The Determinants of Agriculture the Future : natural, political (including social and economic) and scientific constraints. Timothy Hall

1. The Determinants of Agriculture the Future : natural, political
(including social and economic) and scientific constraints.
Gembloux , 18 November 2015
Timothy Hall
This talk will not attempt to be a definitive review of this very complex
topic, but will hopefully scratch the surface of a good number of the
factors which will affect mainly European agriculture over the next 35
years, and perhaps allude to potential ways of coping with them.
I shall start from the widely recognised premise that globally agricultural
production (both food and non-food) must continue to increase to cope
with the rising population while becoming more sustainable ie more
resource efficient, with a lower carbon footprint, and more agro-
ecological. However, while this will be difficult enough in itself, it has to
be achieved while adapting to a number of significant and developing
trends and changing contexts.
I am going to mention seven of these but there may be more :
1) The effects of climate change ie reduced water availability and higher
temperatures in many areas, and the increasing unpredictability of
weather patterns which can make it extremely difficult to plan for sowing
or harvesting, for example, and of course, could result in crop failure.
2) Loss of further good farming land to the urbanisation process and
even to photovoltaic arrays (solar farms), as well as soil degradation and
erosion.
3) The increasing demand for non-food biomass - whether this be for bio-
energy, fibre or raw materials for the chemical industry.
4) Scarcities (hence increased prices) of key inputs such as nutrients for
example phosphate, and water (agriculture uses about 70% of the
world’s available freshwater).
5) Serious societal concerns about the effects of farm management
practices on externalities such as contaminated water run-off, GHG
emissions and the need for mitigation, and the spread of pests and

2. pathogens, as well as further loss of biodiversity and remaining natural
and semi-natural habitats. There is also a societal expectation that
farming should also provide a wide range of ecological services.
6) The need to cater for increasingly health conscious and aware (as well
as ageing) consumers by adapting to demands for high quality, safe,
nutritious and ‘ethically’, often locally produced, food.
7) Rural depopulation and ageing of the farming communities,
particularly in remote areas.
In reality then, in order to have the capacity to increase food production,
and in parallel, non-food biomass, there is a need for progressive but
sustainable intensification or ecological intensification of agricultural
production. You have probably heard these terms being used more often
recently and you will hear more about the concept in the next
presentation ; briefly, in practice it means :
-avoiding unnecessary use of external inputs and making use of nutrient-
and water-use efficiency techniques,
- utilising crop varieties/livestock breeds able to achieve high productivity
from lower levels of inputs; current varieties have been bred to thrive
under high nutrition regimes and so often perform poorly when levels are
lower,
-harnessing agro-ecological processes, eg nutrient re-cycling, biological
N fixation, increasing soil organic matter, minimal tillage and integrated
pest management ,
- minimising use of technologies or practices which harm the
environment or human health,
-minimising the impact of farm management practices on externalities
such as GHG emissions, clean water availability, carbon sequestration,
biodiversity conservation and on the dispersal of pests , pathogens and
weeds,
-minimising pre- and post-harvest losses mostly due to pests and
diseases and general deterioration in store. When you realise that some
estimates put such losses as high as 40% (probably usually around 30 to

3. 35% ) on average you can see that the potential net gains in terms of
usable yield here could be significant.
A major constraint in tackling these interconnected points is insufficient
effective interdisciplinary R&D and, perhaps as important, poorly
functioning processes to ensure the dissemination and take up of
existing knowledge and technologies. I will highlight several areas where
there is insufficient usable knowledge where more concerted effort is
needed if we are to successfully achieve sustainable intensification :
- “sustainability” is a very vague, perhaps over-used term - we need to
understand what it means in different situations and be able to measure
and monitor it.
- looking more widely at alternative production systems eg agro-forestry,
mixed cropping, perennial cereal crops , aquaponics
- precision farming: some examples would be better forecasting
technologies for early detection of pests and disease outbreaks (and
this would also include advance warning of potential new or re-
emerging infectious diseases of animals occurring elsewhere in the
world by encouraging freer exchange of information), targeted
application of nutrients and other agrochemicals and water, careful
monitoring of physiological condition of livestock etc.
- plant and animal genomics to increase the genetic base of our crops
and livestock and broaden the number of crops cultivated. Currently
about two thirds of the world’s nutrition comes from 3 crops (rice,
wheat , maize). There are too many eggs in one basket ! There are
plenty of minor crops but little work has been done on them either to
allow them to adapt to other environmental conditions or to help
develop new markets. Another avenue worthy of exploration would be
to introduce perennial characteristics into our cereals for example.
- using more recycled municipal human waste in order to overcome
shortages and higher prices of the main plant nutrients; this would
require a more coordinated approach with the waste and water
treatment authorities.

