European Agricultural Research in the 21st Century: Which Innovations Will Contribute Most to the Quality of Life, Food and Agriculture?

316 Pages·1998·42.62 MB·English

by  Guy Paillotin

THE NEW INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC CONTEXT FOR
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
JOACHIM VON BRAUN
Christian Albrecht University
0/shausenstrasse, 40
D-24098 Kiel, Germany
When a person celebrates his or her 50th birthday, reflections tend to be directed toward the
past five decades. When an organisation celebrates its 50th anniversary, by reflecting on the future and
its potential role in shaping the future, it is a sign of vitality. I commend INRA for taking on this difficult
task. I congratulate INRA on its birthday and wish it success in the 21st century for the benefit of
consumers and producers of food and agricultural goods in France, Europe and beyond.
THE NEW INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC CONTEXT
This conference started with reflections on the international economic context which shapes the
challenges, adjustment needs, and opportunities for European agricultural research in the coming
century. However, there are not just one-way relationships between the economic context and
agricultural research. There are also powerful linkages between agricultural research and the long-term
international economic context.
What do we mean by "the new international economic context"?
We mean the new institutional, market and price environment that provides new chances and
challenges for agriculture, the food industries, and consumers. Its key components are: the steps toward
a more liberal international trade regime under GATT/WTO and the related agricultural policy changes
in EU and other OECD countries; the redirection of former planned economies toward market
orientation in Central and Eastern Europe, China and elsewhere; the formation of regional trade and
integration zones or their expansion, such as the EU's eastward expansion, NAFTA, APEC etc.
GLOBALISATION AND THE FOOD SITUATION
Regarding globalization of the world economy, we must note that many countries are left out
and much happens in regional trading blocks. Regional trading blocks are being rapidly formed or
consolidated, and are stimulating regional integration in trade and knowledge transfers within them. It
will be an issue of global governance whether further globalization of the economic system or whether
5
G. Paillotin (ed.), European Agricultural Research in the 21st Century
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998
confrontation and conflict will grow out of the regional trade blocks. Regional integration may take the
lead for some decades to come before global policy co-ordination can make much further progress. Still,
global policy co-ordination is needed in a number of areas related to natural resources and agriculture;
the 1992 Earth Summit and the 1996 Food Summit have achieved substantial progress. Agricultural
research systems within regional integration blocks will grow into larger clusters and can exploit
positive economies of scale wherever they exist. There is a need for transnational co-operation within
regional formations such as the European Union. In the long term, agricultural research systems will not
only provide public goods but will increasingly be called upon to provide services to the private sector.
It follows that in a more globalized world economy, agricultural research systems will be exposed to
increased competition as well.
The economic context in which the future of the world food and agriculture system is going to
be placed will be determined by the extent to which poverty will be reduced. It is the buying power and
nutritional well-being of today's poor and their children which will determine the challenges and
opportunities of agriculture and the food system of the future. If the rich get richer, agriculture will not
be confronted with much added market demand. There may be a bit more demand for higher service
content in foods and for more landscape in our regions.
In crude economic terms, the hunger and malnutrition problem is probably one of the largest,
world-wide wastes of potential 'economic resources' - the lives of billions of potentially productive
people now and over the coming decades - and is probably the biggest failure of market functioning yet
to be overcome. Any consideration of the economic context of food and agricultural research in the 21st
century must therefore also take this fact into account and address the related issues. The size of the
problem has been well publicised by the recent World Food Summit (FAO 1996).
In a world increasingly integrated through trade and politico-economic ties among nations, the
availability of sufficient food throughout the world is of increasing importance for household food
security and nutrition. Thus far, world production has kept pace with population growth. However,
because of continuing population growth, increasing land scarcity, and mounting difficulties in achieving
sustainable increases in food-crop yields, global food availability cannot be taken for granted over the
long run. In view of low food storage levels in the 1990s, the world food situation may remain quite
unstable for some time. The private sector will not invest in storage to the extent industrial countries did
before the recent GATTIWTO agreements. How will food and agricultural policy react to fluctuating
and possibly higher world prices? How will supply respond to prices in the short and in the long run?
Apparently, at least in the short run, we recognise that the policy response is very different by regions.
The USA responded to increased world prices with new legislation called "freedom for farming", which
entailed reduced production regulations and set aside programmes, furthermore export opportunities
were seized. On the other hand in the EU, policies continued to hamper transmission of international
price changes to the domestic market. If sustained in the long run, these policies will be inefficient, will
not be fair to low-income countries and will not be coherent with development policy. In an integrated
international food system, first world agriculture and food policies have to pay ever more attention to
the de-stabilisation effects of their actions.
