Contact: Ms Kathryn Marsh
The Place of Organic Farming in the National Agricultural Strategy
The terms of reference of the Agri-Food 2010 Committee are:
To propose a strategy for the development of Irish agriculture and food over the next decade, following the agreement on Agenda 2000, and in the light of the changes and challenges which are likely to evolve nationally and internationally over that period.
Organic farming can be defined as an approach to agriculture where the aim is to create integrated, humane, environmentally and economically sustainable agricultural production systems. Maximum reliance is placed on locally or farm-derived renewable resources and the management of self-regulating ecological and biological processes and interactions in order to provide acceptable levels of crop, livestock and human nutrition, protection from pests and diseases, and an appropriate return to the human and other resources employed. Reliance on external inputs, whether chemical or organic, is reduced as far as possible. In many European countries, organic agriculture is known as ecological agriculture, reflecting this reliance on ecosystem management rather than external inputs. The objective of sustainability lies at the heart of organic farming and is one of the major factors determining the acceptability or otherwise of specific production practices. The term 'sustainable' is used in its widest sense, to encompass not just conservation of non-renewable resources (soil, energy, minerals) but also issues of environmental, economic and social sustainability. The term 'organic' is best thought of as referring to the concept of the farm as an organism, in which all the component parts – the soil minerals, organic matter, micro-organisms, insects, plants, animals and humans - interact to create a coherent and stable whole. Whilst there have been small but dedicated organic research and production units in Ireland since the pioneering work of Albert Howard and Rudolph Steiner in the first three decades of this century, and a very few producers
achieving Soil Association certification since the beginning of that scheme, the formal foundation of Irish organic farming dates from the 1980s and the group of volunteers who met at that time to design the first high quality standards for this country. When EU Regulation 2092/91 was implemented in 1993 three certification bodies - Bio-Dynamic Agriculture Association in Ireland, Irish Farmers and Growers Association Ltd and Organic Trust Ltd - were recognised by the Dept Agriculture and inspected and certified 238 holdings with a total of 5489 hectares between them as being under organic/conversion management. By 1998 the figures had grown to 887 holdings with a total of 28,704 hectares under organic conversion management. It is probably safe to assume that at this moment 90% of all these holdings are under 60 hectares and a significant number are under part-time management, although these are not necessarily the smallest.
There also exist a considerable number of very small holdings under organic management and not included in certification schemes selling their entire production on the private market without making formal claims as to organic status.
Since detailed figures on farm enterprises have not been fully collated it is difficult to analyse which of the smaller holdings are small livestock operations and which are intensive horticultural operations of significant size. This lack of analysis is typical of the historical situation. Whilst in 1989 the government of the day provided necessary capital to set up the first professional offices, some modules in agriculture courses and some initial organic research, later governments gave little significant finance to organic farming until it became necessary in order to implement EU 2092/91 and even at this stage the financial input was very limited. At different times there have been small sums available for capital development, finance for LEADER schemes and, of course, under REPS Supplementary Measure 6. A small amount of dedicated research within Teagasc has come and gone and returned again, and modules within farming education have appeared and disappeared but there has been very little long term support for marketing, research and above all for farmer education. A small proportion of the cost of certification has been born by the Department of Agriculture but most has been carried by the farmer, making a significant disincentive for smaller holding with low turnovers to enter the sector. At entry point there is a perceived disincentive, particularly in the grain and field vegetable sectors, since there is a likelihood of an initial fall in production during conversion before soil rebuilding takes effect and since it is only in the best managed organic holdings that equal production levels can be achieved. Traditionally the so-called "organic premium" has made up the difference in income and often achieved higher incomes once conversion has been completed but the measures under REPS to support the conversion process are often inadequate for the extra costs of conversion in the horticulture and grain sectors.
In the late 1980's there was a perception throughout Europe that Ireland, with its green image, enthusiastic organic farmers and government support would rapidly become a leading supplier to the international market which was perceived by many marketing studies as being on the point of breakthrough. Failure to deliver on that early promise and incremental growth in the market has led to a situation where organic imports are increasing on a daily basis. In the horticulture sector the development of a strong Irish organic wholesaler meant that the Irish grower could feed directly into the supermarket sector. The recent strong development of foreign supermarket chains bringing in supplies from overseas has threatened this market and lowered the profile of Irish produce within the supermarkets. In the organic livestock sector a strong local supplier and the absence of supplies on the international market has kept the profile of Irish produce and Irish branding high, with very little supermarket own branding - although it should be noted that Marks and Spencer's are now importing meat and poultry under their own label, and it is likely that other major players, particularly Tesco, will attempt to move down the same route.
