SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME Contract no.: N° 022757 “EUROCROP”

Project acronym: EUROCROP

Agricultural Research for Improving Arable Crop Competitiveness COORDINATION ACTION Instrument: FP6-2004-SSP-4

EUROCROP FINAL REPORT (D1.9) Volume 1 Due date of the deliverable: February 2009 Actual submission date: April 2009 Start date of project: 1 May, 2006

Duration: 32 months

Organisation name of lead contractor for this deliverable: Version n° 1 Project co-funded by the European Commission within the Sixth Framework Programme (2002-2006) Dissemination level PU x Public PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services) RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services) CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services)

EUROCROP final report, V2 1, Part 1, May 2009

Page 1 of 171

EUROCROP FINAL REPORT (D1.9) Elaborated by Etienne Pilorgé / CETIOM (Technical Institute for oil seeds, France) With contributions of: Przemyslaw Baraniecky, Institute of Natural Fibres, Poznan, Poland Laura de Baan, ART Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station, Zurich, Switzerland James Copeland, CSL:Central Science Laboratory, Sand Hutton, York, UK David Cuming, DEIAGRA: Università di Bologna, Dipartimento di Economia e Ingegneria Agrarie, Bologna, Italy Sue Cowgill , BPC: British Potato Council, Oxford, United Kingdom Emeric Emonet, ARVALIS- Institut du Végétal, Paris, France Gérard Gaillard, ART Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station, Zurich, Switzerland Rino Ghelfi, DEIAGRA: Università di Bologna, Dipartimento di Economia e Ingegneria Agrarie, Bologna, Italy Ryszard Kozlowski, Institute of Natural Fibres, Poznan, Poland Agustin Mariné, CEPM: Confederacion Europea de Productores de Maiz, Barbastro, Spain Jack Massé, ARVALIS- Institut du Végétal, Paris, France Petr Misa, Agricultural Research Institute Kromeriz,Ltd Czech Republic Tanjia Möllman, Johann Heinrich von Thuenen-Institute, Federal Research Institute of Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries, institute of Farm Economics, Braunschweig, Germany Thomas Nemecek, ART: Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station, Zurich, Switzerland Anne Schneider, AEP: European Association for Grain Legumes Research, Paris, France Aurora Sombrero, ITACYL: Instituto Tecnológico Agrario de Castilla y León, Valladolid, Spain Manuela Specht, UFOP: Union for the Promotion of Oil and Protein Plants, Berlin, Germany Michael Storey, BPC: British Potato Council, Oxford, United Kingdom David Turley, CSL:Central Science Laboratory, Sand Hutton, York, UK Jean-Pierre Vandergeten, IIIRB International Institute for Beet Research, Brussels, Belgium Davide Viaggi, DEIAGRA: Università di Bologna, Dipartimento di Economia e Ingegneria Agrarie, Bologna, Italy Yelto Zimmer, Johann Heinrich von Thuenen-Institute, Federal Research Institute of Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries, institute of Farm Economics, Braunschweig, Germany

Acknowledgements We wish to thank all the people who participated actively in the activities of EUROCROP, with a special attention to the Project Advisory Committee members, whose expertise and advice was fundamental all along the project, notably to specify the EUROCROP scenarios and help in identifying priorities: Marie-France Boury, Beate Kettlitz, Dominique Dejonckheere, Claudia Michel, Marie-Christine Ribera, Arnaud Bouxin, Bernard Chevalier, Jacques Dehollain , Helmut Messner, Marian Mours, Christian Pallière, Stefano Picchi, Bert Scholte, Nicolas Stolfi, Fons Werrij, Benjamin Van Zeveren, and our chairman Xavier Beulin. We owe a special recognition to all the experts who participated to the thematic working groups and contributed to identifying and writing the 73 EUROCROP topics. EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 2 of 171

We wish to thank also the personalities who accepted to speak and contribute to the EUROCROP conference debates, which influenced our final recommendations: Anamarija Slabe, Anastassios Haniotis, Thimothy Hall, József Kapuvari, Povilas Kuprys, Henri Nallet, Henri Rieux, Klaus Schumacher, Paul Temple and Martin Westlake. We warmly thank the team of the European Economic and Social Committee for their welcome and support for the organisation of the EUROCROP final conference: Arturo Iniguez, Elisabeth Wolff and Jacob Andersen. We wish to express our sincere appreciation for the constant interest and guidance given by Hans-Jörg Lutzeyer, the scientific officer following EUROCROP on behalf of DG Research of the European Commission. At last, we thank all the members of the EUROCROP core group, who organised the experts groups, wrote thematic reports and contributed to this report, and the members of the CETIOM support team too: Pierre Burghart, Isabelle Bidel, Gérald de Cosnac, Florence Waller, and Nathalie Harel.