The prospects for meeting future food needs will depend on both the supply and the demand
for food, and are likely to vary enormously by region. Most projections agree that food trade from
6
today's main exporters, that is North America and Europe, will increase further in the coming decades
(Alexandratos, 1995). Some developing countries will be reasonably well placed to manage their food
needs, but the outlook is very worrisome for Africa and South Asia.
Population growth in Africa will outstrip growth in food production for a long time to come
unless much more is done to accelerate agricultural growth. It is extremely unlikely that the region will
have the necessary foreign exchange to import large amounts of food. The real prices of Africa's
traditional export crops are low and declining, whereas the non-agricultural sector is tiny and will take a
long time to expand sufficiently to generate enough foreign exchange to purchase the necessary food. It
is equally unlikely that African governments will be able to count on enough food aid to make up the
difference. World cereal food aid quantities declined 50% between 1993 and 1996. If current trends
continue, it is estimated that by the year 2020, Africa will have an annual market demand for cereals of
158 million tons, and regional production of 132 million tons (Rosegrant et.al., 1995). However, many
of the needy will be priced out of the market. All indicators concur that poverty, malnutrition, and
hunger will increase rapidly in Africa in the coming years, unless serious action is taken to avoid them.
This in tum will accelerate the further degradation of vital natural resources, and threaten the
sustainability of any production increases that are achieved.
Essentially, all estimates concur that South Asia, and particularly India and Bangladesh, holds
the largest proportion of the developing world's underweight children. Whi1e in terms of food outlooks,
although not as badly off as Africa today, there are disquieting trends in Asia. Yields are increasing at a
slower rate than they did in the past three decades. Growth in the rice yields, for instance, has slowed
from an annual rate of 3% in the late 1970s and early 1980s to less than 2% during the 1980s. China's
food policy will largely determine the future of world food markets. An expansion of import demand is
almost certain, but by how much? Discussions often focus on the supply side, which is indeed quite a
constraint. Demand so far follows in the tracks of other cast Asian countries, and this mean rapid rise in
the consumption of animal products. A cereals import demand of 60 to 100 million tons per annum by
2020 does not seem unlikely according to accumulating comprehensive analyses.
Developments in Central and Eastern Europe are particularly important to Europe. Due to
malfunctioning markets, lack of safety nets, and underemployment, the early 1990s have seen a
substantial increase in the food-insecure population groups of some economies in transition. The
significance of access to land for household food security increased. In Russia, for instance, 25 million
households derive much of their staple foods from garden plots. The income earned in cash and kind
from the household plots is, for instance, about 26% in western Russia and the contribution to
household calories is large (von Braun et al., 1996). Rapid changes and adjustments are still taking
place in transforming market and pricing systems, in the system of subsidies to output and input markets
and the credit market, and in the process of privatisation and other structural reforms. As part of the still
greater economic changes taking place in the former planned economics of Central and Eastern Europe,
these transformations may have extensive ramifications for international food markets. Will Russia, for
instance, continue to be a major net importer of food commodities, a marginal exporter, or even a
significant exporter of food? When authority was shifted to the regional level, the increased
segmentation of food and agricultural policy made it unlikely that trade opportunities would be
exploited rapidly. Furthermore the state of infrastructure and friction in the marketing system are not
conducive to trade. It seems likely that the large metropolitan areas, such as Moscow and St.
Petersburg, will become increasingly dependent on food imports instead of stimulating faster
7
development of domestic food industries. These import demands will be partly for high-quality foods for
a society characterised by an increasingly skewed distribution of income and a higher demand for
"convenient" foods that take little time to prepare. Russian agriculture will probably remain "in
transition" for a long time.
SELECTED KEY AREAS OF POLICY ATTENTION
The discussion of policy for improving nutrition must not be limited to direct food- and
agriculture-related policies. Non-agricultural and economy-wide policies such as industrial protection
and fiscal policies are highly relevant to food and agricultural prices, income, and the employment of the
poor, and thus also for food security over the short term and long term (Krueger, Schiff and Valdes,
1988). Long-term effects of alternative development strategies for poverty reduction and growth have
shown the striking relevance of the choice of economic strategy.