The Way Ahead
The Irish Government has stated its commitment to sustainable farming and to the maintenance of rural communities and family farms as the basis for the development of the Irish agricultural sector in terms of jobs and productivity in the years ahead. It is our case that these goals are best achieved by focus on the development of all aspects of organic farming. The FAO has found that although as yet only a small industry, organic agriculture is becoming of growing importance in the agriculture sector of a number of countries, irrespective of their stage of development. For example, in several developed countries organic agriculture has come to represent a significant portion of the food system (10 percent in Austria, 7.8 percent in Switzerland) and many others are experiencing growth rates that exceed 20 percent annually (e.g. USA, France, Japan, Singapore). In all these countries there has been major government investment in the development of the organic sector.
Though only a small percentage of farmers world-wide are expected to become organic producers, consumer demand for organically produced food and fibre products provides new market opportunities for farmers and businesses around the world. For many years, and with great success, the private sector alone has developed the concepts and markets for organic products. However, the surge in consumer interest has created new interest from the public sector. Governments need to know the potential of organic agriculture to contribute to sustainability in order to direct research and extension efforts. At the moment resources in Ireland are so scarce that it is often easier for the organic farmer to obtain technical and marketing information by accessing web sites provided by the US Department of Agriculture or MAFF in the UK than by contacting Teagasc. Whilst all the NGOs involved in the agricultural sector express good will towards organic farming they have no budget to provide concrete assistance or to educate their own advisors.
Education and Research
Farmers in Ireland are notable amongst the European farming community for their absence of formal agricultural training. This is gradually being addressed. Whilst almost 40% of the youngest group of farmers have completed the minimum Certificate in Farming almost none have more than a few days organic training. This makes it particularly difficult for them to take the organic option. There is no full time course in organic farming available within the state so that those wishing to concentrate on the organic sector must travel to one of the Universities and Colleges in the UK in order to train. Universities in ten countries operate SOCRATES organic exchange links within the EU. There are no Irish participants. Those who have attempted research work on organic farming at post-graduate and post-doctoral level have found finance and support almost impossible to obtain in an environment where funding has gone to areas perceived as more glamorous by providers. There is a lack of awareness of the financial rewards returned to governments and the private sector from agricultural research investment. To a large extent research is farm-based and education by word-of-mouth. Within Organic Trust we have developed a network of experienced farmers willing to give the benefits of their experience to new entrants on a voluntary basis. It is difficult to find volunteers to continue to do this without funding. In the absence of qualified Teagasc advisors a small private advisory service has developed. The situation contrasts with that in the north of Ireland where DANI (Dept of Agriculture for Northern Ireland) appointed two full time organic advisors at a time when there were only 8 farmers certified/in conversion. Fortunately organic farmers have learned the value of observation and "co-operation based science". Those who design the standards for organic farming normally come from a background in the biological sciences and have to develop an understanding of aspects of biochemistry and soil science as well as agricultural practise and an understanding of environmental interactions. They also bear in mind that organic farmers, like all other farmers, need to be able to survive in an increasingly competitive economic environment.
The environmental impact of organic farming
Organic farming has a key role to play within the future European model for agriculture, which could both move European agriculture towards its goals of sustainable production, and also enable European agriculture to be supported for the environmental and other deliverables that are likely to be demanded in the WTO in the not too far distant future.
Organic agricultural and horticultural systems are designed to produce food of optimum quality and quantity. The principles and methods employed result in practices which: co-exist with, rather than dominate, natural systems sustain or build soil fertility protect and enhance the environment with particular regard to conservation and wildlife, thus minimising damage to the environment minimise the use of non-renewable resources ensure the ethical treatment of animals The basic characteristics of organic systems are: The enhancement of biological cycles involving micro-organisms, soil fauna, plants and animals sustainable crop rotations, the extensive and rational use of manure, green manures and vegetable wastes, the use of appropriate cultivation techniques , the avoidance of fertilisers in the form of soluble mineral salts, the prohibition of certain agri-chemicals, the use of animal husbandry techniques which meet the animal's physiological, behavioural and health needs. All food production causes some disruption to the natural environment. However, organic farming minimises this disruption not only due to the prohibition of synthetic pesticides and soluble fertilisers, but also because the maintenance of ecological diversity within and around cropped land is an essential component of the organic system. Organic farmers are, therefore, expected to manage habitats such as banks, hedges, ponds, species-rich pastures, wetland areas and scrubland in accordance with their wildlife value as an integral part of the Symbol Scheme. Because it avoids the need for expensive downstream treatment of waste products the cost of organic food is the real cost which does not impose any additional costs on the taxpayer.
