefore, does not propose to deal with the future state of energy
in 2020 or 2030, nor with environmental analyses, although everyone is aware
of the socio-economic impact of observed or predictable damage, but will
mainly concern economic suggestions stemming from three observations.
[R] 1. The fundamental assets of French agricultures are still going strong
These are multifold.
Since 1995, agricultural commodities contribute to ranking the French farming
industry second in national trade surpluses, mainly thanks to finished products.
The situation is in total contrast to that of Japan, a major net
importer (1), or New-Zealand, whose economy
significantly depends on its agricultural exports
(2).
The EU domestic market absorbs 70% of French exports, a major factor of
stability, and Europe as a continent totalling 450 million inhabitants is
by far its main market
The diversity of production systems, products and terroirs is a national
weapon against the trivialisation of agricultural products that compete against
each other only through the price factor, thus driving prices lower and lower
down. The specialists are the only people who seem to be aware of this diversity:
who knows that the Institut de l'Elevage (the French livestock institute)
describes 11 different ways of producing cow milk in Brittany and 18 ways
of producing cattle meat in the Limousin region?
The national and international image of agricultural products (tradition,
life style, quality, savoir-faire, subtlety) was a major issue up to now.
The recent major crises (dioxin, but more especially the BSE and foot-and-mouth
epidemics) do indeed affect French agriculture as a whole, although this
is not specific to France.
The agricultural community has already demonstrated that it is able to respond
and reorganise when faced with new challenges, as long as the course to take
is clearly defined. Why should this not be the case, once again?
[R] 2. However the vulnerabilities of production systems are worrying
These vulnerabilities relate on the one hand to the structure of agricultural
fabric, and on the other hand, to the relationship between agriculture and
the territory it uses.
Help is oriented in such a way that an increasing share of all national
agricultural productions and development structures are focussed on basic
products that have no intrinsic or territorial specificity. These commodities
are "massified" and highly susceptible to intra-European and even international
competition due to their price: this is the case for certain cereals and
for meat and dairy products. This situation mirrors that of the textile and
the iron and steel industry 25 years ago. All this type of animal production
(especially pork and poultry) is being delocalised to lower labour costs.
This situation is not economically viable so long as the cost of international
transport remains as low as it currently is (the link with the policy on
climate change is obvious). Even though the nature of the BSE and foot-and-mouth
crises is different they resulted in a cruel fact - the shift of demand to
other productions on the European domestic and foreign market.
The disparity of situations and composition of income (0 to 80% of direct
income is derived from public subsidies, depending on the type of activity
- according to the data published by the French Bulletin d'information
du ministère de l'Agriculture-BIMA) is making professional solidarity
artificial and has created widely diverging individual interests. This weakness
is increased by two factors:
- the upstream dependence of the agricultural community on the agrifood industry
and the banks, and its downstream dependence on large retailing chains. This
dependence is even greater for non-characteristic products that can only
be differentiated by the brand mark of the agribusiness firm or that of the
retailing chain.
- the increasing difficulty for young farmers to enter farming (due to the
farm size and the steep rise in prices in some regions) to the advantage
of a systematic and often locally favoured extension of farms.
The environmental damage suffered by several leading agricultural regions
of France is having a high cost (for example, some households pay roughly
400 euros/year for purification of water by the commune and yet still have
to drink bottled water), and has sometimes become unbearable for the inhabitants
and activities of the area (the quality of common resources such as water,
air and soils is often far too degraded: this can lead to economic problems
and withdrawal of quality labels for dairy farms, shellfish farms, breweries,
etc.). The situation sometimes becomes critical for the farming activity
itself (health of farmers, contamination of crops and livestock, impossibility
to respect specifications, soil fertility sometimes threatened in the short-term,
local social acceptability weakened, etc.).
The discrepancy between the traditional representations of agricultural fairs
and agribusiness marketing and the facts revealed by the media on production
techniques reinforces the shock and rejection caused by information on dioxin,
chemicals or BSE. Consumer opinion shows that strengthening the link between
agricultural products and the land on which they are produced is perceived
as a reassuring factor and respect for environment as an ethical sign of
respect for the consumer.
The effects of BSE and foot-and-mouth disease have accelerated this evolution
and financially, commercially and politically induce us to envisage a major
reorientation of agricultural policies in the short-term, as planned in the
Marrakech Agreement and the 2000 Agenda, in the context of expanding the
EU.
[R] 3. Taking Advantage of the Assets of French Agricultures is a Necessity to overcome their Vulnerabilities
The World Trade Organisation (WTO).