4. - integrated pest management (all possible elements, biocontrol,
resistance, cultural practices and minimal highly targeted artificial
pesticides).
- local storage of water and water re-use and encouraging crops and
cropping systems which can make use of brackish water. For instance,
Quinoa species which are staples in parts of Latin America, and
becoming more popular here in a healthy nutrition context, are tolerant
of saline conditions and could be grown here.
- as well as encouraging soils to hold more water by increasing organic
matter content .
If all that can be achieved over the next 15 years, then we have gone
along to addressing many of the scientific and natural constraints to
increasing production sustainably over the next 35!
Let’s move on to look at the way policy changes could affect agriculture -
and I will do this by having a look at the recent past.
Firstly, I would like to touch on Food Security issues as drivers affecting
policy. Firstly the price spikes of the main food commodities in 2007/8
pushed food security up the political agenda such that in the EU a few
years later, the Commission budget for R&D on agriculture and food
production, in the Research and Innovation programme - H2020, was
approximately doubled (although this was subsequently watered down
for various reasons). Politicians tend to be afraid of food shortages and
major prices and tend to react when they occur: so there could easily be
a knee-jerk reaction when a similar such situation with a major staple
crop next occurs. In fact there is a even a high risk of conflict over food
(and water) shortages in the period up to 2050!
The recent reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) took place
during the period when food security was high on the agenda but it
clearly meant different things to different people. Some took it purely as
an argument to increase production regardless of the consequences,
while others took it to mean that long term security of food supply
required seriously taking environmental considerations and overall
sustainability into account. There were some who took it as
encouragement to facilitate free trade and to obtain food as cheaply as

5. possible from elsewhere. Others took an almost conflicting stance
focussing on self sufficiency. And a few concentrated on the potential of
the CAP to contribute to addressing some of the acute food security
problems in less developed countries.
Unfortunately the current CAP was used by farming interest groups to
simply hang on to as much EU public financial support for agriculture as
possible and focus on short term productivity. Attempts to strengthen the
environmental sustainability of European farming were resisted such that
the adopted scheme, which is still running,was significantly less than that
which the Commission had originally proposed.
This has been further borne out by the way MS have used the built-in
flexibility in the implementation of the current CAP. In the early analyses
greening measures chosen so far are likely to do less for the
environment than might have been hoped for.
For the future CAP beyond 2020 we might expect simplification given
that the current version is very complex although as said before it can be
interpreted flexibly by MS. It seems to be emerging in some circles that it
is not well adapted to any of its primary functions: farmers tend to think
that it has become burdened with trying to solve wider social issues
which are not the main responsibility of farming, and, therefore, not
focussing enough on food production (there is also some talk that it does
not adequately cover risk such as volatility in production and in the
markets), while environmental groups do not feel it is properly
addressing issues of long term sustainability. One outside possibility that
might evolve from this is that there will be two separate policies in future.
However society at large, may actually view the social and environmental
services that agriculture provides as at least as important as the
production itself - which would tend to favour another single common
agriculture policy but with stronger rural development and environmental
components . To me - a far more sensible option.
Perhaps by the time of the next reform, there will be more persuasive
evidence of the undesirable side effects of certain modern production
practices (which lead to soil erosion, depletion of soil organic matter,
excessive green house gas (GHG) emissions, polluting run-off , loss of
biodiversity and habitats for pollinators etc) and that there is real sense