Competition in the home market, the EU and the world.
New patterns in marketing.
Whilst An Bord Bia has consistently supported the concept of organic meat marketing they have faced several areas of difficulty. One of these has been different international standards for organic livestock production, hopefully now addressed with the publication of EU standards shortly to be implemented. However there have been other areas of difficulty. One is that inconsistency of supply which is so often found in an infant enterprise. The basic problem here is the small number of livestock farmers within certification. In both new and old REPS programmes there is an insistence on whole farm conversion which makes it difficult for a farmer to make a gradual investigation of the benefits of organic farming. This is made even more problematic under the Agenda 2000 REPS which not only insists on whole farm conversion but prevents a farmer who has entered the first stages of a REPS programme from upgrading to organic if he finds that his situation warrants it. This seems an ill advised decision if the object of REPS is to maximise the viability of Irish farming. A second problem area is the willingness of the governments of other countries to take rapid action in support of their own farmers. Not long ago Bord Bia arranged to sell Irish organic lamb to Austria. The Austrian government reacted by introducing regulations to protect the home market for one year and using that year to implement an extensive conversion programme which meant that by the next lamb season Austria was supplying its home market with home produced lamb. Many countries are also implementing large, rapid conversion programmes for their home agricultural producers, seeing both local environmental benefits and international marketing advantage in this action. If Ireland does not take equally rapid action the Irish market could see repetition of past events such as the Netherlands takeover of the international glasshouse crop market aided by subsidised fuel. Irish producers have good links with international markets at present and are poised to develop them if they are given assistance to increase supply.
Also developing rapidly in Europe, America and the Far East are local food systems, most commonly seen in Europe in the form of box delivery systems. These involve a weekly delivery from a local producer or wholesaler of a fixed value food box. Sometimes these are solely vegetables and fruit but increasingly they include a wide range of basic foodstuffs and meat. Ireland should also be supporting the development of the organic processing sector. The demand for this sector appears to be growing much faster than the supply of goods to meet it. The European initiative ADAPT (adapting the work force to industrial transformation) is a program financed by the European Social Fund (ESF) and the EU-member states. In North Rhine-Westphalia this programme has been used to expand the organic wholesale and processing industries and to develop local box schemes.
Food quality and safety - perceptions and realities
Within the last few years there have been several food scares involving food born disease transmitted on raw foods which may (or may not) have been grown using manure. A recent publication, since discredited, in the USA, suggested that those who ate organic food were more likely than the average consumer to be infected by E-coli bacteria. Organic food, improperly handled or eaten unwashed is as likely as any other form of food to carry bacterial disease. However, organic farms using manure as fertiliser are less likely than conventional farms using the same manure to have elevated levels of these bacteria. This is because organic farming standards insist on the proper composting and maturing of manures before they are used as fertiliser, and expressly forbid their being used in their raw state or sprayed onto growing crops. Inspection procedures ensure that this is done properly and are being continually tightened. The standards of Organic Trust further specify post harvesting treatment of crops to ensure that health and safety standards are maintained at all times.
Because no synthetic fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides are used on organic farms, and because antibiotics are only used in emergencies and are then either removed from certification or, in the case of milk animals, withdrawn for at least twice the manufacturers safe period, there is no risk to health from these products either individually or interactively. It should be noted that whilst there have recently been recommendations to shift the basis of Irish winter livestock feeds from silage and hay to grain, based on cost analysis, recent research indicates that high levels of grain feed lead to a rapid increase in the number of harmful bacteria in cattle and may be a major factor in the now frequent outbreaks of e-coli157 associated with beef in the USA. For this reason Organic Trust will not be advising farmers to follow this route.
GMOs and organic farming.
