28.6.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/167

1.1

The number of organic farms in the European Union has increased sharply in the last fifteen years. Between 1985 and 2002 the number of organic farms in the EU-15 rose from 6,300 to 150,000 and the area farmed by them from 100,000 ha to 4.4 million ha. This is equivalent to these farms' share of agricultural land rising from 0.1 % to 3.3 %. Organic food sales are worth EUR 11 billion in Europe and EUR 23 billion worldwide.

1.2

The development of organic farming, which was mainly due to farmers supported by consumers, began in the 1920s. Sustained consumer demand in specialised markets became established in the 1970s. A variety of socio-economic players started to expand, promote and monitor organic production and marketing in the 1980s.

1.3

Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2092/91 was the first piece of legislation on organic farming to be drawn up by the EU, on the basis of the preparatory work carried out over a period of many years by the leading organic farming associations. EU support was first provided in 1992, when this type of farming became part of agri-environmental policy.

1.4

The Agriculture Council called on the Commission in June 2001 and again in December 2002 to present an action plan for organic food and farming. In the meantime the Commission has conducted a consultation exercise on the Internet in which 1,136 citizens and organisations have taken part. The results have, inter alia, been used for the Commission staff working document on the feasibility of a European action plan for organic food and farming. A European Parliament hearing was held in July 2003, and in January 2004 the launch of the action plan took place at an event that was well attended by European governments and organisations and members of the general public.

1.5

The action plan represents a crucial contribution to the further development of the common agricultural policy and gives a good picture of the special role to be played by organic farming in future agri-environmental policy. This enhanced role depends on the cooperation of economic stakeholders and especially producers. The economic interests of the farms must therefore be taken into account. The early involvement of national and regional government bodies in the Member States will be decisive for the success of the plan.

1.6

The EESC welcomes the European action plan for organic food and farming. It would point out, however, that sufficient human and material resources are required within the EU administration to perform the related tasks satisfactorily. In this connection, the Committee is pleased to note that at its first reading the European Parliament decided to include the action plan under the budget headings for support measures, including measures for improving the quality of agricultural production.

2.1

The Commission notes that organic farming makes a major contribution to various EU policy measures which are designed to provide a high level of environmental protection. The problem areas listed are: pesticides, plant nutrients, soil protection, biodiversity, nature protection, animal welfare, and food safety.

2.2

The Commission's main aim is to expand the organic farming sector steadily and exploit market potential. Special attention is to be paid in this connection to farm incomes. This is to be done with due regard to the dual role of organic farming, namely a) to produce organic produce which has to fetch higher prices because of the non-use of environmentally important inputs and the lower yields resulting therefrom, and b) to deliver public goods which have no market price and therefore have to rely on public funding.

2.3

The action plan has three priorities:

2.4

The plan makes provision for 21 actions, two of which have budgetary implications and are subject to the availability of funding. Implementation of the action plan depends on the availability of Commission staff. Subject to these provisos, the Commission intends to introduce the requisite measures as indicated without delay. The action plan makes no specific provisions for targets and timetable.

3.1.1

The Luxembourg agricultural reform decisions of June 2003 stipulate for many products a cutting back of administrative price controls and an erosion of the safety net. However, thanks to a large-scale decoupling of direct payments from production, which is a new cornerstone of the agricultural reform decisions, the Commission anticipates a stabilisation of prices and even an increase in prices for agricultural produce. Because producer price levels for organic produce depend on the general level of producer prices, new opportunities to earn a living can arise on the market for organic farmers. The Committee would stress that this will only be possible if the Community preference is maintained at an adequate level for all agricultural produce .

3.1.2

The promotion of organic farming depends, inter alia, on the total funds available in the second pillar of the CAP. Member States are under no obligation to promote this agricultural reform. The EESC notes that in European countries and regions that do promote organic food and farming, this sector of the economy is particularly extensive and very stable. The pace of development and implementation of the new European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in the Member States should be carefully monitored.