The "peace clause" included in the Marrakech Agreement is due to expire at
the end of 2003. It calls into question most European public support to
agricultural production ("red boxes" and "bleu
boxes"(3)). This is not the case for the
so-called "green" box. Its political legitimacy rests on the issue of food
security for each region of the Globe and income insurance for farmers, as
well as on the environmental problems encountered across the planet. This
field is increasingly documented and even quantified although unequally according
to the topic addressed (the level of phosphorus and nitrogen far more than
that of biodiversity, for example), and this confers a particular place to
the environmental features of production systems.
The indicators elaborated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development - OECD - (see Box 1, below) supply these negotiations with common
qualitative and quantitative references (description of situations, thresholds,
priority issues, etc.). For example, these documents show that it was, above
all, the average income of French farmers that increased the most between
1986 and 1998.
National interventions reflect, often in a documented and quantified way,
the main concerns of the States and comparative advantages of their production
systems, especially regarding their environmental characteristics. For New
Zealand, for instance, a good indicator of nitrogen use would be the percentage
of grasslands in the useful agricultural area (UAA).
It is not easy to find concrete and validated data providing a clear and
comprehensive view of this field: they are extremely accurate on some points,
but are more generally scattered, often stem from investigating other issues,
or are too recent and thus lack statistic or temporal distance. The case
of France is not unique, but the country's economic situation translates
into vulnerabilities and thus induced demands. Even if we were to count on
a likely bilateral agreement between Europe and the United States before
the plenary negotiations, any weakness in the European strategy would be
exploited, in particular in front of the developing countries.
On paper, the US situation is indeed far more favourable as regards the
environmental issue than that of the EU: 20 to 25% of US direct aid is motivated
by environmental measures, against roughly 5% for the EU. This does not mean
that in the US agricultural practices are environmentally more virtuous than
in Europe, but that their arguments on this issue are more easily shared
with other States around the negotiation table.
As regards agricultural income, which also intervenes in the debates on the
"green box", the statistics published by the OECD show that France was way
ahead of other countries between 1990 and 1995, with an average real growth
of 8%, as compared to 5.5% for Denmark, 0.5% for the USA, 0% for the Netherlands
and -1.5% for Canada. Support to producers, in terms of percentages of the
average gross income of farms, has decreased over the past 15 years in all
the countries quoted by OECD, except for Mexico and Norway, where they have
increased, and for the European countries, where it has remained stable.
While financial support per farmer is slightly higher in the US, support
per hectare is 9 times higher in the
EU(4). Of course these are only averages
with a wide statistical dispersion. But the international effect is guaranteed:
no use trying to arouse the pity of negotiators on the fate of the "average
French farmer", or using this data to prove that the 1994 agreements are
being properly implemented in Europe…
The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)
Regarding the EU, the proposals made by the member States also reflect their
strategic positions on agricultural structures and options. Indeed, the 2003
WTO negotiation will occur at the same time as EU enlargement and redeployment
of the little flexible CAP budget. Extending the present regime to Poland,
Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovenia would increase the CAP budget by a yearly
15 billion Euros, for a total of 42 billion Euros, and thus cannot be envisaged.
The French lion's share of the budget is obviously coveted. In this context,
it is crucial that we underscore the agri-environmental assets of a diversity
of French agricultural systems (and by the same token recognise and correct
the excesses of others), since they represent a major diplomatic argument.
If we do not, then the credibility of France and its future financial returns
would become highly endangered.
The evolution of consumer and societal demand to the agricultural world,
stepped up by the BSE crisis, is also reflected in the specifications imposed
on producers by the large European retailing chains
(EUREP(5)). Here are some recommendations:
no growth-promoting antibiotics; traceability of genetically modified animal
foods; meters and water-economising schemes for irrigators; analysis of nitrogen,
phosphorus, heavy metals, fertilisers and other pollutants in irrigation
water before use; compulsory and relevant training of people handling
agro-chemicals, and their assistance by certified advisors, etc.
Everything thus converges towards changing the rules of the game. Several
recent Community documents (especially COM 2000(20) - January 2000; see Box
2) enlarge on the future orientations of this game, which are confirmed by
current on-going discussions. Studies on the environmental characteristics
of production systems in OECD or EU countries, all underline the 2002-2003
horizon, i.e. the end of the "peace clause".