The International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements defines world-wide organic farming standards. The IFOAM Basic Standards exclude all applications of genetic engineering on the basis of its inherent incompatibility with the principles and practice of organic agriculture. Section 1, "Basic Objectives of Organic Agriculture and Processing" states: "Genetic engineering focuses on the genetic makeup without taking into account the complete organism or system in which the organism functions. It is thus a contradiction to the above mentioned principal aims of organic agriculture."
The prohibition is made specific in the subsequent sections of the Standards. It applies not only to genetically engineered plants, animals, and micro-organisms, but also to products of genetically engineered organisms such as enzymes and amino acids. There is no provision for a case-by-case authorisation for specific products. IFOAM's current working definition of genetic engineering is: Genetic engineering refers to techniques from molecular or cell biology with which the genetic material of micro-organisms, plants, animals, cells, or other biological units may be altered, in particular recombinant-DNA. Products of all techniques determined to fall within the definition are prohibited at all stages of production, irrespective of whether they may be detected in the final product. Although the determination as to whether a particular technique falls within the definition should be based on "sound science," the prohibition itself derives from numerous factors not limited to science, including ethical and philosophical notions fundamental to the concept of organic agriculture. IFOAM employs the term "genetically engineered organism" (GEO) in English, but recognises it to be synonymous with the terms "genetically modified (or manipulated) organism" (GMO, or OGM in French). The term "biotechnology" is not covered by the definition, as it is considered to encompass traditional techniques of food processing such as brewing, as well as some modern biological techniques.
Representatives of the biotechnology industry have threatened the withdrawal of inward investment by the pharmaceutical industry if they are not allowed to continue genetic engineering in Ireland. These threats have no basis in the reality of the market place. International capital sites its businesses where the relevant skills are available, at the right price, in the right taxation environment. Should Ireland decide to pursue an environment in which its green image could be improved and exploited, working on other aspects of biotechnology such as the exploitation of soil mycorrhyza, the development of natural biological plant and animal disease control and other clean technologies there would be obvious benefits to the agropharmaceutical industry which has enormous interests in these areas as well. Such companies would see this environment as having large image and marketing benefits to themselves. There have been recent suggestions from the manufacturers of GMOs that natural bioremediation techniques are dependent on genetic engineering. In fact it should be pointed out that almost all the bacteria and other bioinocculants used for industrial and agricultural bioremediation are naturally occurring species isolated by empirical observation. Much of the initial work in this sector has been low budget experimentation carried out by NGOs in the environmental campaign sector and has only been taken up by the agropharmaceutical industry after initial commercial possibilities have been demonstrated. Furthermore, whilst the GE sector is very willing to claim that its products will solve world food and pollution problems it is noticeably unwilling to guarantee that it will pay the costs of problems arising from possible mistakes. At the recent Department of the Environment consultative process (June 1999) Patrick O'Reilly of Monsanto was asked by the panel whether GMOs would accelerate the trend towards extensive farming away from small farms. He stated that his products benefit the small farmer in that no new machinery is needed to use the products. Nonetheless Monsanto is currently giving low interest machinery loans to North American farmers so that they can implement the technology.
Current GE experiments being carried out in Ireland make the assumption that glyphosate (RoundUp) is environmentally benign. This assumption is now being widely challenged. A recent study appears to find a link between long term glyphosate use and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. In California glyphosate is the largest single cause of pesticide poisoning. Glyphosate-containing products are acutely toxic to animals, including humans. Symptoms include eye and skin irritation, cardiac depression, gastrointestinal pain, vomiting, and accumulation of excess fluid in the lungs. The surfactant used in a common glyphosate product (Roundup) is more acutely toxic than glyphosate itself; the combination of the two is yet more toxic. In animal studies, feeding of glyphosate for three months caused reduced weight gain, diarrhoea, and salivary gland lesions. Lifetime feeding of glyphosate caused excess growth and death of liver cells, cataracts and lens degeneration, and increases in the frequency of thyroid, pancreas, and liver tumours. Glyphosate-containing products have caused genetic damage in human blood cells, fruit flies, and onion cells. Glyphosate causes reduced sperm counts in male rats, a lengthened oestrus cycle in female rats, and an increase in foetal loss together with a decrease in birth weights in their offspring. It is striking that laboratory studies have identified adverse effects of glyphosate or glyphosate-containing products in all standard categories of toxicological testing. Poisoning in California was mainly due to spray drift rather than ingestion. Contrary to previous belief RoundUp is being found in increasing quantities in groundwater. Present risk assessment for GMOs is based on product by product assessments - not cognisance is taken of possible interactions between products. Some notable agronomic failures have occurred, perhaps most spectacularly the crop failure of thousands of acres of genetically modified (GM) cotton in Mississippi in 1997. Research publicised in 1998 by the University of Arkansas and Cyanamid appeared to show reduced profit levels and lower yields for GM soya and cotton compared with unmodified varieties. According to Cyanamid, trials on nearly 300 test sites across the US showed that high performing non-modified varieties produced yields up to 20% more than transgenic soya in 1997 Risk assessments on RoundUp and bacillus thuringiensis are based on residues on crops. No assessment has been made of them as expressed throughout the tissues of plants, with consequent modification to their structure.
