Origins - World Rural Women's Day

10.50, 15 October 2004

"Biodiversity- responsible agriculture in practice, possibilities and problems in a Swedish perspective"

(Food Security and Biodiversity - who has the power? - a conference to explore facts and opinions and discuss the ways ahead)

It is a great honour to be here today meeting all of you - researchers and students at Ultuna. I am particularly glad to be able to take part in a debate which I believe raises some of the most important issues facing the world today:

- the need to alleviate hunger and

- the need to put a stop to the degradation of our natural resources – air, water, soil and biodiversity.

I am also very happy to be here on the Rural Women's Day together with my colleague Doctor Sarala Gopalan from India. We are working together in the International Federation of Agricultural Producers promoting the dialogue between the global society and farmers - men and women - all over the world. Sarala is the vice chair of women and dairy committees and I am chairing the Development Cooperating Committee with its focus on developing countries.

Celebrating World Food Day (as we did yesterday, today and tomorrow on October 16th), both means underlining

- on the one hand the tremendous achievements of farmers who produce high quality food in an environmentally-friendly way while respecting animal welfare,

- and on the other hand the tremendous challenges faced by farmers who struggle to survive both in South and in North.

However, while agriculture is at the front row of these celebrations, farmers are too often left in the shadow, especially the women farmers.

One of the biggest challenges the farming community is currently facing is: How do we conserve biodiversity while producing enough food to meet the needs of a growing population?

(Key role of farmers)

Farmers have a vital role to play in biodiversity conservation and are well aware that linkages between agriculture and biodiversity have consequences on farming practices all over the world.

Here in Sweden most of the arable land, which is 7% of the land area, and the forests are used for production today. The diversified and open Swedish landscape with its cultural and biological values have been created by grazing animals - "the muzzles and the hooves" - by haymaking, cutting of grass and bushes, by digging the ditches etc during the last thousand years, mainly the last hundred years.

Those values are now at risk. Just to give some examples:

- International trade is focusing on competition on prices where environment, animal welfare, biodiversity, has no or little value.

- Areas with the highest biological values are threatened, since farmers in the region can not compete on prices. The Swedish Agricultural Board calculates that 40 % of the grain acreage in the area around Uppsala will not be grown next year. The next five years farmers get their decoupled payments but the active agriculture will be reduced. Plantations with spruce and other trees is one alternative that neither will increase biodiversity nor attract tourists or people living in this rural area.

- The intensity in the more fertile areas seems to be intensified. The number of doses of pesticides has increased.

- Much feed is imported to Europe and the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus in manure is higher than can be taken care of without polluting water.

To maintain the biological values of the landscape and the species we need farmers as managers, paid for their service to maintain the biodiversity but also people living in the rural areas maintaining social services and network.

We also need responsible politicians creating political steering systems that give a long term balance between the present focus on low prices in an international market and biological and cultural values locally. In the long run we are also convinced that our fertile soil both in Sweden and Europe as a whole is needed for food production.

(Grazing animals - to keep the landscape of muzzles and hooves)

Swedish agriculture has high production costs as a result of for example high living standard, taxation, a humid and rather cold climate, long distances for transport, high standards for animal welfare, environmental protection and safe food (with low residues of pesticides, antibiotics, cadmium, salmonella and resistant pathogens).

85 % of the Swedish population live in cities, less than 2 % are farmers producing raw materials for processing industry and food trade with an ever ongoing pressure on prices. With this gap between producers and consumers there is a big challenge to inform about origin and qualities linked to biodiversity, animal welfare, food safety and environment.

Obviously the farmers will not be remunerated for their work protecting the diversified landscape through their traditional sales of farm produce. It is necessary both to have general payments for keeping the openness and special payments for farmers managing land to maintain high biological values.

However, there is also a growing market for special products for example beef from grazing animals which are produced according to certain production standards. We have two examples, "Caprifol kött" and "Svenskt Hagmarkskött", that give a "top up" premium to the farmers involved.

Together with other partners in this area Federation of Swedish Farmers has decided to go for 15 % higher beef production in five years. This means maintained number of cows for milk and almost a doubling of the number of grazing beef cattle. This is really a big challenge for us to find cost reducing methods in beef production as the consumers are not willing to pay a higher price.

Let me than move to another issue - the use of chemicals in agriculture

European agriculture is highly dependent on use of chemical plant protection products. Both Danish and Swedish studies have shown that a reduction of 15 -25 % is possible but a complete ban in a short perspective will reduce yields and the farm income with 50 %. To maintain a Swedish agriculture and farmers, pesticides are still a necessity.

