Brussels, 13/10/2010 (Agence Europe) - Temporary per hectare aid for protein crops, developing instruments to predict prices, encouraging research into new seed varieties and GMO-free marks, these were the ideas put forward on Monday 11 October by European experts to reduce the EU's protein deficit.
To help Martin Häusling (Greens/EFA, Germany) draft his report, the European Parliament (EP) agriculture committee organised a workshop on the protein deficit in the EU, an issue Häusling says has to be managed very seriously. He argues that the advantages of protein supplies to the EU have to be highlighted, since they are an important part of keeping agriculture independent of imports. Equally, milk and meat production depend to a large extent on these supplies. There are many new players, like the Chinese, in the market. “We need a sure supply in Europe and the potential of protein plants has to be further developed.” The effect of international agreements on developments in protein production cannot be ignored. Häusling also pointed out the benefits of growing pulses for protection of the environment and biodiversity. Research on and development of new varieties would, he said, offer farmers more attractive options. Thus, European vegetable protein producers would be more competitive against imports, Häusling argued.
Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D, Hungary) said: “We are heavily dependent on external markets”. There are two options - either protein imports are reduced or meat imports are increased. “Neither of these two options is desirable as dependence on both has to be reduced”. He pointed out that 25% of our protein consumption can be assured from EU sources. Greater account had to be taken of protein crops as they are environmentally friendly (helping to reduce CO2 emissions. Tabajdi suggested introducing measures to encourage farmers to plant such crops. Aid levels are too low because there is not really a market, he admitted. There is also the issue of animal protein. The Commission plans to lift the ban on marketing animal feeds containing animal protein. Tabajdi and several other members of the agriculture committee are totally against such a move because “we all remember what happened with mad cow disease”. Finally, any protein imported by the EU is affected by the issue of GMOs (genetically modified organisms). “Fodder is usually a mixture and 90% of fodder has come into contact with GMOs.” For that reason, Tabajdi argued, Europe has to develop protein crops.
Michel Dantin (EPP, France) said that diversification of production had to be built into the new CAP, with ambitious measures to promote protein crops. John Stuart Agnew (EFD, UK) supplied information on problems encountered with bean crops (pigeons eating them, etc).
Yves Dronne, a researcher with INRA (France) noted that, from 2005, the area under protein crops declined dramatically (-50% in three years) with slight increases thereafter in 2009 and 2010. In 2009, three countries (France, Spain and the UK) each had 30% of EU production. Among the measures suggested by Dronne were: - securing the sector and relaunching research on new seed varieties and more sustainable cultivation systems; - facilitating cover for price variation and yield risks; - facilitating transparency in contractual relations within the sector; - providing temporary per hectare aid for protein crops (while waiting for innovations to re-establish production by price); - developing instruments which predict protein crop prices. Protein crops are widely used by industrial feed manufacturers, though manufacturers have turned to other products over the last few years: “They will have to be brought back to these crops once again,” Dronne stated.
Alesandra Pesce of the Italian national Agrarian Economy Institute suggested that the common agricultural policy (CAP) “has certainly not helped strengthen the sector”. She recommended: - limiting fluctuation of margins in the stock-farming sector which are caused by fluctuation on the international market; - instruments to stabilise income and manage risk (insurance, financial engineering instruments to “guarantee a certain level of income”; - making the stock-farming sector a competitive sector internationally (with designations, such as “GMO-free”); - improving the operation of the stock-rearing sector (research, payment conditions).
“What we have here is a time bomb: suppliers are less and less interested in the European market, Europe is disadvantaged against its competitors, and Europe is not keen on importing GMOs,” was the summing up of George Lyon (ALDE, UK). He said that new varieties had to be found, productivity (yield per tonne) had to be improved and “I don't think the subsidy system is the best suited”. (L.C./transl.rt)