- workshop results -The success of the workshop to present the 'EISA obligations for Integrated Farming' resulted from 76 participants from a wide range of institutions and organisations taking part in informative discussions throughout the day. The key objective of recognising Integrated Farming (IF) as a proposal for a European approach was clearly met.
In his key note speech, Karl Eric Olsson put great emphasis on the challenge that all human activities must be adapted to sustainability, and that also in agriculture further development is needed. According to Mr. Olsson's point of view, agricultural methods are needed which use best available techniques with less negative impacts on the environment.
Expressing consumers' expectations, Monique Geens-Wittemans stressed their search for "paradise", where healthy, tasty and safe food would be affordable at reasonable prices and no harm would be done to the environment. She came to the conclusion that Integrated Farming as presented in the EISA obligations might just be the way to achieve all these goals, however, a lot of PR-work and information "what Integrated Farming really means" would still be needed.
Dr. Martin Scheele pointed out that undoubtedly one major task for agriculture should be recognised: to achieve and maintain a profitable production of food. However, and in particular with regard to the current CAP reform, not just profitability but all three dimensions of a sustainable development should be kept in mind. At the same time, Dr. Scheele made clear that all necessary environmental and food safety issues could not be dealt with by agricultural policy alone.
In his presentation, Michael Hamell stated that EU harmonised guidelines / criteria should take into account regional / local aspects based on environmental and agricultural situations and international obligations (e.g. WTO). He considered Good Farming Practice (GFP) as the baseline for farming, which could include some aspects of Integrated Crop Management. However, IF in general would go beyond GFP. In his eyes, further thought should be given to the potential necessity for an EU policy framework setting harmonised guidelines and criteria for IF. Particular reference was given to the report commissioned by DG Environment on 'Integrated Crop Management Systems in the EU'. Mr Hamell mentioned the Commission had been pleased with the results from the research projects discussed in the report.
Embedded in this frame of political, social and environmental demands, "soil, water and energy management", "plant health" and "consumer issues" as three elements of the EISA obligations were presented by the EISA-consultants Dr. Vic Jordan and Alastair Leake, both UK.
As part of the presentation of the EISA obligations, it was pointed out that whilst a range of ICM / IF definitions and hierarchy of objectives have been used in 15 different EU Member States, until now there has been no agreed or "official" definition or indeed a common standard at either EU or National level. Thus, there would be a clear need for obligations for Integrated Farming.
Therefore, EISA presented the following working definition of IF: "Integrated Farming is an approach to crop and livestock production and protection that offers a whole farm policy and whole systems approach to farm management. The farmer seeks to provide efficient and profitable production which is economically viable and environmentally responsible and delivers safe, wholesome and high quality food through the efficient management of livestock, forage, fresh produce and arable crops whilst conserving and enhancing the environment. Within such systems, utilisation of natural regulatory processes and management skills are targeted in order to minimise pollution and losses, and provide profitable quality crop production commensurate with environmental protection and sustainable income."
"IF is a production system with greatly reduced environmental costs that produces consistent yields, sustains production, maintains the competitiveness of farmers and farm income and safeguards the environment, all particularly relevant in the current agro-economic climate. Previous research within the EU-funded CAMAR, AIR and FAIR Programmes has provided indications that holistic integrated systems are economically viable and protect quality of production and the environment. IF is based on robust scientific results and is built around current research on best husbandry principles."
The objectives of the working document on the obligations were summarized as follows: "It is critical that the obligations are meaningful for farmers and encompass a range of EU situations. During the process of the project it was established that each member country has different regulations. What maybe understood as regulatory in one country may not be appropriate to another. Integrated Farming embraces these issues and provides a whole farm approach which is adaptable to site specific situations. It is the framework of Integrated Farming that allows farmers to choose practices that are appropriate to their land type with the flexibility to do the right thing, the right way for the right reasons."
Following the structure of the presentation of the EISA obligations, the participants of the workshop split up in working groups on "soil, water and energy management", "plant health" and "consumer issues". The results of the working groups can be summarised as follows:
Working group on "soil water and energy management":
In this working group, participants discussed the question whether Good Agricultural Practise (GAP) necessarily stands against IF or whether IF could rather be considered as the motor for further development. Particularly with a set of clear obligations to be followed, the potential of Integrated Farming for enhancing the development of agriculture in general was acknowledged. The relation between consumers and farmers was briefly addressed and also the potential benefit of obligations as a tool for transparency and increasing consumer trust. However, as a parallel working group dealt with "consumer issues", no in-depth discussion of this matter evolved.
Particular focus was put on regional and national differences and their consequences for legislation in comparison to a set of obligations as presented by EISA. The participants of the working group felt that - even though common guidelines and standards should apply at least Europe-wide - there still would be a need for management decisions specific to site and situation. The obligations were considered a valuable and helpful approach, taking care of transparency and at the same time leaving enough space for individual management decisions.