A special cause of anxiety for organic farmers is the engineering of plants to express the toxin Bacillus thuringiensis throughout their structures. This organism has many different strains, each specific to a particular insect pest, and has been used as a safe natural pesticide by organic farmers for at least 70 years. This tool is useful only so long as insects have not generally grown resistant to the insecticide. Resistance appears in insect population when mutants of the insect population are selected by the presence of Bt in the environment. Genetic engineering may have greatly accelerated the spread of Bt resistance by putting Bt genes into crops such as potato, cotton and corn. The continued and elevated presence of Bt toxin in the crop environment is a powerful force for rapid selection of Bt resistance among the insect pests. In Ireland there are proposals to include this gene in oilseed rape. This seems to organic farmers to be particularly dangerous since oilseed rape has a very large number of wild and cultivated close relatives to which pollen, which has already been demonstrated to transmit the gene, can be transferred. Pollination is by bees which have a three mile foraging radius. Interestingly many US farming organisations are recommending that their members do not grow GM crops because of the possibility of poor markets for their products.
Employment on and off the farm
Ireland has 60,000 small farms, many of them part time holdings which are not viable without a second income. In terms of job production it should be noted that organic farming, which has had almost no investment from the state since its formal inception in Ireland in 1986 has in that time increased the number of jobs in the sector from less than 100 to an estimate of around 3,500. Had investments in research and farmer education, comparable to those in countries such as Denmark and Holland, been made at that date, it seems likely that Ireland would by now have a very large and thriving organic sector. This spring the Dutch organic sector welcomed its one thousandth symbol holder. It should be noted that the land area in organic production at this time was only just over 20,000 hectares. The area of an organic farm is not necessarily an indicator of viability.
The movement from the land that has been experienced in other agricultural sectors is also a problem for organic farmers, with seasonal labour in the horticulture sector a particular difficulty. More research is needed in order to extend the season by the use of a wider range of crops and crop protection, and to improve the mechanisation of farming techniques so that greater long term security of employment and more attractive working conditions can be offered to employees. Since such methods also lead to import substitution there is an obvious payback for investment in research.
Organic farmers are also more likely than other farmers to have come from outside the farming sector and to have skills that are marketable outside the sector. They have often come from a successful career elsewhere and can apply a flexible approach to their subject. Those who come from a traditional farming background are also usually particularly flexible. Organic farmers are far more likely than the farming sector in general to experiment with alternative farm enterprises in non-traditional areas. Percentages in farm tourism are slightly higher than amongst conventional farmers, percentages adding added value by processing or involved in direct marketing are much higher. Thus organic farmers can provide a successful model of initiative and enterprise for their more traditional neighbours. Applying, as has been suggested, a push/pull economic model, it can be seen that there is incentive for the whole family to stay on the organic farm to find employment with a wide range of skills needed in an attractive environment.
Conclusions
Irish organic farmers are not helped by a historic perception that organic farming is old fashioned, anti-scientific, leads to long term poverty and is only for hobby farmers. Not only are they highly efficient, highly productive farmers but they have always seen themselves as providing the only viable future for a small food based economy on an offshore island with high transport costs to world-wide markets, where there has to be a high value product for the industry to survive.
Ireland has steadily lost ground during the last decade to other European countries and will be more disadvantaged with the entry of the United States as a major player unless investment in the sector is made immediately. Carefully placed strategic inputs in education, support services and marketing for organic farming can provide new products and new outlets to help Ireland become increasingly competitive in a changing market place.