Since 1992 the sold amount of pesticides has increased by 13 % and the number of sprayings with 40 %. The reasons are

- cheaper products (glyfosate),

- higher costs of diesel (taxes and prices) that makes mechanical treatment less competitive,

- better products (fungicides),

- CAP that supported some crops and less crop rotation.

With the use of pesticides it is unavoidable that traces of chemicals will be found in water and in food. There is no doubt that they also have an effect on the ecosystems and the biological diversity. Also farmers are at risk.

There are two possible strategies that need to be followed:

One is to reduce risks in all possible ways for examples in the choice of chemicals, through well educated farmers working with good equipment and good practices.

The other strategy is to analyse the potential of alternative methods for plant protection in

- identifying chemicals that will be of no or minimal risk in water and food,

- developing biological and technical methods that can replace unwanted chemicals,

- developing growing and crop rotation practices that reduces the need for chemicals and maintain or increase yields.

This could be a challenge for researchers, farmers and politicians together in a growing region, like northern Europe (Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denemark, the Baltic states etc). Here, a political decision is needed, to set aside enough money during a five year period to educate enough number of researchers and develop knowledge to describe this potential. Farmers can not do this on their own.

The LRF policy says that we are aiming for no residues in food and water and we are supporting all activities in this direction.

During the last 8 years Stiftelsen Lantbruksforskning - Swedish Farmers’ Foundation for Agricultural Research has financed over 50 projects with 54 milj SEK to reduce risks with pesticides and develop alternative techniques.

Fertilizers are another kind of chemicals needed to produce high yields at competitive prices. Even if the soil has a good structure and there is enough with water, the crops need nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, sulphur and micronutrients for maintaining high yields. These chemicals are basic for all life and give no damage as such.

However, too much of fertilizers or manure can leak to water or effect biological diversity in surrounding areas. Not forgetting the energy needed for the production of fertilizers, but the energy for production of nitrogen is well used. It often gives ten times back in yields.

However fossil energy is getting more and more expensive and so is the nitrogen. Therefore, it is important to promote other ways to support the crops with necessary fertilizer and do it in a way that also can promote the biodiversity.

Nitrogen fixing crops is a smart way of using solar energy to bound nitrogen. There is also a need for more effectively use of manure and also human urine and faeces. Systems for using manure are well developed for smaller farms. When thousands of animals are kept in one place, energy effective methods might be necessary for extracting nitrogen and phosphorous to be spread on soils far away.

Few systems are suitable for collecting and processing human wastes to be allowed for use in a safe way. In Sweden source separation of toilet wastes are developed not only for single houses but also for blocks of flats. Among farmers and consumers in Sweden there is an increased acceptance for fertilizing crops with human urine and treated toilet wastes.

(GMO)

Linked both to the aim to reduce the use of pesticides and to protect biodiversity is the development and use of genetically modified varieties. Clearly Bt- cotton and maize can reduce the use of pesticides against insects. Other GM crops will be developed giving advantages both for farmers and consumers.

It is very important that only such GM varieties are grown, from which pollen drift can be controlled. Than coexistence with GM free crops and GM crops is possible, meaning that it is possible to continue traditional crop production and test new cropping systems. Possible examples of GMOs, where pollen drift is easy to control in Swedish agriculture, are potatoes and sugar beets. Genetically modified rape seed, many grasses and trees spread their pollen many kilometres and are thereby not suitable for growing yet.

LRF is supporting the Trips and Cartagena protocol that gives a frame for protecting genetic values and payments for valuable genetic material. It is also obvious that each nation should have the right to choose the suitable GMOs for its territory.

(Farmers are the ecosystem’s managers in reality but it is a shared responsibility)

Farmers can take advantage of improved farming practices and use of agro ecosystem approaches if we are provided with adequate incentives. Both for maintaining biodiversity and enough productivity in agriculture in all parts of the world it is necessary to leave the present single focus on low prices and instead strengthen the economy in rural areas and strengthen the environmental values and animal welfare.

Farmers for centuries have created an impressive storehouse of knowledge through the selection, storage and propagation of plant varieties as well as through livestock breeding. They form the largest group of ecosystem managers among humankind. As such, there is an opportunity to engage them to improve the management of biodiversity in ecosystems.

For too long, farmers have been expected to preserve biodiversity on their own. As long as farmers struggle to survive, protecting biodiversity will remain a basic necessity difficult to afford. Biodiversity conservation is a shared responsibility, and farmers cannot bear this responsibility on their own.

The society has to support, recognize as well as remunerate farmers for their important work when not paid over the production. From you dealing with Research and Development we need more improved and environmental-friendly methods and techniques which pay respect to the different conditions farming is discharged over the world. Biodiversity conservation is everybody’s responsibility. This is a challenge that nobody can face alone.

Innovative partnership is the key.

However, effective partnerships are partnerships among equals, and today too often farmers are unequal players.



