Præsentation i Bruxelles marts 2017 (på engelsk)

I forlængelse af mit besøg i Bruxelles, beskrevet her på bloggen, fulgte en invitation fra en politisk tænketank, om at flyve ned og fremlægge mine tanker om:

Reduktion af CO2-udledninger i landbruget - udfordringer i og muligheder for at opnå nul-udledning i 2050.

Selve præsentationen var ganske kort, men hele seancen med spørgsmål og svar varede 4 timer. Forberedelsen var omfattende og inkluderede at sætte mig grundigt ind i videnskaben bag Paris-aftalen, EUs klimamål, relevante politiske initiativer og det juridiske hieraki mellem FN, EU, medlemsstater og frihandelsaftaler.

Når man gør sig fortrolig med hvilke forandringer vi står overfor, er det

stærkt bekymrende hvor lidt den grønne omstilling og klima-forandringerne fylder i vores samfundsdebat.

Uanset hvor sent vi kommer igang, er der i mine øjne ingen tvivl om at landbruget kommer til at spille en nøglerolle i hvordan vi 'indstiller' os på de forandringer, som klimaet vil påtvinge os i de kommende år.

Herunder følger en let redigeret udgave af de tanker jeg fremlagde.

Decarbonising the agricultural sector - challenges and opportunities of achieving net zero emissions by 2050.

A few introductory remarks:

An initial point of consideration is the words we use when addressing this issue. The language of Climate change and climate change mitigation, be it political or scientific, is in it self a contested arena. Decarbonising the agricultural sector and net zero emissions could - and depending on how fastidious one might chose to weigh the words, perhaps should be interpreted as two seperate targets.

Ambiguities in language, science and policy are deeply embedded in this topic, and will be used strategically by the stakeholders. Conversely proper language-use is at the heart of this matter in many direct and indirect ways.

This also ties in with one of the central conondrums of reducing emmissions: how to monitor, measure, report and verify the effects of climate change mitigation.

I will begin by sharing with you my assessment of how some of the main stakeholders view the unfolding political process regarding the climate-issue, particularly in the context of the upcoming CAP-reform, leaving out for now how it relates to other policy-areas, such as LULUCF, FreeTradeAgreements and the Effort Sharing Regulation proposal.

Then I will try to answer the questions: What can be done and What should be done - and if time permits lastly a more private afterthought.

First the main stakeholders.

Let us begin with the farmers. Obviously the farmers across Europe have a vast set of different attitudes, capabilities and worries, mostly, in my experience, dealing with local or member-state-related agro-policies; and at present there is very little at the farm level, indicating  an impending change - I would say on the contrary, even if currently Poland, Germany and Holland are in the process of tightening their environmental regulations, this does not register as a climate-issue and in general the climate, with a capital C, is absent in the public farm-discourse.

This however belies the priority and political activity of the representatives acting on behalf of the farmers and the farming industry.

They are, to use an expression I heard recently, in full battle-mode. They seek to influence the development at every political level and their main prerogative is to mitigate climate-related reduction-measures.

And judging from the impressions I have gathered just recently here in Brussels, they seem very complacent. They believe that A) any climate-related regulation will be met with full economic compensation, and B) that we may possibly enter a new subsidy-paradigm, where farmers or landowners are paid for so called climate-services - and C) that whatever the outcome, they are convinced that the commission and commissioner is on their team.

Among other signs, I do believe Hogan's recent press-conference about growing exports and jobcreation in the agricultural sector lends credibility to this conviction.

In other words in stead of facing diminishing subsidies from the CAP, the farming lobby envision a new and potentially larger economic support system within the climate change mitigation framework. 

The lack of awareness at farmlevel could be interpreted as both a challenge and an opportunity, whereas the productivist outlook of their representatives tends to challenge the possibility of gaining momentum for decarbonising the sector.

Secondly: The Commission.

As I have just stated I sense an allignment between the Agro-industry and the present commission.

Perhaps more pertinent in assessing the Commissions role, is the emphasis that every tool to achieve a reduction in emmissions, must percolate through the ubiquitous term: cost-effectiveness. Here the arguments tend to revolve around economic models rather than climate-models, and often leaves out important externalities.

The mindset behind the emmission-trading-system and the proposed effort sharing regulation reflects this. This is a big challenge.

The Parliament.  Being situated in Copenhagen, the political mood of the parliament is very hard to assess and I have only a scant understanding of the political realities here - and it is diffucult to assess which priorities may prevail - but I would like to think there is an even balance of opportunities and challenges among the MEPs regarding these policy-targets.

