Agriculture and deforestation - the EU Common Agricultural Policy, soy, and forest desruction. Presentation given by Adrian Muller on 3rd May at European Parliament.

1. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture
Forschungsinstitut für biologischen Landbau
Institut de recherche de l’agriculture biologique
Agriculture and deforestation -
The EU Common Agricultural Policy, soy, and
forest destruction
Proposals for Reform
Adrian Muller, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FiBL
adrian.mueller@fibl.org

2. www.fibl.org
› Why is soy imported
› It is needed in our current food system
› It is possible and easy
› It is cheap
› Alternatives are more expensive
› This suggests approaches for change
› Provide alternatives
› Internalise external costs
› Define criteria for feed for all markets
› Reduce the need for it
› We cannot have big quantities of cheap, sustainable
and ethical animal products
Key messages
2

3. www.fibl.org
› Soy is a major input for concentrates
› 70 % of the protein feed used in the EU is imported
› 97 % of the soy used in feeds in the EU is imported
› 83 % of soy meal in the EU is for pigs and poultry
› Import countries: Brazil, Argentina, US, Paraguay
› Soy is a key driver for deforestation in some of those
› About 7.4mill. ha of deforestation is due to crops
exported to the EU – size of Portugal
› Demand for pork and poultry has grown much faster
than demand for products from ruminants
Background data
3

4. www.fibl.org
› EU CAP
› 55 billion Euro per year
› 70% decoupled direct payments
› 20% rural development
› 5% coupled direct payments
› 5% other market support
› Support for protein crops to keep current (low) levels
› covers forage legumes, some oil crops
Background data
4

5. www.fibl.org
› I) Remove existing incentives for feed imports from
the CAP
› Few only, not very important
› Reducing the remaining coupled payments for animal
production
› Note
› First reducing unconditional output support
› Potentially adverse effects of payment reductions
Proposals for reform
5

6. www.fibl.org
› II) Amend and expand existing CAP measures
› Further greening measures and cross-compliance of direct
payments
› N surplus reduction
› Water quality improvement
› Animal welfare
› Efficient use of available resources (grasslands)
› Note
› Apply criteria not only on single farm but on landscape levels
(“agglomeration regulations”)
› May apply to imports of feed
Proposals for reform
6

7. www.fibl.org
› Increase domestic protein crop and grassland-based
animal production
› Greening measures
› Payments: organic, areas with constraints, pastures
› Cross-compliance:
› For feeding rations e.g. via “human-edible feed conversion
efficiency”
› Limits on animal numbers and manure or N inputs per area
› Reduce livestock production based on feed imports
› Reduce feed imports from countries with deforestation
risk
› Utilize wastage, residues, by-products as feed
› Also from animal sources - bone/blood meal, etc.?
Examples for CAP amendments
7

8. www.fibl.org
› III) Move from a CAP to a “Common Food Systems
Policy”
› Demand side measures
› Direct intervention on consumption patterns is difficult and
challenging, in particular in liberal societies
› Other approaches: internalize external costs (taxation)
› Note
› Demand side measures are needed to avoid leakage
› Potential adverse effects on access to food
Proposals for reform
8

9. www.fibl.org
› IV) Policies besides the CAP
› Nutrient, climate and biodiversity policies
› Criteria for feed (Labels, Voluntary Agreements)
› Support for protein producer initiatives / alternative protein
sources within the crop rotations
› Note
› Danger of greenwashing (labels, etc.)
› Learn from existing policies: N-directive; renewable energy
directive (biofuels); timber/logging action plan; etc.
Proposals for reform
9

10. www.fibl.org
› Reduce the number of animals per ha
› Less manure/N input per ha, reduces N surplus
› Reduce the share of concentrate feed in feeding rations
› Support less intensive production systems
› Organic, grassland-based, integrated low input, permaculture
› Focus on “consistency” rather than “efficiency”
› “How to optimally utilise the available resources within a whole
production systems context?” rather than “How to produce with
minimal impacts per unit of output?”
› All this leads to reductions in total animal numbers
› and thus links to ”sufficiency”: “Which is the optimal total
aggregate production level?”
Mechanisms behind these proposals
10

11. www.fibl.org
› Current CAP: reduce coupled animal payments
› possible, but not too effective
› CAP amendments
› possible, but partly challenging
› strengthen greening and increase cross compliance
requirements
› establish incentives for alternative feed (within crop rotation)
› Reduce demand
› hugely challenging, but unavoidable
› Go from a CAP to a “Common Food Systems Policy”
Wrapping up
11

12. www.fibl.org
› Learn from existing policies addressing other aspects
› Nitrogen; Animal welfare; Renewables Energy Directive; FLEGT
› Why is soy imported?
› it is needed in our current system; possible and easy; cheap;
no cheap alternative;
› Approaches for change:
› cheap alternatives; internalize all costs; apply strict criteria;
reduce demand.
› We cannot have big quantities of cheap, sustainable
and ethical animal products
Wrapping up
12

13. www.fibl.org
› Graphs with further details on the background data
› References
Additional slides
13

14. www.fibl.orgFAOSTAT 2016

15. www.fibl.orgEuropean Comission 2015

16. www.fibl.org
Total Land Use Change and ist drivers (Mha/yr)
Henders et al. 2015

17. www.fibl.org 17

18. www.fibl.orgBues et al. 2013

19. www.fibl.org
The report:
› Agriculture and deforestation: The EU Common Agricultural Policy, soy, and forest destruction -
Proposals for Reform, report by FiBL and FERN, www.fern.org
For the figures used in this presentation:
› BUES, A., PREISSEL, S., RECKLING, M., ZANDER, P., KUHLMAN, T., TOPP, K., WATSON, C.,
LINDSTRˆM, K., STODDARD, F. L. & MURPHY-BOKERN, D. 2013. The environmental role of
protein crops in the new Common Agricultural Policy. In: EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (ed.).
Brussels.
› EUROPEAN COMMISSION. 2015. GMOs: Commission's proposal on Food/Feed.
ec.europa.eu/food/plant/docs/20150422_plant_gmo_new_authorisation_gmo_food_feed_proposal_
en.pdf, Brussels.
› FAOSTAT. 2016a. Commodity Balances in Primary Crop Equivalents [Online]. Available:
http://faostat3.fao.org/download/FB/BC/E
› HENDERS, S., PERSSON, U. M. & KASTNER, T. 2015. Trading forests: land-use change and
carbon emissions embodied in production and exports of forest-risk commodities. Environmental
Research Letters, 10, 125012.
19
References