23.04.2022
On the ground of reality
Dear Readers,
The sentence “Houston, we have a problem” from Apollo 13 is often used with a slightly ironic undertone, but it indicates that a major problem is occurring; a problem that was not foreseen but perhaps could have been. In the last two swiss-food newsletters, we tried to present as broad a picture as possible of the war in Ukraine and its consequences for the global supply chain, referencing a range of information sources. Now, with respect to the global food supply, we can really say: “We have a problem”. As agricultural products become scarcer, the prices are also increasing, which can have catastrophic consequences for the poor in a great number of countries.
Energy and food costs are rising in Switzerland as well, and according to the newspaper NZZ, there is also a risk that health insurance premiums could rise by over 10 percent in the coming year. Additionally, due to COVID-related support measures, the Swiss national budget showed a huge deficit again in 2021. These financial challenges also raise practical political questions: How can Switzerland secure its energy supply in the coming winter? And pension provisions? How can it achieve its climate targets? How can it be ensured that the population is protected against attacks of all kinds? How can the supply of essential products, such as medicines, be secured? And how can the supply chain provide the population of Switzerland with truly sustainably produced food products in sufficient quantities and at affordable prices?
“When it rains, it pours.” The old saying rings true. There are a number of different challenges we must address all at once. Can we handle that? Or have we already neglected our politically uncomfortable duties too much and aimed “our persistent outrage” at trivial matters for too long? In an interesting opinion piece in the NZZ, former Federal Councillor Kaspar Villiger calls for the messes made over recent decades to be cleaned up and for the homework to be done.
One thing is clear: Even here in Europe, we once again find ourselves focused on the lower levels of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: ensuring the fulfilment of basic needs, such as food, shelter, security, and health. All of that costs money. “This war will cost us dearly” is the title of Thomas Fuster’s opinion piece in the NZZ, which he concludes with: “Further embellishment of a welfare state, with its administrative apparatus adopting some Baroque traits, is now becoming more difficult to justify. The destruction of the illusion of lasting peace also means the end of an era of careless fiscal policy.” He states that we must not allow future generations to be burdened with the costs incurred by the war.
Sustainability is the order of the day – indeed in a comprehensive sense and with a long-term outlook. Marketing-driven “sustainability” geared towards achieving short-term gains in margins or brand image is in conflict with reality. For example, Bio Suisse has to rely on soy imports from China for chicken feed as a result of the war in Ukraine. The press is reporting extensively on this, because it is in too great contrast to the “local, natural image” the label conveys. Similarly, agricultural circles are critical of IP Suisse’s approval to cover 20 percent of grains with conventionally produced or imported grains due to the poor harvest in 2021 – although the label otherwise strives to stand for a “pesticide-free cultivation” and less reliance on imports.
In both cases, the imported harvest contradicts the label’s promises. Imports are sourced from either geographical regions or agricultural practices that marketing departments coyly distance themselves from. This calls not only for a better grasp on reality but also for honesty. When it comes to ensuring food security, one thing is clear: “We do not need any fair-weather concepts.” This was said by Urs Niggli, former Director of the Institute for Organic Agriculture, in the NZZ. The war in Ukraine requires a change in mindset. “We cannot feed an ever-growing global population when there is a permanent 20 percent reduction in the foodstuffs available.”
Even if we can reduce food waste and change our approach to nutrition, we will still need 30 percent more calories by 2050. “We have to find this 30 percent somewhere, using only the existing farmland.” Bernard Lehmann said this as early as in 2019, during one of his last interviews as the Director of the Federal Office for Agriculture. Today, Bernard Lehmann is the Chairperson of the High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) Steering Committee, part of the FAO’s Committee on World Food Security. At the time, he also said (with reference to a wave of agriculture-related popular initiatives in Switzerland): “Let’s not drive ourselves crazy by so many popular initiatives.”
The people followed his lead and rejected the popular initiatives relating to pesticide bans and potable water with an extraordinarily high turnout in the vote and with 61 percent voting against them. The message to the Federal Council was clear: Switzerland cannot be allowed to opt out of agricultural production in light of the challenges facing agriculture globally. The Swiss people want local agricultural products at affordable prices. However, an all-organic strategy leads to additional imports which raises environmental concerns. It simply outsources the environmental impact to foreign countries. This can also be rejected based on ethical grounds.
Yet there is some doubt that this message has been received in “Bern”. The Federal Council has just implemented the first legislative package of a parliamentary initiative. Parliament had proposed this initiative out of fear of the aforementioned popular initiatives, with practically no changes made to the consultation draft, thereby making the already excessive laws even more strict. In doing so, the Federal Council is dismissing the warnings from industry. A regime that practically only deals with granting exceptions for plant protection products will lead to a further dilution of the range of aids available for tackling plant diseases and pests. After all, companies require planning security for providing such aids for the small Swiss market. Crop failures are pre-programmed. Additionally, resistance problems are also worsening. This will actively obstruct the cultivation of food in Switzerland even more, against the will of the electorate.