Citation This report should be quoted as follows: Pilorgé, E. (2009), EUROCROP final report, Agricultural research for improving arable crops competitiveness. Deliverable D1.9 of the coordination action FP6-2004-SSP-4 / N° 022757 “EUROCROP” Disclaimer “This project has been funded by the EU 6th Framework Programme, within the framework of the specific research and technological development programme “Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area. Its contents does not represent the official position of the European Commission and is entirely under the responsibility of the authors” “The information in this document is provided as is and no guarantee or warranty is given that the information is fit for any particular purpose. The reader uses the information at his sole risk and liability”

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 3 of 171

TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume 1: MAIN TEXT Volume 1: MAIN TEXT ................................................................................................................. 4 Volume 2: annexes .......................................................................................................................... 5 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 6 List of EUROCROP reports.......................................................................................................... 18 List of participants......................................................................................................................... 20 LIST OF ACRONYMS................................................................................................................. 26 1. General methodology, organisation ..........................................................................................27 1.1. Objectives, definitions................................................................................................... 27 1.2. General organisation and methodology.........................................................................30 1.3. Definition of the final product of EUROCROP ............................................................31 1.4. Setting the EUROCROP strategic framework of thinking............................................33 2. Crops chains priorities (3 to 5 pages per sub-chapter) ..........................................................34 2.1. Cereals........................................................................................................................... 34 2.1.1 Positioning of the cereals chain in the EU economy ................................................... 34 2.1.2 Strengths and weaknesses analysis of the cereals chain and major challenges .......... 39 2.1.3 Priority questions to research from the cereals chain ................................................. 40 2.2. Secondary cereals (barley, oat, rye, triticale) ................................................................42 2.2.1 Positioning of the minor cereals chains in the EU economy ....................................... 42 2.2.3 Priority questions to research from the minor cereals chains .................................... 48 2.3. oilseed crops.................................................................................................................. 48 2.3.1 General description of the oilseed crops chain in Europe........................................... 48 2.3.2 Critical analysis of the oilseeds crops chain (SWOT analysis) ................................... 54 2.3.3 Priority questions to research in the field of oilseeds crop chain................................ 55 2.4. Sugar beet...................................................................................................................... 56 2.4.1 Positioning of the sugar beet chain in the EU economy .............................................. 56 2.4.2. Challenges to the sugar beet chain ........................................................................... 57 2.4.3. Priority questions to research from the sugar beet chain........................................... 59 2.5. Fibre crops..................................................................................................................... 60 2.5.1. Positioning of the fibre crops chains in the EU economy ........................................... 60 2.5.3. Priority questions to research from the fibre crops chains......................................... 66 2.6. Potatoes ......................................................................................................................... 66 2.6.1 Potato Crop Chain in the EU economy....................................................................... 66 2.6.2 Strengths and weaknesses of the potato crop chain..................................................... 68 2.6.3 Priority questions to research from the potato crop chain .......................................... 69 2.7. Grain Legumes .............................................................................................................. 71 2.7.1 Grain legume economic chain in the European agriculture........................................ 71 2.7.2 Strength and weaknesses analysis of the GL crop chain ............................................. 72 2.7.3 Major challenges for the grain legumes chain............................................................ 74 2.7.4 Priority questions to research from the grain legumes chain..................................... 76 2.7. 5. Conclusion.................................................................................................................. 78 2.8. Maize............................................................................................................................. 78 2.8.1. Positioning of the crop chain in the EU economy....................................................... 78 2.8.2 Strengths and weaknesses analysis of the maize chain and major challenges ........... 78 2.8.3 Priority questions to research from maize chain ........................................................ 80 2.9. Synthesis: Stakes, challenges and questions to research as seen from the crop chains 81 3. Horizontal approaches (WP3) ............................................................................................... 87 EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 4 of 171

