SCIENCE, GOVERNANCE AND MULTIFUNCTIONALITY OF EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE 1 Joyce Tait 2 Abstract The European Research Area (ERA) initiative is particularly relevant to agriculture and to the issues of science and governance. European policy development for agriculture increasingly focuses on multifunctionality as its target and its organising principle. At all levels - regional, national, European and international - Europe will need creative and constructive policy thinking based on evidence from both social and natural sciences, integrated across the various research disciplines. This will provide the internal coherence and consistency that will give Europe the important voice it warrants in international negotiations. This paper notes some of the challenges and opportunities faced by European agriculture, particularly in coping with the major issues of enlargement of the EU, reform of the CAP and WTO negotiations on trade liberalisation for agricultural products. The concept of multifunctionality, with its close links to sustainable development, will be an important strand in decision making on all these issues. However, Europe s agricultural system as a whole needs to be, not just sustainable, but thriving on all levels if we are to achieve genuine multifunctionality This will require a more constructive approach to technological innovation than is currently the case. The European Research Area (ERA) and Agricultural Research Agricultural research and the innovation to which it has given rise have been responsible for the success of European farming systems since the 1950s. The EU is now one of the major food producing regions of the world and has the potential to increase its already considerable volume of agricultural and food-related exports. However, until now this research has been developed and managed at the national level or on an even more localised basis, particularly in Mediterranean countries. Despite support for these research efforts from European Framework and other research programmes, there has not yet been any significant development of Europe-wide publicly funded research organisations to cope with the challenges which are faced by agriculture today. In contrast to the relative lack of research co-ordination, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the Single European Market have led to very effective co-ordination in the areas of policy development and governance of agriculture. However, the CAP is about to enter one of the most difficult phases in its evolution, in response to the planned enlargement of the EU along with the imminent negotiations of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). These two issues, one internal to the EU and the other external, will each need a new range of responses to address the needs and perceptions of the European people and of their 1 This paper is based on the views and experience of the author and also draws on the discussions and papers arising from two of the preparatory seminars for the Versailles Conference, Science and Governance and Genomics and Post-Genomics Research as well as contributions to the Versailles Conference itself. 2 Director, Scottish Universities Policy Research and Advice Network (SUPRA), University of Edinburgh, High School Yards, Edinburgh, UK EH1 1LZ Tel. +44 131 650 9174; Fax +44 131 650 6399; email joyce.tait@ed.ac.uk; web www.ed.ac.uk/rcss/supra/ 1
international trading partners. These challenges alone would be sufficient to justify the development of a more favourable and integrated research environment for agriculture in the form of the ERA. In his invitation to the first preparatory seminar for the Versailles Conference, Mr Jean- Claude Lebossé, Director General for Research, French Ministry of Agriculture, cited the need for the common policies implemented within the EU, in areas such as agriculture, social affairs, employment and research, to be based on an informed society which constantly integrates scientific advances. The ERA initiative is thus particularly relevant to agriculture and to the issues of science and governance. At all levels - regional, national, European and international - Europe is going to need creative and constructive policy thinking that is based as much as possible on scientific evidence from both social and natural sciences, integrated across the various research disciplines. This will provide the internal coherence and consistency that will give Europe the important voice it warrants in international negotiations. Multifunctionality and Sustainability of European Agriculture The issues outlined above are closely linked to the concept of multifunctionality of agriculture which began to appear in international negotiations in the 1990s. In its early formulations multifunctionality was described in general terms as related to non-trade concerns of agriculture including concerns about food security, environmental protection and sustainable development (e.g. 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development and the 1992 GATT Agreement on Agriculture). The concept was developed further in a variety of international fora throughout the 1990s and in March 1998 the OECD Agricultural Ministers Committee defined it as follows: Beyond its primary function of producing food and fibre agricultural activity can also shape the landscape, provide environmental benefits such as land conservation, the sustainable management of renewable natural resources and preservation of biodiversity and contribute to the socio-economic viability of many rural areas. Agriculture is multifunctional when it has one or several functions in addition to its primary role of producing food and fibre. Developments of the concept in Europe thus relate to the maintenance of traditional landscapes and the wildlife they support, the maintenance of traditional lifestyles and food production systems in rural areas