However, superficial “sustainability” will fail in both the short term and the long term. It sees the good in reducing agricultural productivity. But shortages and increased prices lead to famine and political conflicts. In the short term, policy leans towards countermeasures. German Agriculture Minister Cem Özdemir of The Greens leads the way: German farmers may temporarily use Ecological Focus Areas to cultivate feed from July 1 onwards. With this measure, Özdemir intends to reduce animal feed prices. The Swiss Federal Council is imitating the measure: the aforementioned legislative package will postpone plans to increase the proportion of protected land to enhance biodiversity by one year, to January 1, 2024.
Even if the view that Central Europe must contribute to global food security in solidarity is correct, approving the use of biodiversity spots for cultivating feed is controversial. Instead of promoting agricultural productivity by being open to new technological solutions, the green policies in Germany and it’s poor Swiss imitation will sacrifice natural areas. How can one still protest against the deforestation of virgin forests after that? Conclusion 1: Increasing productivity on existing land is better than continuing to reduce biodiversity.
Quick political fixes of course expose deeper problems. As recently as in February, Agriculture Minister Özdemir declared organic farming to be the new guiding principle. The proportion of arable land dedicated to organic farming is to be increased to 30 percent by 2030. In an opinion piece which we have included on swiss-food, the Developmental Editor-in-Chief of the German Agrarmedien, Olaf Deininger, expressed doubts about this approach in as early as February. According to Deininger, much more would have to be invested in new technologies in order to facilitate the transition from industrial agriculture to intelligent agriculture. His conclusion: “Organic will not solve this problem.” The author likely could not have predicted that reality would prove him right so quickly. Conclusion 2: One-sided environmental pledges are in danger of ending in a sustainability fiasco.
“Sustainability means more”, Hendrik Varnholt writes in the “Lebensmittel Zeitung” publication. We have published this interesting article on swiss-food.ch. Comprehensive sustainability has an ecological, economical and social dimension. Varnholt is working out the social dimension in light of the drastic price increases for agricultural products. “The war in Ukraine makes it clear that sustainability needs to be a social objective in order to have a world worth living in.” One thing is certain: Famine is not sustainable.
It goes without saying that environmental targets are still important, but they must be better reconciled with productivity targets. “ZDF” tried to track down the food of the future. There is a need to act: around 70 percent of the loss of biodiversity can be attributed to global nutrition systems. Additionally, the global appetite is responsible for a third of greenhouse gas emissions. If the world hopes to feed around ten billion people by 2050, it will need a drastically more productive agricultural industry than we have today. At the same time, this agricultural industry has an essential contribution to make in managing the climate crisis and maintaining biodiversity. Increasing productivity while also conserving the environment requires conflicting goals to be resolved.
To make this happen, we need new approaches and cooperation instead of confrontation. One example is the cooperation between the environmental protection organization The Nature Conservancy and Syngenta intended to restore farmland that has become unusable. This is because a large proportion of land used for agriculture is overused and degraded: This land can no longer be used as grassland, nor can it be used for cultivation. If farmland becomes unproductive or even unusable, untouched natural spaces that serve as habitats are then often used for food production – and this adds to environmental problems. If we are instead able to find techniques and methods to restore degraded land, that would be a big step towards finding solutions to the global crises. Conclusion 3: Allowing production to resume on existing land is better than deforesting ancient woodlands.
One thing is often overlooked: be it a small-scale farmer with small parcels of land or an agricultural company that produces millions of hundredweights across thousands of hectares, our food producers are entrepreneurs. Therefore, the solutions must not only make sense ecologically but also economically. Entrepreneurs hope to support themselves primarily from the proceeds from their business, not from subsidies. Producing food should allow farmers to be subsistent. This means that they, like those in every other industry sector, should be able to decide for themselves about the optimal use of resources. We are talking about resource efficiency in a comprehensive sense: work, energy, finances, land and natural resources. Agricultural policy and the implementation of the aforementioned parliamentary initiative are heading in opposite directions: they are increasingly disempowering farmers and paying subsidies for the non-production of food, although the Federal Constitution stipulates that agricultural production must be resource-efficient. This, despite the fact that the national budget is also already overstretched as a result of the COVID crisis, looming energy shortages, and the lack of security of pension provisions. Conclusion 4: Resource-efficient farming is sustainable farming in all three dimensions.
Opening up the focus on sustainability can only be beneficial. The sustainability debate is in urgent need of an update. Sustainability is comprehensive. It is more than just a cloak to be worn for marketing purposes. It encompasses climate protection and biodiversity protection. However, without productivity, organic farming can become a social boomerang. Is crash-landing on the hard ground of reality a wake-up call for Switzerland too, with prices rising worldwide and shortages becoming more commonplace? We hope so, as it could also bring about comprehensive resource efficiency that would benefit future generations.
The swiss-food editorial team