3.1.2.1

The Committee is following the forthcoming decisions on the Union's financial perspectives with great concern. Rural development resources, in particular, are threatened with cuts. The EESC points out that these resources are of crucial importance for the stabilisation and innovative development of Europe's rural regions. The Committee has already set out its views on this subject in its own-initiative opinion on future rural development policy (1) and is currently working on an opinion on the proposal for a regulation on the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. (2)

3.1.3

More and more stakeholders are interested in receiving rural development funding, and numbers are increasing further with the accession of ten new countries. Even if 80 % of the funds earmarked for modulation have to be used in these funds' country of origin, the additional financing available here is very limited.

3.1.4

Organic farming, even more than other agricultural practices, has vast potential for delivering public goods. The Committee would urge the Commission, Council and Parliament to ensure that changes to the CAP agreed upon in June 2003 should not jeopardise good land management practices. Furthermore, the funds allocated to the second pillar (rural development) should be sufficient to fulfil Community priorities.

4.1.1.1

The stakeholders involved in organic farming, and especially producers, have already won an appreciable share of the food market to the point where the EESC considers that the term ‘niche market’ can no longer be used in every Member State to describe this market share. In many EU regions and for some products, the proportion of organic farms and foods is already very high. Many raw materials for baby food, for example, are already organically produced.

4.1.1.2

Europe has regional and product-specific concentrations in production, processing and market development, as well as in research and initial and further training in the organic foods sector. The reason for this may be either natural regional specificities or a dynamic interaction of local economic players. The Committee calls on the Commission to pay particular attention in this action plan to this clustering in organic farming that is common in Europe.

4.1.1.3

Organic food has safeguarded the livelihood of many enterprises, especially on the production side but also in processing and marketing.

4.2.2.1

With regard to the initiative proposed under action 6 for targeting the establishment of organic farming in environmentally sensitive areas, care should be taken to ensure that this does not lead to an imbalanced supply situation and subsequently to politically-driven distortions of competition within organic farming. The difficult arable farming conditions in these areas must be adequately described.

4.2.2.2

In the EESC's view, the action programme does not take account of the great significance of the organic farming and foodstuffs sector for employment, particularly in rural regions. Surveys in EU Member States have shown that organic farming is almost exclusively responsible for new start-ups in farming and its upstream and downstream sectors. The Committee would also stress that all quality agricultural produce bearing an indication of regional origin will have a positive impact on rural development.

4.2.2.3

Training, education and advice are described in Action 6. A clearer emphasis on delivering information and knowledge in the rural development context is needed in order to strengthen these farming production methods and the marketing and processing of organic products.

4.3.1

Organic farming is a type of farming which specifically uses and develops methods, instruments and techniques that have the least possible impact on the environment.

4.3.2

The Committee sees publicly financed research for organic farming as a particular challenge. Research fields which have little private-sector investment and which are of major importance for society must be made key areas of publicly supported research. Both organic farming and technology impact assessment should be given priority status in the EU's Framework Programme for Research.

4.3.3

The Committee welcomes more research into organic farming. The aims of this research must be distinguished more clearly, and their consistency with other areas of the common agricultural policy checked. Education, knowledge transfer and the importance of interdisciplinary science are the premise for the successful development of an organic food sector and should be given greater weight — including financial — in the Commission's action plan.

4.3.4

There is an urgent need for organically-oriented research into plant cultivation and livestock breeding. This includes further development of modified breeds and species to ensure market viability.

4.4.1.1

It should also be borne in mind that in the view of a number of national organic farming organisations, the concept should encompass not only environmental criteria but also socio-economic principles, such as the creation of valuable jobs offering social stability in rural areas. The adaptation of the regulations on organic farming should then take place on a case-by-case basis,stressing the need to comply with the basic principles, and the granting of transitional periods with fixed end dates should be reviewed stage-by-stage (action 9).