3.1. Technical aspects at farm level .....................................................................................88 3.2. Farm economics ............................................................................................................98 3.3. Outlets and markets.....................................................................................................100 3.4. Quality......................................................................................................................... 105 3.5. Environmental impacts................................................................................................109 3.6. Socio-economic issues ................................................................................................113 3.7. Synthesis of horizontal issues (WP3)..........................................................................116 4. Consolidated vision of stakes, challenges and goals...........................................................118 5. The EUROCROP scenarios for 2015 and priority challenges ............................................125 5.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 125 5.2. Elaboration of the scenarios .......................................................................................125 5.3. Major hypotheses ........................................................................................................ 127 5.4. Scenarios briefs ........................................................................................................... 128 5.3.1 SC1: WTO agreement and expensive energy ............................................................128 5.3.2 SC2: Europe of regions ..............................................................................................131 5.3.3 SC3: High environmental performance, green Europe ..............................................133 5.3.4 SC4: challenge of global warming ............................................................................. 137 5.5. Towards research strategies: the priorities common to all scenarios ..........................140 6. Regional aspects and specificities .......................................................................................142 7. The EUROCROP topics to meet the challenges ................................................................. 143 7.1. Eurocrop proposals as research topics ........................................................................ 143 7.2. Comparison to SRA coming from ETP.......................................................................148 7.3. Positioning in relation to previous EC projects in the agriculture, food and environment sector 149 A simplified table evaluating analogies with ongoing projects is given in Annex 5 (EUROCROP topics presenting potential overlapping or similarities with ongoing research projects)............150 8. EUROCROP conference issues ..........................................................................................151 9. Discussion, recommendations, conclusions ........................................................................159 A: Risk management and adaptation of arable farming under price volatility and climate change.................................................................................................................................. 165 B: Designing resource-efficient and sustainable cropping systems. ...................................166 C: Limiting the impact of AC systems on GHG emissions and climate change ................168 D: Better understanding of public concern about Arable Crops production and products and communication with global and local societies...................................................................170

Volume 2: annexes

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 5 of 171

Introduction EUROCROP aims to define a common vision for the future of research and development related to arable crops. EUROCROP brings together concerned stakeholders and actors, to reach a collective analysis of research needs in order to improve European arable crop competitiveness, and propose appropriate action. The EUROCROP partnership includes organisations using research, including farmers’ organisations, and organisations providing research, innovation and extension services. Stakeholders and representative organizations of civil society in the field of environmental preservation and consumer advocate are integrated in the partnership of the project, and provide input in particular by way of their participation in the Project Advisory Committee (PADCO) To meet its goals EUROCROP uses a cross-cutting approach, first by arable crop (cereals, oilseeds, sugar beets, fibre crops, potatoes, grain legumes and maize), and second by transversal elements of competitiveness, including technical aspects at farming level, farm economics and production costs, outlets and markets, quality of agricultural products, environmental impacts and socio-economic issues. These topics are addressed by specialists and invited experts, through a series of workshops, according to a common method. The main results of this 32 month coordination action are: (i) a strategic research plan and research proposals submitted to policy makers and planners, and widely discussed and disseminated by way of an open conference; and (ii) the setting-up of a European network of experts to continue to the work beyond the end of the project to set up RTD projects. EUROCROP has been working in the perspective to associate in the most balanced way as possible what is related to the international dimension of the European agriculture, and competitiveness on international markets, to the consumers demand, quite specific to Europe, to all the questions of systems sustainability, and how to integrate the citizens’ preoccupation about the relations between science and agriculture. EUROCROP strives to integrate all these elements by way of its various work packages. Furthermore, EUROCROP has been sought to develop exchanges and dialogue between the various stakeholders in the arable crop sector, and in agriculture more generally. The collaboration with the European Economic and Social Committee has provided symbolic value by showing the will to open the debate to civil society. It is fundamental to develop a dialogue with consumers and citizens to convey why science and technology are fundamental for European agriculture. On another level, we observe many expectations on the part of the productions with respect to the management of crises whether related to market volatility, climate or sanitary aspects - all of which are destabilizing factors. It is imperative to define and implement public policies which allow to overcome such crisis situations. Europe has the capacity to mobilize important public and private capacities and financing for research, but the dispersion of these efforts prevents reaching efficiency on the main topics. In spite of the Lisbon Strategy, Europe continues to struggles to coordinate and indeed centralise its efforts and programmes. Part of the raison d’etre of the EUROCROP programme was to contribute on this aspect. The European Commission wishes that EUROCROP (especially through its final conference) offers a platform for discussion to enhance the exchanges between the scientific community and stakeholders on the topic of arable crop competitiveness. EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 6 of 171

EUROCROP Executive Summary

Sixth Framework Programme All reports are available on www.eurocrop.cetiom.fr

EUROCROP : Agricultural Research for Improving Arable Crops Competitiveness Topic addressed: 8.1.B.1.1.6

Call identifier: FP6-2004-SSP-4

Project status: ended December 2008

Starting date: 1st May 2006

Project description and principles The European Commission wished to implement a place for discussion to enhance the exchanges between the scientific community and stakeholders concerning arable crop competitiveness, in order to strengthen its analysis of research priorities.