Finally, the question was addressed whether excessive criteria would overwhelm the farmer. On the one hand, it was expressed that the requirements of current legislation would already lead to time consuming "on-farm-bureaucracy". On the other hand, the point was made that many of the obligations would already be taken care of in modern farming systems. Many of the management decisions and management plans required in the obligations would be available "in the head" of the individual farmer; they would not have to be newly invented. The challenge would rather be to demonstrate the whole farm approach of Integrated Farming in the on-farm documentation and communication process.
Working group on "plant health"
Within this working group, some priority issues were identified: regulation, residues in food and monitoring. There was consensus that a harmonised and common set of standards across Europe should be welcomed. The obligations, addressing production rather than the product, were seen as a well balanced system, the standards set being practical and achievable. It was stressed, however, that such standards in general would need to be compatible with existing requirements.
With regard to PR and incentive payments, the obligations - and so measuring, record keeping and certification - were considered important. However, "acceptable equivalents" would need to be addressed as an important area for trade in Europe.
With regard to the different stakeholders involved, the working group felt that the obligations would mean:
- for the farmers: an efficient tool for business management, helpful for reaching the market and for achieving personal goals, a valuable PR tool, benefits should be emphasised to other farmers,
- for policy makers: good as risk is managed and reduced, a good inspiration to take and accompany farming forward,
- for consumers: they see the pesticide issue addressed adequately, however improved communication is essential in general. Food will possibly be no safer - as it is safe already!
- environmentalists: they should be satisfied as IF deliberately addresses biodiversity and resource management.
- to draw out some priorities for each sector group,
- the Commission to start debate on this basis,
- certification to be understood as an important element for demonstration,
- training to be seen as essential to raise the knowledge basis on a regular basis,
- principles to be established as a framework at EU level and nationally adapted - perhaps as a directive at EU level,
- ways for farmers to be rewarded i.e. as the organic standards,
- supportive measures to improve practices,
- increasing research need for a sufficiently big "tool box" (for instance resistance problem) and for bio-indicators.
Working group on "consumer issues"
Communication: The working group unanimously felt that communication around / about IF for the general consumer was to be considered unsatisfactory. Integrated Farming would not yet be understood, as it would often be seen as a rather (or even too) technical approach. The perception would often be: Is Integrated Farming the best you can get out of conventional methods? However, even if organic farming would represent 10% of European production, 90% would still remain to be dealt with appropriately, and Integrated Farming - however understood - would offer promising goals, strategies and tools for this majority.
Target groups: The participants of the working group felt that the obligations were not addressed towards or written for consumers; at least consumers should not be considered the primary target group. On the other hand, the obligations might provide an indirect bridge towards consumers when directed towards politics and the farming business. Participants of this working group felt that the obligations might help to build confidence. However, it was advised to tackle such issues on WTO level and within existing assurance systems as well. It was recommended that setting standards should not stop at the farm gate: such an approach should be expanded onto the whole food chain. Dialogue: It was clearly recommended in this group that dialogue with consumers should be intensified, in a "plain, easy" language, i.e. communication with regard to Integrated Farming should be simplified. It was seen as a necessary step to get retailers, media and schools involved in this communicative process which should not go into too much detail. However, consumers should have a chance to - and know where to - obtain more information. Finally, without going into further detail, it was the understanding of this working group that one important function of Integrated Farming would be the management of risk.
Conclusion of the workshop:
The organisers highly appreciated the broad and active participation in this workshop and the contributions made in the working groups. It was felt that the obligations present a valuable characterisation of Integrated Farming and a targeted approach to the further development of farming as desired by consumers, environmentalists, politics and the farming business itself. EISA and their members will continue their work on the "obligations for Integrated Farming". All stakeholders are invited to continue dialogue and to further contribute to the obligations. EU Commission in particular are invited to consider the obligations as a basis for their own European approach.
In the further working and communication process, questions, suggestions and other contributions directed to EISA and their national members are more than welcome!
EISA are holding an internal meeting at the beginning of September 2003 to discuss the important outcomes from this workshop and bring together ideas to further promote this proposal for a European approach to sustainable agriculture.
Contact details:
EISA
c/o Fördergemeinschaft Nachhaltige Landwirtschaft e.V. (FNL)
Konstantinstraße 90, D - 53179 Bonn, Germany
Tel: +49 (0)228 97 99 3 - 0, Fax: +49 (0)228 97 99 340
e-mail: info@fnl.de, www.sustainable-agriculture.org
Footnote: The "obligations for Integrated Farming" are a strictly technical working document based on scientific research to achieve the recognition and robustness to take them forward as a proposal. At this particular workshop one key objective of Integrated Farming, i.e. inviting the general consumer on farms - through demonstration farms to encourage reconnection and traceability - was not discussed.