[R] Conclusion: taking the right direction
French agricultures must take into consideration this profound evolution
if they are to overcome their own vulnerabilities. They must also take advantage
of their own assets in the new context, characterised by a strong convergence
between societal demands relayed by agribusiness and the evolution of political
discourses in the framework of WTO and CAP. Protection of natural resources,
of the soil capital and of human health does not sum up the full scope of
agricultural policies but will orient them considerably. On this point let
us remember the statement made by OECD's director of Agriculture, G. Viatte,
when concluding the WTO and Agriculture seminar (SFER-INRA
(6)) on 6-7 February 2001: "environmental policies
will perhaps have a stronger impact on agriculture than agricultural
policies".
This analysis is nothing new: it was already around at the beginning of the
1970s (CENECA (7), 1971, for example)
when it was chiefly upheld by academics and associative actors. They were
rarely listened to for the following… thirty years! Farmers are increasingly
becoming aware of this situation and of the lack of structured and clear
directions to support them. Their concern rapidly turned into disarray with
the shock of the BSE and foot-and-mouth epidemics. If the guidelines were
as clearly as in the 1960s, the agricultural world would doubtless (not alone,
but extremely actively) efficiently reorganise its techniques, training,
representations of its social roles and thus of its own image and that of
its products. Farmers would therefore benefit from competition conditions
no longer exclusively dictated by prices, but would also be less vulnerable
to delocalisation. Their image and income would be more autonomous and their
social significance enhanced.
To do so, the country (and at its level, Europe) must do the same as all
economic sectors that wish to maintain and increase their commercial and
social recognition in terms of quality and quantity: the country must create
the proper conditions for promoting a qualitative leap conform to the economic,
commercial and physical perspectives of the century. This would, for example,
entail:
- sufficiently diverse and renovated technical training to make as
much room as possible for progress and adaptability to the various ongoing
changes (consumer demands, climate evolution, pressures on water and soil
resources, new forms of qualitative competition);
- a strict framework for repressing fraud and promoting quality
innovations, which on the one hand, protects those farmers who respect
their clients and society against competition-induced distortions, and on
the other hand, increases the recognition of efforts made by the agricultural
community, thus enabling them to benefit from a larger share of added value.
Claims for acknowledgement of quality and protection of "black sheep" are
incompatible in the long run;
- further opening of the agricultural world to collaborations and
confrontations with its contemporaries, an essential factor of adaptability
and credibility;
- a discourse valorising nationally and internationally the farmers'
work, their good farming practice relative to the resources they work with
and the carefully monitored anchoring of the products they supply in the
local territory; this would once again enable France to spearhead European
evolutions;
- the defence by the EU as a primary concern of food security and the
just remuneration of quality in material and immaterial agricultural goods,
required by the European clientele, especially for finished and quality products
which bring in net commercial surpluses. A credible and coherent national
assessment and monitoring system would guarantee France's position in the
European Union, in the CAP-WTO context;
- an international role reinforced by this internal coherence for
solvent clients; for the others, this role consists in food aid, and comes
under a different policy;
- and, last but not least, a public research system that confirms
these new directions as stated for instance by the French National Institute
for Agricultural Research (INRA): "preserving the environment and producing
sustainably" and "adapting species, practices and systems to changing contexts".
This article is taken from the "Courrier de l'environnement
de l'INRA, n°43", by D. Dron.
Translated from French by Nicole Scott.
[R] Box 1:
Indicators for the Integration of Environmental Concerns into the Common
Agricultural Policy
COM2000(20), January 2000
Agri-environmental policies(1.1.3)
"Central to understanding this relationship is the principle of "good farming
practice" corresponding to the type of farming which a reasonable farmer
would follow in the region concerned." (1.3.1.3)
"Farmers should respect general requirements as regards environmental care
without specific payment. This means that all farmers should follow compulsory
legal restrictions on pesticide use, fertiliser application, water use and
where appropriate, national or regional guidelines on good farming practice."
(1.3.1.3)
"However, wherever society asks farmers to pursue environmental objectives
beyond good farming practice, and the farmer incurs a cost or foregoes income
as a result, then society must expect to pay for that environmental service.
[…] This approach is based on the Polluter-Pays-Principle. Accordingly
farmers bear compliance costs up to a reference level of "good farming
practice"." (1.3.1.3)
CAP reform (1.3.1.4)
"Three courses of action are included in this Regulation. First, to apply
compulsory restrictions. Such measures are already required in Member States
in relation, for example, to pollution by nitrates in water. Secondly, Member
States may apply cross-compliance, by attaching specific environmental conditions
to the granting of direct CAP payments. Thirdly, Member
States may use agri-environment programmes to protect or enhance the environment
beyond good farming practice."