WP1 General specifications, scenarios ; led by CETIOM Methodology to assess proposals, Validation of proposals (PROLEA, EURAGRI, ESA, EFMA, ECPA, COPA/COGECA, ORGECO, FEFAC, CEMA, Gruppo183, CIAA, CEFIC)

WP2: Vision from CROP (VALUE) CHAINS / led by INF WP3: horizontal topics / Led by DEIAGRA Cereals Universita di Bologna (IMPACT DIMENSIONS)

Arvalis

Min cereals I.Krom eriz

Oil Seeds UFOP

Sugar Beet IIRB

Fibre Crops INF

Pota toes BPC

Grain Legu mes AEP

Maize CEPM

Farm competitiveness: agricultural production systems ITACyL Farm competitiveness: farm economics and farmers’ income vTI

Consumers &users: markets &outlets

Consumers and users: quality CSL

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

GENERAL COORDINATION / led by

Page 7 of 171

Final conference

WP0

Web site

Society / socio-economic issues DEIAGRA

Dissemination

WP4 / led by CETIOM

Environmental issues ART

EUROCROP aimed to define a common vision for the future of research and development related to arable crops and proposed a strategic research plan for the arable crop (AC) sector with a horizon of 2015. This plan is briefly explained below, and final recommendations are explained on page 6 of this document. EUROCROP brought together concerned stakeholders and actors to develop a collective analysis of research needs in order to improve the competitiveness of European arable crops, and to propose appropriate action. The EUROCROP partnership included organizations using research, including farmers’ organizations, and organizations providing research, innovation and extension services. Stakeholders and representative organizations of civil society in the field of environment preservation and consumer advocacy are integrated in the partnership of the project, and provided input in particular as members of the Project Advisory Committee (PADCO).To meet its goals EUROCROP operated according to a cross-cutting approach, first by arable crop (cereals, oilseeds, sugar beets, fibre crops, potatoes, grain legumes and maize), where the crop chain vision is considered in its entirety (WP2), in order to identify specific bottlenecks for increasing crop chain competitiveness. This vertical approach was then completed in WP3 by horizontal aspects of competitiveness including technical aspects at farming level, farm economics and production costs, outlets and markets, quality of agricultural products and environmental impacts, as well as social aspects. These themes were addressed by specialists and invited experts in a series of workshops which mobilized the 26 partners’ staff and 120 experts from approximately 100 institutions from different European countries. What is arable crop competitiveness for EUROCROP? This question was among the first subjects of debats during the July 2006 kick-off meeting in Brussels. The debates around competitiveness led to the consideration of a three-pronged approach: - markets, and economical competitiveness as a key component - regulations dealing with social, sustainability and other miscellaneous aspects. Meeting regulations has a cost or a value for crop chain actors - sustainability or social issues, not yet transformed into regulations or immediate costs or values; require that crop chain practices are verified as being cross compliant. For its works, EUROCROP distinguishes between two levels: “Competitiveness C1”: Economic competitiveness and markets, with two sub entries: - Economic competitiveness of arable crops at farm level in EU countries (one crop versus other crops, arable crops versus other land uses): focus on yield, production costs, net income, farm economics (assuming the respect of current regulations, when enforced) - Economic competitiveness of EU arable crops in markets: meeting the demand of industries and consumers (quantity, quality, specifications, regularity of production, market prices…): focus on quality, cost per unit produced, market access costs . This first level is a more or less short/medium term approach. “Competitiveness C2”: Sustainability and social issues, which need assessment through indicators. EUROCROP examines the interactions between arable crop production and “external” factors of public interest, such as environmental issues and social issues (citizen demand, employment, rural life…), in a medium term/ long term approach. EUROCROP – focus on two interactive levels At the level of WP1 / PADCO + core group: a three-step strategic thinking process was developed, using basic retrospective and prospective approaches with 2015 as the horizon: Identification of the main challenges to guarantee AC competitiveness through to 2015: o Understanding and describing the European arable crop system (structure and dynamics) o Identifying potential changes and making hypotheses on the changes in the system and in its context o Identifying and analysing the strengths and weaknesses of AC Building scenarios for contexts Ranking research areas in terms of priorities and in coherence with the scenarios EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 8 of 171

At the scientific level (WP2 and WP3): the identification of priority areas was carried out through: preparatory work on the present status of research and knowledge, organized to take into consideration the main challenges and the weaknesses of AC identifying priority research areas and research challenges to fill the gap (expert groups) briefly describing the topics and deliverables expected in each research area. EUROCROP OUPUTS The main results of the 32 month coordination action are: a strategic research plan structured under 5 major stakes, 36 challenges and 105 research goals / main questions to research a set of 4 scenarios used to propose priorities a set of 73 research topics, proposals to be submitted to policy makers and planners a European network of experts, who will continue to work beyond the end of the project to set up RTD projects. The EUROCROP framework of thinking and scenarios The consensus description of the arable crop system elaborated during the first year of the project is summarized in the following figure: Social and economics world level/ Markets and trade