Appropriate technological innovations in agriculture reduce unit costs of production and
marketing, and induce economic gains by stimulating agricultural growth, improving employment
opportunities, and expanding for supplies, all of which involve and benefit poor producers and
consumers, and help to reduce food insecurity. National and international agricultural and research
systems, in particular, are the forces driving the technological innovation required to achieve the
sustainable agricultural growth that will make the needed food available to the world's growing
population (Pinstrup-Andersen, 1994). Renewed actions are needed to accelerate technological
innovation in many smallholder-dominated regions of the world in order to meet the nutritional goals
directly and indirectly.
Commercialisation and market integration of agriculture in low income countries contributes to
improving food security and the poor benefit from the increased income and employment generated by
such activities. Gains in real income from commercialisation typically translate into gains in food
consumption and nutritional welfare (von Braun and Kennedy, 1994). Those affected can acquire more
food, reduce their workloads and thus improve child care, enhance their household sanitation and
housing environments so reduce their exposure to infectious diseases, and strengthen the effective
demand for both preventive and curative health care. Smallholders often strive to maintain subsistence
food production along with new commercial production, despite higher returns to land and labour from
cash crops. The poor are forced to adopt this strategy, more than anyone else. Given their risky
economic environments and the lack of insurance markets, maintaining their own food supplies may be a
sound economic strategy. Agricultural policy can effectively support it by promoting technological
change in the production of subsistence foods. This also provides further latitude for specialisation at
the farm level, and thereby permits smallholders to derive further gains from market integration.
In urban areas, household food security is primarily a function of the real wage rate (i.e. the
rate relative to food prices) and of the level of employment. The prevalence of food deficiency tends to
be lower in urban areas than in rural areas. But the miserable sanitation environment in poor urban
locations and certain aspects of urban lifestyles sometimes make the urban nutritional situation
qualitatively worse than in the rural situation. Urban food insecurity and malnutrition will become an
increasingly important problem in the future, as both rates of urbanisation and problems with urban
8
sanitation, diet quality and food safety grow. By the year 2025, 57% of Mrica's population may be
urban, as opposed to only 34% in 1990.
The problem of undernutrition is paralleled by extensive and growing public-health problems
with overweight and obesity, especially in urban areas, not only in rich countries, but also low- and
middle-income countries. Agricultural research systems will have to move closer to the consumption
and nutritional issues in the future to address these complex matters of nutritional well being. Food
industries serving low income consumers in the mega-cities of developing countries in the future must
be seen as partners of agricultural and food research systems.
IMPORTANCE OF FOOD RELATED PARADIGMS
In the long run the context of food and agriculture will be determined largely by how we think
about the relationships shaping nutritional well being and how society values nutritional welfare.
Actually, the food and nutrition problem may be viewed from three different perspectives, representing
three different paradigms: first, as a basic human right, second, as a symptom of broader poverty and
development problems and, third, as a cause of these poverty and development problems.
Human Right
Considering nutritional well-being to be a basic human right of every individual means that, in
principle, there can be no compromise. The World Food Conference re-confirmed the right to food as a
basic human right, which had already been mentioned in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of
the United Nations in 1948. Although states continue to endorse the right to food, they have not
translated it into law or developed national or international mechanisms to supervise its implementation.
This does not imply that the stated human right is meaningless. The consensus and its codification
provide a foundation for advocacy and political pressure in the countries which signed the related
declarations. Establishing new rights may have an important effect in the long run. But in this case
rhetoric and reality are still far appart.
Symptom of poverty
Considering malnutrition to be a symptom of poverty and development problems (i.e. an
outcome) suggests that food availability and access (being mainly functions of structural conditions and
changes in income, agriculture, and trade) interact with health, the sanitation environment, human
behaviour and knowledge in giving rise to nutritional outcomes. Policy is then called upon to rectify
constraints in any of these domains. This is the most accepted view. While food availability may be a
problem for many people when availability declines and prices rise, the problem assumes crisis
proportions mostly for the poor. This is why food availability needs to be evaluated within the context
of poverty when availability problems tum into access problems (e.g. when prices rise), be it at the
national or household level.
9
Precondition of Development
Taking the third view that nutritional well-being is a pre-condition for development argues that
lack of productivity (in a broad sense) is a result of malnutrition. The nutritional well-being of the poor
is thus not merely an outcome of development, but a pre-condition for it. The linkages between the two
are of both a direct, short-term nature and an indirect, long-term one, whereby the latter also relates
closely to population growth. Improved nutrition leads to higher physical productivity and higher
economic productivity in the labour market. The policy implications are clearly radical and argue for a
strong emphasis on 'nutrition first'. Clearly, there are strong positive relationships between improved
nutrition and economic development (Fogel, 1994).
