Dr. Akinwumi Adesina, Agric Minister
Crusoe Osagie
The sixth Forum for Agriculture (FFA), held recently at The Square, Brussels, Belgium ended with capitulation by the Europeans on some key issues.
The first came after the impressive presentation made by Nigeria’s Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, Dr. Akinwumi Adesina, on Africa’s new way for food production and economic development. FFA has become, to Europeans, a “Davos for agriculture,” as one of the speakers said at the event.
As European countries set the pace for themselves on the future of their own agriculture, a discovery at Brussels showed that Africa is one of the solutions they are considering, as one of the leading speakers noted that “there are complementarities between Africa and the EU.”
This brought Nigeria into focus as it addresses its own peculiar agricultural challenges and prospects. And that opportunity was amply utilised as Adesina sought to convince Europe of the prospects ahead for Africa in agriculture.
Chair of Forum for Agriculture 2012 and chairman of Rise Foundation, Franz Fischler, agreed that the future of agriculture in Africa is bright. In his remarks, Fischler said he was impressed about the optimism expressed by Adesina on the future of African agriculture. He said he became convinced after listening to the minister, although he stressed that the EU agricultural stakeholders have been pessimistic before now.
Joris Relaes, Director of Cabinet at Cabinet Minister-President Kris Peeters, told the gathering of farmers, scientists, agribusiness operators, EU policy makers and government representatives that “transition towards bio-economy is already happening.” He estimated EU’s bio-economy as being worth 2 trillion euros. He reckoned that “every euro invested in bio-economy now will yield 10 euros in 2025.”
Bio-economy involves a production system that uses biological systems, one of which, prominently, is the genetic engineering. Bio-economy is expected to lead to a reduction in carbon dioxide, it was agreed at the forum. And Relaes concurred that genetic modification cannot be avoided if bio-economy is to grow. He emphasised that bio-economy is “knowledge-based” and “would require investment and innovation to grow.”
If issues discussed were not put into vote, it could easily have been concluded that Relaes expressed only his own opinion. At voting time when four key issues considered as urgent priorities were tabled, a greater number of participants, standing at 31 per cent of voters, voted in favour of a shift in stance, accepting widespread application of new technologies, including genetic modification as the most urgent options of solutions to European agriculture, going forward. Europe has hitherto been very rigid on application of genetic modification in agriculture.
Dr. Sara Nigro, explaining Syngenta’s involvement in the forum, said this was “big for awareness on public policy making to have interactions, debates and discussions on ideas.” According to her, it was nice to interact with stakeholders who are farmers and consumers in such a place, to know what their customers want on agricultural policy. This, she said, was “a good way to discuss, to create awareness on how farmers can interact with the environment.”
According to Nigro, “biotechnology can help protect farmers against losses and in the conservation of genetic materials, especially medicinal plants.” It can also help on “what types of interventions are needed,” such as herbicide tolerance, disease resistance tolerance and higher yields. “It could be introduced as a balance,” she said, “but the education of the people is key. It is good to get scientists to discuss and explain why genetically modified foods are safe.”
Another thorny issue in European agriculture also received a hard look. Europe is not taking lightly the issue of intensification. Again, De Castro, Chair of Agriculture and Rural Development Committee, European Parliament, noted unapologetically that “sustainable intensification is the way to go.” He called for “more public investment in research and development,” arguing that the private sector spends so much more than the public sector on R&D.
Despite a call for intensification of agriculture as part of the theme of the conference, voting revealed a narrow difference (at 44 per cent) between those who want farm sizes to increase to enable economies of scale and those who are in favour of intensification (42 per cent) while 18 per cent of voters were undecided.
Europe may well be backpedalling on earlier decisions on agricultural intensification, forced on them by rights activists. Allan Buckwell, Senior Research Fellow, Institute of Environmental Policy, simply observed that battery cages farming in poultry and livestock cannot be wished away, especially as extensive farming puts pressure on land.
This statement came against the backdrop of a dilemma on whether to open up more land for farming or to sustainably use existing agricultural land under intensification.
It was agreed upon that intensification in crop farming is not the same as animal farming. And EU Commissioner for the Environment, Janez Potocnik, concluded that “agricultural policy must work in favour of biodiversity, wastes and climate. We must keep partnership between agricultural and environmental policies.
Franz Fischler reiterated what Bob Zoelick had earlier said, that “we are starting a new era in agriculture.” And, in the coming one decade and a half, “we can expect a steady increase in commodity prices, volatility and increase in prices.”
Fischler said that the profitability of agriculture in Europe will not grow. Europe will lose an increasing number of agricultural workforce. The question then came: how to intensify sustainably, considering economy, ecology and social protection?