"Society in general, although prepared to take into account legitimate social
and economic interests, will not accept that CAP funding leads to environmental
degradation whose cost it, in turn, would have to bear. It will be, nevertheless,
necessary to carefully monitor and analyse developments in all agricultural
sectors irrespective of the level of CAP intervention."
Issues for the future: environment and trade, consumer concerns, enlargement
(1.3.2)
"It will be necessary to fully meet international commitments under Multilateral
Environmental Agreements."
Environmental indicators must meet five criteria to be integrated in the
CAP (1.4)
- "to identify the key agri-environmental issues that are of concern in Europe
today;
- to understand, monitor and evaluate the relationships between agricultural
practices and their beneficial and harmful environmental effects;
- to assess the extent to which agricultural policies respond to the need
to promote environmentally friendly agriculture and to communicate this to
policymakers and the wider public";
- to monitor and evaluate the site specific environmental contribution of
Community programmes to sustainable development;
- to map the diversity of agri-ecosystems in the European Union and Candidate
Countries. This has particular relevance in explaining to the EU's trading
partners the specificity of the farmed environment in Europe".
Site specificity (2.5)
- "…requires a differentiated approach, reflecting regional differences
in economic structures and differences in natural conditions. (The available
data, often highly aggregated may provide some valuable insights, but can
also be misleading for some areas such as biodiversity or water quality due
to a lack of regional differentiation)"
- "…the impact of many polluting, depleting or beneficial processes
will depend on the site specific characteristics such as geology, topography
or climate. Finally, a site-specific approach enables us to look at ecosystems
in a holistic way and address systemic characteristics such as quality and
vulnerability. A meaningful systemic context of agri-environmental indicators
can be provided by the concept of "landscape" as a cultivated, partly
semi-natural space within which agricultural production takes place and which
is characterised by the totality of its biophysical, geophysical and cultural
features."
Using landscapes to classify European agri-ecosystems (4.4)
"…identify vulnerable or threatened areas… Work of this type has
already been undertaken by some member states and could be extended to a
Community level… From a policy point of view, at least five groups of
landscapes are present across the Union in varying degrees":
"- high nature and cultural value landscapes threatened by the intensification
of agriculture and where environmental quality is very dependent on strict
constraints being placed on farming activity;
- farming dependent high nature value and cultural landscapes threatened
by the marginalization of agriculture and where agriculture has a particular
role in creating environmental quality;
- landscapes characterised by low-input farming, low pollution and resource
depletion as well as the enhancement of habitats and biodiversity;
- landscapes characterised by intensive or extensive good farming practice
in a balanced relationship with the land leading to the maintenance of natural
resources, biodiversity and semi-natural ecosystems;
- landscapes characterised by overexploitation, pollution and resource depletion
leading to the deterioration of natural resources, biodiversity and semi-natural
ecosystems."
"Groups and citizens must be reassured that sound scientific knowledge is
duly incorporated into the indicators." (4.5)
Agricultural activity as a biophysical activity (2.3)
- "A second specificity of agriculture is that by its biophysical nature
it is part of, rather than external to, local ecosystems."
- "It is particularly important to develop indicators that capture the key
trends in farming activity: expansion-withdrawal,
intensification-extensification, specialisation-diversification,
marginalization-concentration, available at a range of geographical
levels."
ELISA-Environmental Indicators for Sustainable Development: 22 state indicators
(soil, water, air, biodiversity, landscape), 12 pressure indicators
(ECNC-European Centre for Nature Conservation, Netherlands).
- "Four main indicators to assess the environmental state were retained
(biophysical adequateness of land use, openess versus closedness, adequateness
of key cultural features, and land recognised for its scenic or scientific
value."