The position proposed here is to accept each of the three views (human right, symptom of
poverty, precondition of development) and, in that context, give more emphasis to the generally under
valued third perspective, "food as the precondition to development view".
CONCLUSION
The new international economic context of agriculture is revealed by new trade opportunities,
increased economic differences between world regions, and new emerging legal and policy conditions
for agriculture and natural resources. Further globalization in trade and knowledge exchange puts
agriculture production and scientific systems to test with respect to their national and regional
comparative advantage.
Food and agricultural policy must give due consideration to a long-term perspective for a
world without hunger, for dynamic development of the world's rural areas, and for high quality and safe
food. The long-term challenges in world food and agriculture, and the acute food problems of the poor,
must be addressed simultaneously. Europe has a large responsibility in that respect. Coherence between
agricultural policy and development policy has not yet been achieved.
The changing diets in high income and in rapidly developing countries increase demand for a
broad range of food choices. Increasing market segmentation in response to demand requires renewed
attention to demand, and rapid urbanisation calls for consideration of efficient rural-urban linkages and
co-operation between food industry and research systems.
Agriculture is increasingly constrained by land scarcity and endangered natural resources, and
the improved recognition of the real value of these resources (soils, water, genetic resources).
Appropriately dealing with the long-term challenges of agricultural demand and the resource constraints
requires constant innovation of technologies and institutions. Rapid changes in technology, both
biological and informational, present new opportunities for agricultural production, processing, and
marketing in the 21st century.
However, agricultural research must not just take a position of passive response to changes in
the international context. Research can and has to act as an active force of change: the innovations
growing out of it will shape the future of peoples' well-being. European agricultural research systems
10
need to respond by forming effective alliances in Europe and internationally, and by searching new links
with public and private research. In any case, the accumulated scientific abilities and know-how in
European agricultural research systems are an asset that must be made available to meet European,
global, and low-income countries' food and agricultural challenges.
SELECTED REFERENCES
AlEXANDRATOS N.ed, 1995. World Agriculture: Towards 2010. An FAO Study. Baltimore, Md., and
London: Johns Hopkins University Press, for the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations.
VON BRAUN J. ed. 1995. Employment for poverty reduction and food security. Washington, D.C.
VON BRAUN J., and KENNEDY E., eds. 1994. Agricultural commercialization, economic development,
and nutrition. Baltimore, Md., and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.
VON BRAUN J., SEROVA E., THO SEEIH H., and MELYUKHINA 0.1996. Russia's food economy in
transition: Current policy issues and long-term consumption and production perspectives.
Discussion Paper. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute.
FOGEL R. W. 1994. Economic growth, population theory, and physiology: The bearing of long-term
processes on the making of economic policy. The American Economic Review 84 (3): 369-
395.
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS (FAO), 1996. Technical background
documents, World Food Summit, Rome,.p. 1-5.
IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute). 1995. A 2020 Vision for food, agriculture, and
the environment. Washington D.C., International Food Policy Research Institute.
INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FuND, World Economic Outlook-A Survey by the Staff, World Economic
and Financial Surveys, Washington, D.C., May 1995.
INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FuND, World Economic Outlook-A Survey by the Staff, World Economic
and Financial Surveys, Washington, D.C., October 1995.
KRUEGER A 0., SCHIFF M. W., and VA IDEs A 1988. Agricultural incentives in developing countries:
Measuring the effect of sectoral and economy-wide policies. The World Bank Economic
Review 2 (September): 255-271.
MCRAE H., 1994, The World in 2020 -Power, Culture and Prosperity: a vision of the future. Harper
Collins Publishers.
ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (0ECD),l996. Globalization and
Linkages to 2020: Challenges and Opportunities for OECD Countries, OECD Working
Papers, VoliV, No.76, Paris 1996.
ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (OECD), Science, Technology and
Industry Outlook, Paris, 1996.
PINSTRUP-ANDERSEN P. 1994. World food trends and future food security. Food Policy Report.
Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute.
QURESm Z., 1996. Global Capital Supply and Demand - Is There Enough to Go Around ? The
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development I The World Bank, Washington,
D.C.,.
11
ROSEGRANT M. W., AGCAOIU-SOMBllLA M., and PEREZ N. D. 1995. Global Food Projections to
2020: Implications for Investment. Food, Agriculture, and the Environment Discussion Paper
5. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute.