along with the employment they provide, and support for traditional family farms. These concerns which are shared by a large proportion of the European public contrast strongly with the situation in the USA where large tracts of land have been allowed to revert to their natural state when the farming systems they supported became uneconomic. However, the US approach is unlikely to be politically acceptable in Europe, although it may in some regions be economically sustainable. This contrast between the US and European approaches to agriculture is leading, on the one hand to accusations that the EU uses production-based subsidies to discriminate unfairly against products in international trade, and on the other hand to charges that the US uses the goal of trade liberalisation to dictate to other countries the type of farming system they should have. Europe will be playing a major role in international negotiations dealing with such issues and, as noted above, the effectiveness of this role will depend on the extent to which its policy makers are able to develop an internally consistent approach to multifunctionality that has broad public support. Multifunctionality has strong links to the version of the sustainable development concept that is based on the triple bottom line approach, involving environmental, social and economic 2
components or functions. The relative emphasis given to each of these three functions varies according to the circumstances. In particular, each is interpreted differently by different actors and stakeholders depending on their interests and values. For example, from the perspectives of both the interests and values of industry and farmers in Europe, if their enterprise is not economically sustainable then the other two strands cease to be relevant. On the other hand, some public interest groups focus on the environmental component to the exclusion of the other two. The concept of multifunctionality will also require a different interpretation and variable balance among the functions in different European regions. To give two extreme examples: (i) In fertile areas which have the potential to be economically viable in international markets, the main emphasis should be on the production function 3 and most (but not all) farms will operate conventional, intensive farming systems. These are the areas which will generate the economic surplus that will justify state support for the social and environmental functions of agriculture. On such farms, environmental sustainability will be seen more in terms of absence of externalities and less in terms of provision of wildlife habitat on the productive areas of the farm; i.e. farming activities will not generate negative external environmental impacts beyond the cropped areas but on the cropped areas themselves priority will be given to food production. (ii) In the less fertile areas, on poorer soils, often on steep gradients or in areas with difficult climates, the social and environmental components of the multifunctionality concept may be vital to the very survival of local farming systems. Here, the farming system itself often creates a valued landscape or type of wildlife habitat, but is not sufficiently productive to survive unaided in a global trading environment. These are the systems which will justify financial support for their environmental and social functions and food production can be seen as an offsetting benefit which reduces the amount of financial support needed to deliver the other functions. Between these two extremes will be a wide range of farming systems with varying degrees of justification for financial support for their social and environmental functions and varying ability to survive in free market trading conditions. The above categorisation does not imply that the social and environmental strands of the sustainability and multifunctionality concepts can be ignored or downgraded in more fertile and productive regions. On the contrary, intensive farming systems in these areas have the greatest potential to cause serious environmental damage if not managed sensitively. In such areas, a different approach to multifunctionality and the delivery of sustainability is needed. The challenge for European policy makers and for the research that supports them is thus to develop a flexible strategy that is economically viable when viewed in aggregate at the European level and which is also socially and environmentally sustainable at more local levels. However, the debate on multifunctionality is generally conducted only in terms of its social and environmental functions, focusing on organic and integrated farming systems and the family farm as the unit of production. Multifunctionality, instead of being seen as covering the whole of European agriculture, often places the social and environmental functions on one side, in opposition to the economic function on the other side. It may be 3 The term production function is used here in the sense that food production is one functional component of multifunctionality, along with social and environmental functions, not in the sense used by economics. 3
