Food (land) policies in degrowth economy
Presentation (upcoming) by Ladislav Jelinek (Institute of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Policies, Martin-Luther University Halle) on the European Agriculture policies, how they work, what are the main aims, their criticism etc.
Ladislav's Personal background - research areas: agriculture policy, institutional economics, sustainability, renewable energies. Current project - sustainable land use in Siberia, Russia (Kulunda) - he was investigated by the Russian security service because he is doing research there, there is tension between nations and they are suspicious (why would a german go there to solve Russia's agricultural issues?)
Agricultural growth as a central principle how to ensure food supply (agricultural growth vs agricultural de-growth)
Rudriger Dahlke's quote ''if your growth is only on the material level, the economic level, you may develop a growth problem in your body, a cancer, because you are missing the opportunities at the consciousness level. We choose where the growth occurs - on the material level or in our consciousness'' (parallelism)
Two graphs
1. Humans' ecological Footprint connection
2. Energy and output
both show an upward trend. We are consuming the past energies (non renewable resources) and shifting the cost to future generations.
Modern agriculture has succeeded in - supplying the biomass (food security), private efficiency, high productivity, flexible food deliveries to consumers, food appearancies, relatively few idle lands, economic side of production
Q. from Adrian - why to put supplying the biomass = food security?
Word wide wheat area and production has increased over the years. How to stimulate the production is the main question. Nobody talks about the structure of the system, they just try to solve problems such as erosion and other technical problems (but we should focus on solving the roots of the problem, not the effects)
Costs for the 'success' are high
1. environmental
2. food processing, quality of food
3. Rural structures and livelihood
4. Labor conditions
5. Animal production
As a result
- public costs are not internalized
- the policies are often not addressing the roots of the problems, but the effects
- focus on he technical (materialistic) solution
Metaphor with cancer. Conventional treatment is chemotherapy and radiotherapy in order to treat the symptoms, but we poisson the body even more than before, we don't treat what causes the cancer. Aka try to find the root and change it, not treat the effect.
at which level do we act? individual or not?
environmental cause and effects
intensification of production
dependence on the external inputs
concentration of production
monocultures dominance
countryside and biodiversity
erosion
species reduction and extension
;oos of multifunctions of the natural components
one example - spanish study on energy balancies in agriculture (many units spend in transportation)
Food - quality, quantity, food miles (the more processed is a product, a study has shown that it has higher food miles)
Animal protection is on top of the policy agendas (especially about slaughtering methods)
EU Agricultural Policy (CAP)
- shift from market regulations towards targeted direct payments, agro-environmental provision and territorial development.
- focus on the joint provision of private and public goods (landscape, biodiversity, soil protection.. )
The EU farmers receive many subsidies BUT for example, german farmers pay high rent.
Structure of CAP
- income support and assistance
- market support
Critiques of CAP
- real beneficiaries from the CAP measures - the direct payments are capitalized to the value of land eventually
- expensive governance of CAP - ex. LPAS system, costs of monotoring etc
- Flexibility - you have to ask the EU commission
- prioritizing some structures against others
- increasing market and price volatility
- the enforcement of high standards in the food imports from the third countries - h
We need a good understanding of the current system in order to challenge it.
Giorgos Notes
Q:Is the fund for organic hectars the same of all EU members?
A: If you want to be organic farmer you have to register and after transition we get funded. This fund should be the same in EU level but it depends to each country. Also a part of the fund is funded by national funds and if the country has not enough funds the funding is less
CAP originally comes from one basic thing. After WW2 we needed one way to control food production between France, UK and USA. The 75% of subsiciades are going to France but this money is not of course going to the small farmers. The 90% of this money is used for exports but for the small farmers there is basicly nothing left. It is important ot bear in mind that the negotiotion is not only between the people of EU but also it takes place in TTIP. For example, agroecology was popular in France but If you are an organic farmer you need to have at least a number of hectares to be funded, which is unequal. ONe other important thing is the unions in every country that face different problems in every country.
It is inequal that little farmers have littler subsiciades. The transfer of taxes is in favor of big projects and not the society.
Certification: the subciades and the right of land are divided so you can rent the land but not get the subsides. For example the Queen of England gets the more subciades in EU, cause of the land she owns. But in other countries (like Czestk) land and rights are still connected
Tax System is not for producing food but to keep the land clear. Generally farmers are reduced. Farmers are kept paid in order to keep clean the places that can not be industrialized. Or in south France the get the money to promote agrotourism
Formulation of De-Growth Agricultural Measures
Practical Part on Saturday
- 838 reads
poland_march2015_agripolicydegrowth_final.pdf