Fourth and lastly: The scientists, who will play a central role in developing the concepts we will use to address the transistion, as well as how we monitor the emissions and in promoting the technology-based solutions, which will be in demand in a cost-effective climate.

In my view the role of Science is often overlooked or underplayed in the policy-papers. Reports tend to be short and poignant, which makes them enjoyable to read - but I believe there is a growing need to distinguish between scientific reports, models and concepts tailormade for specific political purposes and research which can be assumed to be more evenly balanced.  

This of course requires quite a lot of work and the ability to assess both the conditions for the research as well as the applied methodology and theory.

But it helps to to be aware of the likelihood, that science- and evidencebased solutions emanating from the big public research institutions will be designed according to the political realities, which, if viewed from Brussels, prioritizes rebooting economic growth. 

At any rate currently, as far as I understand, the most influential of the EU-scientific stakeholders all agree that there is insufficient knowledge to reccomend any specific policies/implementations, 'further research must be conducted', as is often stated. In a Danish contexts it is safe to presume that this obstensibly prudent precausion is part of a deliberate political delay or unwillingness to act on what we already know.

Basing my very tentative analysis on what has been presented,  it is a plausible outcome, that we will achieve very little politically in terms of decarbonising the agro-sector in the next CAP-cycle. More challenges than opportunities present themselves within the CAP-framework.

So..

What Can be done?

Reviewing the scienctific input, disseminating facts about the consequences of the policies proposed and help suggest tools or short-term frameworks for validating how we measure and curb emmissions.

In an increasinlgly unstable political landscape, raising the climate-issue and the urgency of a collective effort to the forefront of our priorities - across all sectors in the societies - is a key challenge.  

At this point in time, I am a staunch believer in short-term frameworks, building into the policy-deadlines more binding short-term targets.  Small steps will get the momentum going, less focus on the ambitious goals, but a more rapid response to the challenges of beginning the transition - and a concrete and realistic time-schedule - which hopefully has a greater chance of being implemented at member-state level.  

Whatever the political landscape, one can and should support publicity on these matters, for instance highlighting the so-called externalities: the real costs and emmissions attaining to our diet or the use of synthetic chemicals in foodproduction - all the while hopefully gaining momentum for a larger public debate on both climate change and the legitimacy - in the broadest sense of the word, of the way we produce food in Europe.

What Should be done?

First of all I agree with the approach also put forward, that the EU needs to address the specificity of the challenges and discard the idea that one common solution fits all. One way or another the memberstates must come to acknowledge this and act accordingly, so that we can create a climate-policy, be it within the CAP or imposed from outside, that supports mitigation and adaptation in the context of the local conditions.

However sensible such an approach is, it seems unlikely that the memberstates have sufficient trust in each other or a national political incentiv for this to be a realistic way forward. 

A Danish example. Because of the intensity of milk- and pigproduction in Denmark, we have during an extended period developed and experimented with a wide range of environmental protection-tools, and the most efficient, both in terms of effect and cost, the scientists agree, is creating a belt or zone of fallow land along the waterways, with the added bonus of public access along the pretiest parts of the landscape.

The arguments against this, depending on the audience, is that this would decrease the economic support, decrease the landvalue, infringe on private property, decrease production-output leaving it for less climate-friendly producers to fill the gap. And each of these arguments are valid within their own logic, so if Brussels wants to be serious about promoting a more resilient and sustainable sector via the CAP, a new supportparadigm is needed, to shift focus from volume to other forms of value.  

One way to achieve an agricultural production-set up with less focus on quantative output and more focus on the multifunctional aspects of land-use, is supporting smaller, more resilient and agile producers. In other words business-models based on shifting market-conditions and the ability to incorporate other types of public services.

Similar ideas float around in DG-Agri, in the research-communities and are promoted by groups in the Parliament, but at the moment a priority is given to the Council's idea of sustainable intensification - which links to another very important aspect, I would like to mention as a concluding remark:

In my view it is of paramount importance to make an effort to prevent legislation or deregulation which would further landownership being an object of investment and speculation - which would then likely be accompanied by a path-dependency towards industrial foodproduction.

I am especially worried about these new ideas of embedding loan-based financial instruments in pillar 2.

A sector in debt to banks or governed by investors would indeed be challenging to negotiate the climate-issue with, no matter what the political realities may be. 

Thank you for your attention.