4.4.2.1

In action 10 (last indent) it is necessary to clarify whether ‘biodiversity’ means crops and livestock or whether it has a broader meaning and refers to all fauna and flora. The EESC would also point out, however, that according to the objectives of the CAP, preservation of biodiversity cannot be the responsibility of organic farms alone.

4.4.2.2

Although energy- and resource-saving practices are at the heart of organic farming, the EESC rejects introducing special standards. The priorities here are effective general agricultural and economic provisions.

4.4.2.3

The creation of the first-ever EU standards for organic wine and aquaculture products is expressly welcomed. In particular, the Committee also sees the positive effects on conventional practices in the sectors.

4.5

The establishment of an independent expert panel for technical advice, as proposed under action 11, is welcomed by the Committee provided that stakeholders, i.e. farmers, processors and consumers, are suitably involved so that such a panel enjoys the public's confidence. However, there is a lack of specific provisions concerning the timetable, goals and budget resources needed to make a success of this initiative.

4.6.1

The Committee regrets that on this point the action programme deals only with thresholds and does not propose a comprehensive approach to ensure co-existence as a prerequisite of organic farming in Europe.

4.6.2

The ban on the use of GMOs in organic farming is of particular importance in the context of the ongoing discussion on co-existence rules. The recommendations proposed under this point can be accepted to a large degree. The non-GMO farming sector (conventional and organic) should not have to bear any of the costs or loss of income arising from the release of GMOs.

4.6.3

The general thresholds for seed in organic farming must be the detection limit (action 12). In the Committee's opinion, the detection limit should also be the threshold for conventional non-GMO seed. Otherwise, it is to be feared that the presence of GMO components in organic products, too, might rise rapidly, thereby jeopardising the foundations on which organic farming in Europe is based. Because of the free movement of goods and the presence of vast areas of agricultural land on both sides of national borders within the EU, harmonisation is necessary here, too.

4.8.1

When the rules governing imports of organic produce are refined, account should be taken of the growing risk of GMO contamination.

4.8.2

The Committee recommends looking at the promotion of the Mediterranean economic area when considering the possibilities of organic farming. The point is to strengthen the centres of organic cultivation and to promote their networking.

4.8.3

Organic products must not be granted more far-reaching concessions than conventional imports in international trade agreements. This is necessary for reasons of competition and, in particular, in order to ensure that organic farming in Europe continues to have a chance on the market.

5.1

The Committee welcomes the proposed action plan for organic food and farming. It is a fitting response from the Commission not only to the call of the Agriculture Council, but to the expectations of many citizens. With the implementation of cross-compliance and the definition of conditions of good agricultural and environmental practice, the environmentally-friendly development of European agricultural policy has to face higher demands.

5.2

The EESC welcomes targeted marketing campaigns and consumer information. It does not, however, expect existing imbalances in the food industry and in processing to be increased.

5.3

This important sector for employment prospects and production of public goods must get the attention it merits in the EAFRD programme, in connection with the measures linked to the quality of agricultural produce.

5.4

Efforts to harmonise norms and inspections must not overburden businesses and must allow for regional specificities. In the case of both EU- and third-country goods, the EU logo should not prevent identification of origin.

5.5

On the matter of co-existence with GMOs, the question of how Europe-wide organic production can be guaranteed in the future remains unanswered. For this reason, the GMO contamination limits for all seeds should be set at the detection threshold.

5.6

Organic farming must be given a higher priority in the EU's research plan. This prioritising is justified by the great importance for society as a whole and the meagre private research resources available to this sector.

5.7

With the European Parliament's decision to make funds from the budget heading for improving the quality of agricultural production available to the action plan, European decision-makers have begun to combat the shortcomings in staffing and materials resources referred to above.

5.8

The EESC is monitoring discussion of the financial perspectives with great concern. A cut in resources for rural development would also set back organic farming and the organic food sector in Europe.