6. in maximising greening measures if we are to guarantee long term
sustainability of food production.
There will also certainly be demands to re-look at subsidies to agriculture
and at the various international agreements which have tended to push
prices paid to European farmers downwards.
For social reasons (for instance, rural de-population) as well as
environmental and agricultural ones, there is also a need to ensure
adequate incentives to the farmers of marginal lands, hill farms and
those in remote regions so that they can provide more effective
environmental services such as carbon sequestration, water filtration and
storage as well as general landscape management and preservation of
remaining natural or semi-natural habitats. With a high risk of food
shortages in the future, it would be a disaster to have lost production
areas, such as the Massif Central in France, where, in locations which
are difficult to access, livestock are able to graze low grade biomass
which would otherwise be wasted since machinery is unlikely to be able
to harvest it economically, then process it into high quality food.
Other reinforcing factors for a stronger greening approach will be the
actions agreed at various G20 meetings which hopefully will lead to
stronger focus on agricultural development, more agricultural R&D, and
for example, a better international coordination of market information
(e.g. through the Agricultural Market Information System (AMIS)
initiative). Secondly, the new Sustainable Development Goals, the first
two of which concern poverty and nutrition - the concept of producing
adequate quantities of optimally nutritious food. And we must not forget
the forthcoming Climate Conference, COP21.
It is important to state that, unless greater self-sufficiency is sought, food
consumption in EU is unlikely to increase substantially given that only
modest population growth foreseen. Superimposed on this a gradually
increasing ageing population which eats less, and with a likely desire to
reduce sugar intake for health reasons as well as reducing reduce meat
consumption for both health and environmental reasons. In addition
there will be stronger campaigns to reduce food waste both in the
distribution chains and in the home, the aims of which may also be
assisted by increases in the cost of food.

7. However, in some regions of Europe, particularly the northern parts will
probably have more favourable conditions for production than some
other parts of Europe and elsewhere in the world once climate change
starts to bite more severely, and so should be looking to produce more
for export to areas where there is a growth in demand. In particular there
will be an increasing opportunity for selling meat in emerging Asian
economies as these countries become richer.
With all this is in mind and given that the EU is not self-sufficient in food
– it currently has net imports equivalent to production from land area
greater than Germany – there are a number of choices to be made
regarding the balance of food production, non-food production and the
environmental benefits of wild and semi-wild habitats. In this context, I
should remind you of increasing potential demands for non-food biomass
(for burning directly, for conversion to biofuel, for fibre and as raw
material for the chemical industry) from agricultural land.
With this state of non-self sufficiency, do we have sufficient security of
supply? Obviously we could survive on probably 30% less than many of
us consume now but are we adequately protected in Europe against
global shortages of particular commodities? For example what would
happen if we could no longer import soy meal to feed a substantial
number of the livestock in Europe?
We could try to replace at least some of the imported soy bean protein
with home-grown legumes, provided there are better varieties giving
more reliable and more significant economic yields, however, farmers
need to be convinced about the immediate economic viability and the
long term importance of using legumes more in rotations. If we increase
grain legumes will this result in less cereal production (which we then
have to import to make up any deficit), or reduce the opportunities for
growing specialised non-food biomass?
Alternatively, we could make more efficient use of feed-stuffs by
producing less beef and pork fed with grain and concentrates and farm
more poultry or fish - in fact, consumers are already eating more poultry
at the expense of red meat. You will probably have heard that it takes 7
kg of dry feed to produce 1 kg of beef , 5 for 1 of pork,- very inefficient
when compared to chicken where it is 2 for 1 and around 1 for 1 for

8. aqua-cultured fish. Aquaculture would seem a sensible way to go but we
do not currently have enough plant-based Omega 3 fatty acid which the
fish need to grow properly and we certainly do not have enough fish
meal to expand production significantly. More progress in plant breeding
breeding programmes is clearly necessary in this respect.
All this is clearly related to what we really need for nutritional purposes
and choices people could make concerning the origin of their food, the
proportion of their disposable income they may wish to spend on food,
the amount they waste and the balance of their diet with respect to
animal protein, such as the proportion of red meat consumption,
introducing insect protein, and even artificial meat grown from stem cells
in bio-reactors.
Farming will have to adapt to all these aspects.
I would like to give a few examples of how other political situations or policy
matters could affect agriculture in the future .
In many European countries there has been a decline in the financial value of
agricultural production to the overall national economy. Only about 1.8 % of
GDP overall in EU with 0.7% in the UK and Belgium, 2.8% in NL, 1.9% in
France. This has encouraged national governments to give agriculture a low
priority particularly in times of economic difficulties, and then to take short
term decisions such as reducing core-funding for research and innovation,
which makes taking long-term approaches very difficult, swell as cutting
extension services.
Equally difficult can be one-off political decisions which result from
international disagreements - an obvious case is the sudden closure of the
Russian markets to European farmers - a situation which has exacerbated the
low milk price problems of dairy farmers. It is not difficult to imagine other
similar situations developing in the future which farming will have to cope with
at very short notice.
Also, given that the EU plays a more modest role in international agri-food
trade than it did before, any remaining trade distortions due to its Common
Agricultural Policy now have a smaller impact on world markets than they
would have done before. A corollary is that the agricultural policies of other