Headline indicators (4.6)
| Factors ad responses influencing farming practices | Enhancement beyond good farming practice | Expenditure/area on agri-environmental
programmes |
| Farming practices | Rational input use | Pesticide use risks (factoring in integrated pest management) |
| Harmful and beneficial processes | Benefits outweight harmful effects | Nitrogen balance |
| Site specific state | Ecosystem health | Bird species on agricultural land |
| Global environmental impact | Ecosystem richness | Landscape diversity |
[R] Box 2:
OECD agri-environmental indicators, 27/11/2000
Group 1: "Politically relevant indicators in all OECD countries; non-ambiguous,
measurable and easy to understand"
Use of fertilisers, herbicides, UAA energy; evolution of land use, agricultural
use of space (distribution)
Total use of water
Emission of ammoniac and greenhouse effect gas
Group 2: "Politically relevant indicators in all OECD countries; not totally
non-ambiguous, measurable and easy to understand"
Global management of the farm (including organic agriculture), management
of fertilisers, herbicides, water, soils and space
Vulnerability to erosion (water and wind), fertility of soils, soil Organic
Matter, Soil C, biodiversity of soils
Water quality and risks (N, P, pesticides, suspended matter), use and renewal
of underground water
Carbon sinks
Genetic biodiversity, species biodiversity (wild, domestic and cultivated),
semi-natural habitats, habitat matrixes (environments + biodiversity and
spatial configuration)
Group 3: "Politically relevant indicators in certain regional groups of OECD
countries, concerned with areas not covered by the other indicators"
Soil pollution due to heavy metals and chemicals, soil compaction, acidification,
salinisation, basification
Landscape typology, assessment
Hydric retention capacity of soils, landslide risks
Pathogenic elements in the water from livestock farming, salinisation
Purifying capacity
Pressure on water resources due to irrigation
Invasive species
Notes
(1) 12,5% of its imports against 0,4% of its exports in 1998
(OECD).[VU]
(2) 48,5% of exports in 1998 ; whereas France has a total of 12,8% and the
Netherlands 19,2% (OECD) [VU].
(3) In 1994, public aid to agriculture was grouped into three categories
called "boxes": the "Red Box" consists in support to export prices, which
will end in 2004 under the Marrakech Agreement. The "Blue Box" consists in
direct aid to production (the aid given is proportional to the quintals produced
or heads of cattle possessed and not based on productivity/hectare). This
was a transitory category that was to be progressively restricted between
1994 and 2004. The "Green Box" concerns uncoupled support to production and
introduces no distortions in exchanges: it is thus legitimate from the standpoint
of commercial competition.[VU]
(4) For example, in US dollars/hectare in 1997-1999: 5 for New-Zealand, 36
for Canada, 85 for the USA, an average of 211 for OECD states, 801 for the
EEC, 9 823 for Korea and 10 671 for Japan (OECD).[VU]
(5) www.cmi-plc.com/eurep.htm.[VU]
(6) SFER - Société Française d'Economie Rurale: French
Society for Rural Economy INRA-Institut National de Recherche Agronomique:
National Institute for Agricultural Research.[VU]
(7) CENECA-Centre National des Expositions et des Concours Agricoles: National
Centre for Agricultural Exhibitions and Competitions.[VU]
[R] Bibliographical references
Environment
PNUE, 2000. Global Environmental Outlook 2000. Earthscan,
Londres.
European Environment Agency, 1999. Environment in the European union at
the turn of the century. Official publications of European Community,
Luxembourg.
OCDE, EPOC (1999). Environmental Outlook.
www.oecd.org/env/docs/epocppc999.pdf
Dron D., 2000. Environnement : les enjeux du prochain siècle. In T.
de Montbrial : RAMSES 2001, rapport de l'IFRI (2000). Dunod, Paris, 374 p.
Dron D., 1995. Environnement et choix politiques. Flammarion (coll. Dominos),
128 p.
Agriculture
Agriculteurs et ruraux dans le monde de demain.
Cahiers du CENECA, colloque international,
Salon de l'agriculture, Maison de l'Unesco, 3-4-5 mars 1971, 572 p.
Indicateurs d'intégration de l'environnement dans la Politique
agricole commune. Commission européenne, communication au Conseil
et au Parlement, COM2000(20), 26 janvier 2000.
OCDE, 2000. Politiques agricoles dans les pays de l'OCDE, suivi et
évaluation 2000, agriculture et alimentation. OCDE, Paris, 288
p.
Hervieu B., Viard J., 2001. Au bonheur des campagnes. L'Aube, Paris,
155 p.
Hervieu B., Guyomard H., Bureau J.C., 2000. L'avenir des politiques agricoles.
In T. de Montbrial : RAMSES 2001, Dunod, Paris, 374 p.
Hervieu B., Viard J., 2001. L'archipel paysan - la fin de la république
agricole. L'Aube, Paris, 110 p.
Pujol J.L., Dron D., 1998. Agriculture, monde rural et environnement :
qualité oblige. Cellule prospective et stratégie, rapport
à la ministre de l'Aménagement du territoire et de l'Environnement,
La Documentation française, Paris, 589 p. (cf
www.inra.fr/dpenv/pujolc37.htm).
Environmental economy
Cohen de Lara M., Dron D., 1998. Évaluation économique et
environnement dans les décisions publiques. Cellule prospective
et stratégie, rapport au ministre de l'Environnement, La Documentation
française, Paris, 400 p.
(cf www.inra.frdpenv/cohenc33.htm).
[R]