more difficult to defend the multifunctionality of European agriculture on the basis of a partial model which sets the non-production functions aside from food production, rather than seeing them as an integrated whole (see 1998 OECD definition above). The Role of Science in Governance of Multifunctionality Policy making in Europe increasingly claims to be evidence-based and the evidence is provided mainly by the natural and social sciences. Science and research will therefore play an important role in the development of this multi-faceted vision. Both natural and social sciences will contribute to providing the evidence on which policies are based. Research will also contribute directly to the evolution of farming systems tailored to European needs. A wide array of scientific disciplines has contributed to the success of European agriculture in the past, for example soil science, entomology, plant and animal genetics, hydrology. On the social science side, disciplines such as agricultural economics, rural sociology and anthropology have played important roles. The traditional range of disciplines has now been augmented by information and communication sciences, biotechnology and risk analysis. In the past the natural and social science disciplines relevant to agriculture have made their contributions in a compartmentalised manner. Even in schools of agriculture where all the relevant disciplines have been clustered together in a single institution there has been little cross fertilisation of ideas among them. Academic and research institutions throughout Europe have discriminated against the more interdisciplinary approaches that are needed for the complex issues facing agriculture in Europe. Interdisciplinary research is, however, one area where the EU is leading the world. The Fifth Framework Programme has provided an unprecedented level of encouragement for interdisciplinary approaches to be adopted in the projects and programmes it supports, including particularly the integration of social and natural scientific disciplines. Obviously such a fundamental shift in emphasis on such a large scale cannot be achieved rapidly but the necessary changes in European research communities are now beginning to appear and this important endeavour will be continued in the ERA and the Sixth Framework Programme. Research thus has its traditional, discipline based contribution to make to governance and multifunctionality, overlaid by the new interdisciplinary approaches needed for the complexities faced by modern agriculture. The Role of Technology in Delivering Multifunctionality Technological innovation will have a role to play across all three of the functions discussed here but it will have a particularly high profile for conventional/intensive farming systems. Where European farming systems aspire to be internationally competitive they will need to adopt innovations appropriate to the system but also in line with informed opinion of the European public. Information and communication technology, engineering developments and agrochemical innovation are already making a major contribution to this competitiveness, supported by national and European research programmes, and biotechnology has the potential to do so. The European policy environment currently gives the impression of sidelining innovation, at best being laissez faire, at worst being hostile, and regarding it as a generator of problems rather than of solutions to problems. A recent EC supported research project 4 has shown that 4 The PITA project, Policy Influences on Technology for Agriculture, EC Fourth Framework Programme, Targeted Socio-Economic Research Programme, project No PL97, studied the influence of the European policy environment on product development decision making in companies 4
some technological innovation has the potential both to support the competitiveness of farming systems and to improve their environmental performance. Being based in the EU, with its more environmentally focused and precautionary regulatory regimes and greater expectation of stakeholder participation in debates and decision making has encouraged European industry to develop technology that supports the European multifunctional model without undermining its productivity. There is thus a potential synergy here between the multifunctional needs of European agriculture and the innovation strategies of internationally successful sectors of European industry, in information and communication technologies, engineering, seed development, agrochemicals and biotechnology. Despite this potential, it would be naïve to presume that the industry sectors producing the innovative technology, and the farming sector that forms its primary market, will not primarily follow their own commercial interests. Governance is, among other things, about creating an external operating environment for industry and farmers that will encourage strategies that are in the public interest without unnecessarily undermining the interests of industry. Fundamental research supported by the public purse has a role in generating knowledge, some of which will eventually emerge as innovative technology for agriculture. Publicly funded research also has a role in monitoring and evaluating new technology from the point of view of its agronomic and environmental performance. Increasingly the same institutions are expected to perform both functions, supporting innovation by industry and monitoring its effectiveness and its impacts. This is leading to tensions within institutions and to public questions about the impartiality of scientific advice to policy makers particularly, in Europe, in the context of the development of genetically modified (GM) crops. This dilemma is likely to be one of the challenges facing the ERA in its further evolution. Among the range of technological innovations, the development of GM crops has the greatest potential to support both the productivity and international competitiveness of farming systems and to reduce their environmental impact. However, this technology is not now socially acceptable in Europe and it is not yet clear how the current stalemate in the development of GM crops will be resolved. While it would be possible for Europe to wait on the sidelines till the issues surrounding the adoption of GM technology in agriculture are informed by experience in the rest of the world before taking up these innovations, this is unlikely to deliver technological options that are targeted to Europe s multifunctional needs. Also, a major and very productive sector of European industry including many companies that currently respond at least to some extent to European needs will target its innovative product development on other