9. countries, and particularly the developing countries which now play a larger
role in both exports and imports, now have a greater impact on the level and
stability of world market prices than was the case previously.
Another consequence is that the EU’s ability to use the size of its import
market to set standards for international agricultural trade, for example,
with respect to genetically-modified crops or environmental sustainability,
is diminished, as exporters become less and less reliant on the EU
market. The EU also becomes less interesting over time as a partner in
mega-regional trade agreements, a factor which has probably
contributed to the US giving priority to finalising the TPP with Asia ,
rather than the TTIP negotiations with Europe.
I don't want to say much about the TTIP , if it gets signed, but it will
probably have the effect of boosting some food exports and will help to
strengthen the recognition of Geographical Indications as well as
potentiallly reducing the risk from introduced animal and plant health
problems, but, conversely, full liberalisation may also adversely affect
prices for some EU agricultural products.
We need to be very careful that our political objectives to reduce GHG
emissions do not create unfortunate side effects for agriculture. Short term
price advantages because of low food prices could take prime agricultural land
out of food production and into non-food biomass. Burning of specifically
grown biomass from short rotation forestry on more marginal land and the
collection and burning of waste straw etc in power stations may have some
local justification but great care has to be taken that this does not prejudice
food production and further deplete organic matter in soils. Efficient non-fuel
biomass utilisation will certainly increase in importance as fossil oil becomes
scarcer and hence more expensive. At present most biomass is used for direct
burning or for conversion to liquid bio-fuel. But as bio-refining technology
improves, the value of biomass as feed-stocks for the chemical industry will
increase significantly, making it extravagant to burn it. The future high demand
for non-food biomass will change agriculture and forestry, bringing in more
marginal land, as well as competing with food-growing. There may, however,
be win-win situations where crops can satisfy both food and non-food goals:
for instance, work is being done in the Netherlands on sugar beet where after

10. extraction of the sugar, the residual pulp could be treated to produce valuable
bi-products such as pure cellulose and building blocks for bio-based plastics.
I have referred to “societal choices” concerning food but others involve
keeping options open to include new technologies in farming such as
genetic modification where appropriate. Society appreciates and benefits
from our current rural environments but is generally reluctant to pay for them.
There is also a tendency to forget that farming and its landscapes are artificial,
requiring the use of man-made crop varieties and livestock breeds in highly
modified natural environments. An effort to increase the public’s
understanding of agricultural production and the difficulties faced by farmers
may help to overcome its apparent reluctance to accept new technologies and
to ensure that farmers are paid adequately for their produce as well as
compensated for any ecological services provided. This in turn may help to
make farming more attractive to the younger generation thereby stabilising a
progressively serious trend of a declining farming population with an increasing
average age.
Other societal choices will have to be made concerning public funding:
for example, on improving the way new knowledge and technologies
get to the farmer, particularly those which have a wider environmental
or health impact - reintroducing or bolstering some form of publicly
funded advisory and extension system may be the best way forward but
the farming organisations could also do more to encourage more well-
located, regional demonstration farms and pilot actions. For example
choices could be made at local level to use rural development funds
(and possibly structural funds) more effectively to support such
activities and facilities.
To conclude:
Above all else, agriculture in the future will need to be more
resilient and more innovative to cope with the various factors and
constraints mentioned: to do this it will need to increase diversity in
its types of farms and its production systems, its range of crops and
the genetic make-up of crop varieties and livestock breeds.