Social and economics / EU outlets & demand

Currencies

World food / AC

World and EU non

Consumers demand

Image of agriculture

World AC products

Policies & regulations

World AC products EU agro industries

Price of markets

Distribution Animal productions Aquaculture outlet

Citizens demand

PK availability

Soil

Climate change

WTO EU enlargement

Transports costs

EU Arable crops competitiveness C2 C1 In 2015

Water supply

Environ ment

Biofuels

Transports

Natural ressources

Innovation in AC production techniques

Quality of

Other policies & regulations

Land uses

Production costs/ inputs energy Yield level, progress in yield

CAP

Farm

Kyoto Crop protection

Farmers demography

Public and private research issues, technologies

A Crops chains actors dynamics

Rural areas populations

Actors interests and behaviors

Crops chains Other factors ?

Agricultural near context / Rural socio economics

AC CROPS SYSTEM AND ITS ENVIRONMENT

Figure: EUROCROP landscape of factors This consensus description has been used to identify the main stakes and challenges for AC competitiveness and to elaborate scenarios, based on different hypotheses concerning the evolution of the main factors. Four (4) scenarios were elaborated and used to imagine research strategies answering each scenario, and to identify the research actions which appear to be necessary whatever the considered scenario, and which may be considered as major priorities. This second option keeps the favour of the project. Using scoring methods, the EUROCROP group elaborated research priorities for each scenario: EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 9 of 171

Scenarios are not intended to forecast the future, but to provide a framework for strategic thinking. Table: Main characteristics of Scenarios identified SC1

SC3 SC4 High environmental WTO agreement and performance, green Challenge of global TITLE expensive energy Europe of regions warming Europe WTO agreement is A growing public reached on basis WTO agreement is concern about health warming similar to EU not reached, lower and environment Global proposal and CAP is economic growth, becomes a major driver becomes acute and MAIN prices of public policies. CAP leads the policies. reduced, orientations energy DRIVER constant CAP is reoriented are maintained is reoriented CAP is reduced and decentralized to WTO agreement is not WTO agreement is Sustained economic "regions" of Europe, reached, lower reached on basis SECONDARY growth and high on increased economic growth, similar to EU DRIVER energy prices constant proposal energy prices subsidiarity basis

-

SC2

Towards research strategies: the priorities common to all scenarios The 36 challenges were scored according to the 4 scenarios. We distinguish 3 levels to characterize their importance: level 1 (red colour): the challenge scored in the top 25% of ranking scores in 3 of the 4 scenarios, and in the top 50% of ranking scores for all scenarios examined level 2 (dark purple colour): the challenge scored in the top 25% of ranking scores in 3 of the 4 scenarios, or scored in the top 50% for the 4 scenarios level 3 (light purple colour): ): the challenge scored in the top 25% of ranking scores in 2 of the 4 scenarios, or scored in the top 50% for 3 of the 4 scenarios specific concerns (“wild cards’”, bright blue): the challenge scored in 1st, 2nd or 3rd position in one of the scenarios (i.e. not considering this challenge could be a fatal mistake if the considered scenario occurs) The results emerging from the project activities are summarized in table 7 and include the 50% higher priority challenges (18 over 36 challenges). 4 challenges appear as first level priorities for the sustainability of AC system competitiveness: - food safety, which is a basic need of populations - the maintenance of efficient crop protection, as a major guarantee for food security - the improvement of resource use efficiency,: energy and water, of both short term economic interest and a fundamental issue for long term sustainability. The 2nd level includes 4 supplementary challenges where economic competitiveness is predominant, dealing with yield level and stability improvement, optimisation of cropping systems and adaptation of production systems, and nutrient use efficiency (long term sustainability issue). Then 3rd level priorities could be considered as secondary levers of competitiveness: - managing risks for farmers (risks related to markets, climate variations…) - developing non-food non-feed uses - developing entrepreneurship and innovation capacity - developing a positive public perception of AC Specific concerns (“wild cards”): - the integration of arable crops in rural territories, which are essential in the context of scenario 2. It appears as a clear priority in scenario 2, where competitiveness is determined at the regional level, EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 10 of 171

but it should be considered that meeting this challenge could contribute to other political objectives, rural development being the first one. - The 2 other “wild” challenges are key issues for scenario 4, related to climate change: to mitigate its effects and minimize further degradation (minimize GHG emissions per unit of product). Table: common challenges in all scenarios

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.3 3.3 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.10 4.11 4.12 5.2 5.4 5.6