parts of the world. This large potential for wealth generation in Europe should not be lightly cast aside. There is no doubt that major mistakes were made in the introduction of first generation GM technology in Europe and we need to learn from these mistakes. We need to respond to the long-term demands and needs of the European public for genuinely multifunctional farming systems without being driven by short term expediency in response to a series of crises that are manipulated by pressure groups (from all sides of the debate) and the media. The ERA and the Sixth Framework Programme can contribute to the resolution of these issues by taking on board some of the lessons learned and filling some of the remaining gaps: developing pesticides, GM crops and seeds and the downstream implications for European competitiveness, employment and biodiversity. See http://www-tec.open.ac.uk/cts/pita/index.html. 5
it is essential to have a close integration between natural and social science aspects of research leading to innovations for agriculture at as early a stage as possible; in this context, the social sciences have a wide range of important potential roles to play, for example devising new approaches to policy development and its implementation, risk perception and management, communication, scenario planning, technology management, conflict resolution; there is a gap or deficit in the development of constructive approaches to stakeholder involvement in decision making on multifunctional agriculture in Europe in a manner which does not merely delay or paralyse decision making. Certainly if we adopt the strategy of waiting till scientists have completed their research and the development process is well under way before consulting the public and consumers on what it is appropriate to develop, we will merely repeat the mistakes of the 1990s. Influencing the Future Direction of European Agriculture The concept of multifunctionality is likely to remain an important feature of debates and negotiations on European agriculture for some time to come. There are major overlaps between the concept of multifunctionality and that of sustainable development, to the extent that the two terms can often be used interchangeably. Also, in each case, the definition is somewhat vague and interpretation of the concept can vary widely depending on interests and values of those doing the interpreting. The concepts currently tend to be used as devices for distributing farming subsidies or as the basis of often facile and ill-considered arguments for rejecting various forms of technology. From this author s perspective, if they are to form a robust basis for the governance of European agriculture, from regional to international levels, both need to be extended to cover constructively the entire spectrum of European agriculture. A formal analysis of the desirable balance of emphasis on different functions, in different regions, and for different farm types would be a useful starting point for more effective governance based on these concepts. It is important that Europe does not fall into the trap of ignoring, or even rejecting, the productive aspects of its farming systems. To focus on a simplistic model of multifunctionality that places production on one side and the social and environmental functions on the other will weaken Europe s case in international debate and assign its agriculture, internationally, to reliance on the policies and practices of other national groupings. The best chance of achieving genuine multifunctionality in Europe is for its agricultural system to be, not just sustainable, but thriving on all levels. In delivering this new, more integrated vision, governance and policy making should be based on evidence arising from research in the natural and social sciences and increasingly this research will need to be conducted on a correspondingly integrated basis. The development of the ERA has been stimulated partly by the need to understand and to operate efficiently within this increasingly complex world. The programmes promoted or supported by the ERA, at national and European levels should be based on a series of high level questions requiring much closer co-ordination further down the research chain than has been the case in the past. For example: what are the big issues for Europe and what systems can we envisage as generating or contributing to these issues; what do we want the systems to deliver; for each system, what are its component parts; 6
how do the components interact with one another to deliver what Europe needs now and will need in the future; what are the constraints and bottlenecks that prevent them from delivering what is needed or desirable; where are the pressure points in the systems that could allow us to gain leverage on the system to deliver what is needed and how might they be manipulated to make them more effective? Further Reading Contribution of France (1999) FAO-Netherlands Conference on the Multifunctional Character of Agriculture and Land. Maastricht, Netherlands, September 12-17, 1999. CEC (2000) Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle. COM(2000) 1 Sutherland, P. (1999) Into Uncharted Waters Chemistry and Industry, 6 th Dec., 1999, 916-919. (Description of triple bottom line approach to sustainable development in industry.) Tait, J. (2001, in press) How are governments influencing innovation and uptake of technologies for sustainable farming systems: pesticides and biotechnology. Adoption of Technologies for Sustainable Farming Systems, The Wageningen Workshop, OECD, Paris. Tait, J. and Bruce, A. (2000) Global Change and Transboundary Risks, Commissioned by Society for Risk Analysis for the International Symposium on Risk and Governance, Warrenton, VA, USA, June 2000. Tait, J. (2001, in press) More Faust than Frankenstein: the European Debate about Risk Regulation for Genetically Modified Food. Journal of Risk Research. 7