*Origin* *Events* *Archive* *Proclamations*		Statement by Caroline Trapp President of Federation of Swedish Farmers, President of IFAP DCC, Vice President of COPA 10.50, 15 October 2004 "Biodiversity- responsible agriculture in practice, possibilities and problems in a Swedish perspective" (Food Security and Biodiversity - who has the power? - a conference to explore facts and opinions and discuss the ways ahead) It is a great honour to be here today meeting all of you - researchers and students at Ultuna. I am particularly glad to be able to take part in a debate which I believe raises some of the most important issues facing the world today: - the need to alleviate hunger and - the need to put a stop to the degradation of our natural resources – air, water, soil and biodiversity. I am also very happy to be here on the Rural Women's Day together with my colleague Doctor Sarala Gopalan from India. We are working together in the International Federation of Agricultural Producers promoting the dialogue between the global society and farmers - men and women - all over the world. Sarala is the vice chair of women and dairy committees and I am chairing the Development Cooperating Committee with its focus on developing countries. Celebrating World Food Day (as we did yesterday, today and tomorrow on October 16th), both means underlining - on the one hand the tremendous achievements of farmers who produce high quality food in an environmentally-friendly way while respecting animal welfare, - and on the other hand the tremendous challenges faced by farmers who struggle to survive both in South and in North. However, while agriculture is at the front row of these celebrations, farmers are too often left in the shadow, especially the women farmers. One of the biggest challenges the farming community is currently facing is: How do we conserve biodiversity while producing enough food to meet the needs of a growing population? (Key role of farmers) Farmers have a vital role to play in biodiversity conservation and are well aware that linkages between agriculture and biodiversity have consequences on farming practices all over the world. Here in Sweden most of the arable land, which is 7% of the land area, and the forests are used for production today. The diversified and open Swedish landscape with its cultural and biological values have been created by grazing animals - "the muzzles and the hooves" - by haymaking, cutting of grass and bushes, by digging the ditches etc during the last thousand years, mainly the last hundred years. Those values are now at risk. Just to give some examples: - International trade is focusing on competition on prices where environment, animal welfare, biodiversity, has no or little value. - Areas with the highest biological values are threatened, since farmers in the region can not compete on prices. The Swedish Agricultural Board calculates that 40 % of the grain acreage in the area around Uppsala will not be grown next year. The next five years farmers get their decoupled payments but the active agriculture will be reduced. Plantations with spruce and other trees is one alternative that neither will increase biodiversity nor attract tourists or people living in this rural area. - The intensity in the more fertile areas seems to be intensified. The number of doses of pesticides has increased. - Much feed is imported to Europe and the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus in manure is higher than can be taken care of without polluting water. To maintain the biological values of the landscape and the species we need farmers as managers, paid for their service to maintain the biodiversity but also people living in the rural areas maintaining social services and network. We also need responsible politicians creating political steering systems that give a long term balance between the present focus on low prices in an international market and biological and cultural values locally. In the long run we are also convinced that our fertile soil both in Sweden and Europe as a whole is needed for food production. (Grazing animals - to keep the landscape of muzzles and hooves) Swedish agriculture has high production costs as a result of for example high living standard, taxation, a humid and rather cold climate, long distances for transport, high standards for animal welfare, environmental protection and safe food (with low residues of pesticides, antibiotics, cadmium, salmonella and resistant pathogens). 85 % of the Swedish population live in cities, less than 2 % are farmers producing raw materials for processing industry and food trade with an ever ongoing pressure on prices. With this gap between producers and consumers there is a big challenge to inform about origin and qualities linked to biodiversity, animal welfare, food safety and environment. Obviously the farmers will not be remunerated for their work protecting the diversified landscape through their traditional sales of farm produce. It is necessary both to have general payments for keeping the openness and special payments for farmers managing land to maintain high biological values. However, there is also a growing market for special products for example beef from grazing animals which are produced according to certain production standards. We have two examples, "Caprifol kött" and "Svenskt Hagmarkskött", that give a "top up" premium to the farmers involved. Together with other partners in this area Federation of Swedish Farmers has decided to go for 15 % higher beef production in five years. This means maintained number of cows for milk and almost a doubling of the number of grazing beef cattle. This is really a big challenge for us to find cost reducing methods in beef production as the consumers are not willing to pay a higher price. Let me than move to another issue - the use of chemicals in agriculture European agriculture is highly dependent on use of chemical plant protection products. Both Danish and Swedish studies have shown that a reduction of 15 -25 % is possible but a complete ban in a short perspective will reduce yields and the farm income with 50 %. To maintain a Swedish agriculture and farmers, pesticides are still a necessity. Since 1992 the sold amount of pesticides has increased by 13 % and the number of sprayings with 40 %. The reasons are - cheaper products (glyfosate), - higher costs of diesel (taxes and prices) that makes mechanical treatment less competitive, - better products (fungicides), - CAP that supported some crops and less crop rotation. With the use of pesticides it is unavoidable that traces of chemicals will be found in water and in food. There is no doubt that they also have an effect on the ecosystems and the biological diversity. Also farmers are at risk. There are two possible strategies that need to be followed: One is to reduce risks in all possible ways for examples in the choice of chemicals, through well educated farmers working with good equipment and good practices. The other strategy is to analyse the potential of alternative methods for plant protection in - identifying chemicals that will be of no or minimal risk in water and food, - developing biological and technical methods that can replace unwanted chemicals, - developing growing and crop rotation practices that reduces the need for chemicals and maintain or increase yields. This could be a challenge for researchers, farmers and politicians together in a growing region, like northern Europe (Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denemark, the Baltic states etc). Here, a political decision is needed, to set aside enough money during a five year period to educate enough number of researchers and develop knowledge to describe this potential. Farmers can not do this on their own. The LRF policy says that we are aiming for no residues in food and water and we are supporting all activities in this direction. During the last 8 years Stiftelsen Lantbruksforskning - Swedish Farmers’ Foundation for Agricultural Research has financed over 50 projects with 54 milj SEK to reduce risks with pesticides and develop alternative techniques. Fertilizers are another kind of chemicals needed to produce high yields at competitive prices. Even if the soil has a good structure and there is enough with water, the crops need nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, sulphur and micronutrients for maintaining high yields. These chemicals are basic for all life and give no damage as such. However, too much of fertilizers or manure can leak to water or effect biological diversity in surrounding areas. Not forgetting the energy needed for the production of fertilizers, but the energy for production of nitrogen is well used. It often gives ten times back in yields. However fossil energy is getting more and more expensive and so is the nitrogen. Therefore, it is important to promote other ways to support the crops with necessary fertilizer and do it in a way that also can promote the biodiversity. Nitrogen fixing crops is a smart way of using solar energy to bound nitrogen. There is also a need for more effectively use of manure and also human urine and faeces. Systems for using manure are well developed for smaller farms. When thousands of animals are kept in one place, energy effective methods might be necessary for extracting nitrogen and phosphorous to be spread on soils far away. Few systems are suitable for collecting and processing human wastes to be allowed for use in a safe way. In Sweden source separation of toilet wastes are developed not only for single houses but also for blocks of flats. Among farmers and consumers in Sweden there is an increased acceptance for fertilizing crops with human urine and treated toilet wastes. (GMO) Linked both to the aim to reduce the use of pesticides and to protect biodiversity is the development and use of genetically modified varieties. Clearly Bt- cotton and maize can reduce the use of pesticides against insects. Other GM crops will be developed giving advantages both for farmers and consumers. It is very important that only such GM varieties are grown, from which pollen drift can be controlled. Than coexistence with GM free crops and GM crops is possible, meaning that it is possible to continue traditional crop production and test new cropping systems. Possible examples of GMOs, where pollen drift is easy to control in Swedish agriculture, are potatoes and sugar beets. Genetically modified rape seed, many grasses and trees spread their pollen many kilometres and are thereby not suitable for growing yet. LRF is supporting the Trips and Cartagena protocol that gives a frame for protecting genetic values and payments for valuable genetic material. It is also obvious that each nation should have the right to choose the suitable GMOs for its territory. (Farmers are the ecosystem’s managers in reality but it is a shared responsibility) Farmers can take advantage of improved farming practices and use of agro ecosystem approaches if we are provided with adequate incentives. Both for maintaining biodiversity and enough productivity in agriculture in all parts of the world it is necessary to leave the present single focus on low prices and instead strengthen the economy in rural areas and strengthen the environmental values and animal welfare. Farmers for centuries have created an impressive storehouse of knowledge through the selection, storage and propagation of plant varieties as well as through livestock breeding. They form the largest group of ecosystem managers among humankind. As such, there is an opportunity to engage them to improve the management of biodiversity in ecosystems. For too long, farmers have been expected to preserve biodiversity on their own. As long as farmers struggle to survive, protecting biodiversity will remain a basic necessity difficult to afford. Biodiversity conservation is a shared responsibility, and farmers cannot bear this responsibility on their own. The society has to support, recognize as well as remunerate farmers for their important work when not paid over the production. From you dealing with Research and Development we need more improved and environmental-friendly methods and techniques which pay respect to the different conditions farming is discharged over the world. Biodiversity conservation is everybody’s responsibility. This is a challenge that nobody can face alone. Innovative partnership is the key. However, effective partnerships are partnerships among equals, and today too often farmers are unequal players.