CHALLENGES FOR ARABLE CROPS Increase level and stability of yields Technical and economic optimisation by innovating sustainable Cropping Systems Adaptation of production systems and crop rotations according to changes in farming framework conditions Managing risks for EU farmers Ensuring food safety Developing Non food/ non feed uses Improving resource use efficiency: nutrients Improving resource use efficiency: energy Improved resource use efficiency: water Ensure an effective crop protection in the long term (integrated crop protection) Minimize greenhouse gas emissions per unit of product Maintain and improve soil quality Developing strategies to face climate diversity and climate change Integrating different sustainability concerns in the design and implementation of innovative cropping systems Developing common sustainability assessment methods Reinforcing entrepreneurship and innovation capacity of AC systems Improving the integration of arable crops into rural territories and economies Achieving a positive public perception of arable crops systems

SC. 1 SC. 2 SC. 3 SC. 4 COMMON Rank of priority (over 36 chal.) 1,0 4,0 18,0 11,0 8,0

6,0

11,0

6,0

16,0 18,0 7,0 12,0 4,0 2,0 3,0

15,0 12,0 3,0 23,0 25,0 10,0 16,0

17,0 29,0 5,0 14,0 2,0 2,0 4,0

14,0 15,0 12,0 13,0 8,0 4,0 3,0

17,0 33,0 29,0

2,0 33,0 17,0

1,0 9,0 6,0

5,0 2,0 10,0

36,0

35,0

15,0

1,0

28,0

12,0

11,0

9,0

35,0

24,0

8,0

6,0

8,0

8,0

29,0

22,0

19,0

1,0

21,0

33,0

23,0

8,0

16,0

18,0

EUROCROP topics Altogether, 73 research topics were described in the WP3 working groups (see full list in the final report and a detailed description in the WP3 report). Among these topics: - 35 are focussed on finding solutions, aiming at immediate applied needs, with applied results expected in the project duration. - 5 call for research aimed at achieving basic knowledge and focus on understanding specific aspects in order to identify future solutions (in the fields of genetics of plants and pathogens, human nutrition, and soil sciences (biological aspects)) - 35 call for “system explaining research”, focussed on understanding the functioning and behaviour of the system(s) in order to identify future solutions - 4 ask for coordination action, targeting the coordination of current research and development activities, and the specification of new research activities. This result reflects a situation in which systemic knowledge, which implies multidisciplinary approaches, remains the main bottleneck to progress in the field of agronomic sciences and arable crops. The thematic connections between the EUROCROP topics allow for the clustering of topics or meta-topics for AC competitiveness: EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 11 of 171

-

innovating cropping systems and assessment (6 topics) genetics and breeding (3) quality, process and genetics (3+1) nutritional quality (6) food safety (3) soil aspects (4) water use (4) nitrogen (3) sustainable crop protection (3+3) energy optimisation (3) green house gas emissions (3) climate change (3) sustainability assessment (2) land use (2) whole crop use (2)

The remaining 19 topics are more or less independent from these clusters. Only 27 out of 73 topics were found to show similarities or overlapping with already existing research projects from the 6th Framework Program, hence demonstrating that EUROCROP has been innovative and challenging to the status quo. It also emphasises the need for different EU research strategies for AC. The full list of EUROCROP topics is as follows: 1.01 Increasing yield potential of varieties by breeding for tolerance to abiotic and biotic stresses 1.02 Improving control on Weeds/Pests/Diseases through better crop rotations, alternative crops and cropping systems 1.03 Increasing yield stability through genetic resistances to crops enemies (weeds, pests and diseases) based on breeding 1.04 Production of varieties tolerant to drought, N deficiency, weeds, pests and diseases through understanding crops reactions to stress and tools for breeding 1.05 Avoiding compaction and reduce soil erosion 1.06 Develop crop and farming systems capable of improving soil chemical properties (organic matter, salinisation) 1.07 Improve soil biological properties: increasing soil biodiversity by adequate cropping systems 1.08 Improving water use efficiency of crops: varietal evaluation and breeding 1.09 Water efficient cropping systems through improved crop mix and irrigation management 1.10 Sustainable irrigation in relation to water and soil (drainage, salinisation) 1.11 Reducing greenhouse gas emissions of cropping systems 1.12 Evaluation of different farm types concerning the sustainability of their cropping systems 1.13 Forecasting of pests and diseases taking into account cropping and management system and crop canopy sensibility 1.14 Preserving the durability of crop protection means 1.16 Optimizing crop rotations in reduced or no tillage conditions 1.17 Management of crop rotations aimed to prevent and control weed infestation, disease and pest infection 1.18 Anticipating/forecasting the changes of climatic conditions and their effects on crops 1.19 Innovating for improved energy efficiency of cropping systems 1.20 Understanding and calculating energy costs in crop chains and at farm level through new methods and references for energy balance of cropping systems 1.21 Breeding for crop species with improved N uptake and nitrogen efficiency 1.22 Developing reduced nitrogen input and productive cropping systems: nitrogen optimization at cropping system scale 1.23 Better use of manures: treatment , application, timing 2.01 Production systems and rotations: impact of increasing commodity and inputs prices on production systems 2.02 Economics of farm size: economies of farm size under changing market and policy conditions with focus on new member states 2.03 Adopting consistent policies: designing improved contractual options to allow flexible access to land for farming in the new Member States (MS) EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009 Page 12 of 171