THE WORlD BANK, 1996. Global Economic Prospects and the Developing Countries, The World Bank
Book, Washington, D.C. .
WORlD TRADE ORGANIZATION, 1995. International Trade - Trends and Statistics (prepared by the
Economic Research and Analysis Division and the Statistics and lnfonnation Systems
Division).
12
TRENDS IN FOOD CONSUMPTION IN THE EUROPEAN
UNION: TOWARDS A EURO DIET?1
BRUCE TRAILL
Centre for Food Economics Research (CeFER)
Department of Agricultural and Food Economics
The University of Reading
Reading RG6 6AR, UK
ABSTRACT
Economics, demographics, life styles and consumer attitudes to food are all tending to
converge within Europe and beyond. The extent to which this process progresses has important
implications for the strategies of firms and for the organisation and management of food systems
throughout Europe. It is also important for the orientation of agricultural and food research
programmes in individual countries and the EU. This paper explores some of the issues and reviews
some of the recent literature and evidence on convergence. Clearly food consumption patterns have
become more similar across countries, but some big questions remain unanswered: how far will the
process go and how quickly? It is suggested that rather than look at countries in aggregate, it would be
better to consider segments of consumers with similar consumption behaviour and ask to what extent
such segments will cross national borders and to what extent the size of the segments will converge
across countries.
INTRODUCTION
The intention of this short paper is to consider whether food consumption patterns in Europe
are converging and what might be the final state of any convergence process. More detail of some of the
forces for change will be covered in the other papers in this session.
The issue of convergence is of evident importance to providers of goods and services: the more
alike markets are, the more alike can be the marketing mix which firms use to target those markets; no
need for costly product modifications to satisfy local tastes; no need to develop different
advertising/promotion strategies; no need to develop products suitable both for the comer shop and the
hypermarket; and no need to price differently in each market to reflect consumers' perception of the
positioning of the product in the luxury/basic spectrum. Stated like this, the benefits to firms of
convergence appear unequivocal, but it should be born in mind that differing demand characteristics (as
1. This paper is being printed witb tbe permission of tbe European Review of Agricultural Economics
14
G. Paillotin (ed.), European Agricultural Research in the 21st Century
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998
well as the ability to separate markets) is a precondition for price discrimination, so firms with market
power in a number of markets may prefer that demand does not converge and that markets remain
separated.
EVIDENCE FOR CONVERGENCE
Connor (1991, 1994) argues that Europe is moving towards the US in food consumption. In
the earlier article (an NC-194 working paper: Connor 1991 p2) he states his belief that 'all consumers
are basically alike' in the sense that they 'with the same incomes and socio-demographic characteristics,
facing the same relative prices, and holding the same information, will tend to choose the same basket or
array of goods'.2 Thus, as incomes, prices and demographic factors in Europe catch up with
developments in North America, so food consumption patterns will converge. Connor shows that for a
range of processed foods, European consumption correlates strongly with American consumption 5 and
10 years earlier, but not with consumption in the same time-period.
The same logic applied within Europe predicts that as the European nations converge, so will
their food consumption patterns. There is some evidence to support the view that convergence has been
taking place. Using the broad product categories of FAO, Table 1 indicates the coefficient of variation
in consumption across 29 European countries in 1961 and 1990. In all cases it is lower in 1990,
implying that for all of these products, consumption has become more similar across European countries
during the last 30 years. However, this is not to say that they have all become the same. Hermann and
ROder (1995) and Gil et al. (1995) apply different statistical methodologies to, respectively, OECD and
EU food consumption data, in both cases concluding that convergence is occurring, though in the latter
case concluding that the speed of convergence is diminishing. Gil et al. (1995) demonstrate that
significant dietary differences remain: using cluster analysis, they identify 7 Western European country
groupings: Portugal and Spain; Greece and Italy; Benelux, France, Ireland and the UK; Austria,
Germany and the Netherlands; Finland; Denmark; and Norway and Sweden.
Table 1-Coefficients of variation of food consumption across 29 European countries (kg per cap per
year). Source: Computed from FAO food balance sheet data
1961 1990
Alcohol 70.0 52.5
Cereals 31.6 30.1
Eggs 47.3 31.3
Fruit 58.5 42.4
Meat 39.8 28.8
Milk 43.4 31.2
Pulses 99.1 80.5
Starchy roots 45.0 43.1
Sugar 41.4 21.8
Vegetables 43.5 42.6
2 This somewhat controversial statement had been expunged by the time the article emerged in journal form (Connor,
1994).
15