2.04 Economics of adaptation to climate change 2.05 Establishment of a common methodology for the quantification of the carbon footprint to compare production systems in selected regions of Europe 2.06 Economics of straw removal: identify different local conditions for straw removal in Europe and analyse their impact on supply costs 2.07 Establish competitive crop rotations for bioenergy: analyse the contribution of different crops and crop rotations to bioenergy yields and their economic and ecological impacts in selected regions of Europe 2.08 & 1.15 Risk management and adaptation of arable farming under price volatility and climate change 2.09 Researching new activities and possibilities for farmers in the new market situations and new tools for rural development. 3.01 Optimising AC for the development of new healthy products 3.02 Optimising AC for optimal utilisation of nutrients in human and animal nutrition and/or utilisation of components of AC or by-products of food processing for non-food applications 3.03 Preventing safety risks in arable crops 3.04 Whole crop utilization 3.05 Strategies to enhance nutritional quality and processability of crop products and by-products from food industry, bioenergy or biorefinery to secure supply to the European feed sector 3.06 Improvement of competitiveness of crop production on the global feed and related markets: strategies for competitive EU feed production 3.07 Science-based integration of feed crops and related animal products in consumer health concerns 3.09 Land use optimisation for Non-food/Non-feed, Food and Feed, and synergies between production and services in the EU, regional and farm scales 3.10 Sustainable whole crop use optimisation for non-food/non-feed, food and feed, and synergies between different outlets 3.11 Agro-industrial parks and land use: closing the regional mass and energy cycles integrating agricultural production, processing, mass flow and logistics and providing balanced services to society 4.01 Better understanding of the genetic determinants of quality traits to help develop better cultivars capable of delivering required quality in the face of abiotic stress 4.02 Better understanding of the interaction between processing methods and nutritional quality of produce in order to optimise bio-availability 4.03 Development of co-existence strategies for EU arable crops with GM and non-food crops 4.04 Better understanding of the interaction between crop quality characters and processing, to identify areas for improvement and development 4.05 Development of pest and disease control measures to protect and enhance product quality 4.06 Develop and improve carbon footprints for EU produce and develop agreed standard methods for their determination across Europe 4.07 Better understanding of public concerns associated with GM technologies to help shape communication strategies 4.08 Development of information transfer programmes to increase production and use of EU-derived plant proteins 4.10 Optimise the digestibility of plant proteins in animal diets 5-1.1 Environmental and economic optimization of (low-input) cropping systems 5-1.2 Use of new technologies/methods to increase the efficiency of crop management 5-1.3 Linking arable crop production to livestock farming 5-1.4 Physical, chemical and biological aspects of integrated soil protection 5-2.1 Designing and testing water efficient cropping systems in a multi-scale approach 5-2.2 Global assessment of N emissions of cropping systems 5-2.3 Integrated assessment of management strategies for different climatic scenarios 5-3.1 Efficient biodiversity enhancement 5-3.2 Integrated and novel approaches for effective crop protection strategies 5-3.3 Deal with new and emerging pathogens (pests, diseases, weeds) 5-3.4 Scaling issues: find sustainable solutions on different scales 5-3.5 Evaluate the best regions for crop production 6.01 Definition of services for improving farmers’ orientation, sensitiveness and adaptability to the market EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009 Page 13 of 171

6.02 Designing EU policy for improving arable crop competitiveness in consideration of globalization and the main uses of crops: food, feed, energy, biomaterials. 6.03 Deprivation and quality of life in rural areas: provision of public and social goods and services 6.04 Connection between land consolidation and arable crops 6.05 Comparative analysis and identification of the innovation opportunities and barriers to increasing efficiency in the arable crop chains and networks 6.06 Structure and interaction between arable crops and urban planning 6.07 Open innovation 6.08 Analysis of farmer awareness of market trends and identification of knowledge gaps 6.09 Analyze factors serving to promote entrepreneurship at EU level 6.10 Analyze trust throughout value chains and networks related to arable crops 6.11 Value chains and networking: analyze value chains and market power

EUROCROP RECOMMENDATIONS Considering the priorities coming from the scenarios approach, the discussions of the open conference held in Brussels (17th 0ctober, 2008 - see final report), and the priorities proposed by the core group on more scientific and technical bases (December 2008), EUROCROP recommends the initiation of new research projects on 4 main themes in priority, which appear to be of high common interest : A: Risk management and adaptation of arable farming Risks in AC farming vary and are related to farm income (due to input/output price volatility), quantity and quality of production (due to weather variability and climatic change) and farm assets – real estates and human capital. The objectives are to find general solutions for arable farming and farms in order to minimize individual categories of risks by improving farm practices, diversification of production, investment, business orientation and devising innovative risk management tools. Such efforts should include the identification and classification of risks related to arable farming under new/expected conditions; the assessment of the significance of risks, their size and evaluation; the analysis of instruments for risk reduction, e.g. insurance; and decision support systems for a rapid adaptation to economic contexts and risk management. The management of risk in a chain and network perspective should be considered, taking into account connections of AC with rural households, upstream and downstream actors, as well as contract design issues.

B: Designing resource-efficient and sustainable cropping systems. Increased resource efficiency is certainly key for arable cropping system competitiveness. Partial solutions to the problems of efficiency are known for single factors (energy, water, nutrients, impacts on resources, pollution etc), but not always coherent for different objectives and aspects of global efficiency. Innovation must be developed at the cropping system scale. A major need and research question is the design and global optimization of new cropping systems. The action aims at designing innovative cropping systems which optimize the use of the limited resources energy, water and nutrients (N, P, K and other). The efficiency of resource use in terms of output units produced per resource unit used should be maximized. At the same time these resource efficient-cropping systems need to be sustainable in economic, environmental and social terms. These innovative cropping systems should be tested in different regional contexts of Europe (including pedoclimatic and socio-economic aspects) and the effectiveness of the progress regarding efficiency and sustainability must be assessed. Cropping system development should include long-term experiments (farming systems and poly-factorial experiments), on-farm research to test the practicability of the improved system and the acceptance by farmers. An interdisciplinary approach is recommended (agronomic and environmental sciences, economy, social sciences, innovation sciences, etc.)

C: Limiting the impact of AC cropping systems on greenhouse gas emissions (role in climate change) Agriculture, animal husbandry and forestry (including deforestation) are thought to cause around 20% of the world’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Arable crop systems are included due to the use of N fertilizers and soil tillage practices. The two major greenhouse gases emitted by European cropping systems are CO2 and N2O. N2O is characterized by a high global warming potential. In the past, a great deal of work was undertaken on the relationship between crop management and one specific channel of nitrogen loss (NO3, NH3 N2O, etc.). However, there are some trade-offs between the reduction of different kinds of N emissions: e.g. reducing NH3 emissions by increasing N in soil leading to higher NO3 leaching. An experimental dataset on those EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 14 of 171

trade-offs is needed, especially on N2O. A global approach accounting for the multiple sources of greenhouse gases is necessary, because the ways of decreasing emissions from one source may increase the emissions from other sources. The action would aim to better understand the effect of cropping systems on greenhouse gas emissions in order to be able to optimize crop management and cropping systems with the objective of reducing these emissions, and to gain further knowledge on the interactions between the different N emission sources. It should include simulations of the effect of crop management practices on GHG emissions and the implementation of experimental databases necessary to validate the models. Experiments and network of pluri-annual experiments are needed..

D: Better understanding of public concerns regarding AC production and products and communication with global and local societies The fears of consumers and citizens with respect to science and technologies used in agriculture and food industries have been growing for more 15 years, and arguably increasing in intensity on the occasion of repeated crises. These fears and concerns deal with food safety, on one hand, and environmental and social impacts on the other. Such concerns are seen to be hampering the wider use of innovative technologies in Europe, and may place additional burdens on industry. They cause an increasingly dualistic vision of agriculture -intensive polluting agriculture versus environmental organic agriculture). On another level, the image of agriculture and Arable Crop production systems in the public opinion is key for the future legitimacy of public support to the sector. Consumers and citizens are more than ever faced by contradictory choices (including prices, social and environmental impacts of consumption etc). There is a need for AC agriculture to better understand the general public’s concerns, to provide informed, balanced advice and comments with an eye to developing a new relationship between the AC sector and society, and a need for consumers to obtain factual information for better informed choices. The action aims to better understand the EU general public’s concerns over AC based food and AC production processes, to propose actions and contents for public information, to enhance relations between the sector and representative stakeholders.

These recommendations are proposed assuming that: - integrated crop protection, which is a key concern for AC competitiveness, will be covered in the continuity of ENDURE project, and follow up actions will be proposed. Establishing links with EUROCROP topics and research goals would be advisable. - food quality/safety aspects are already covered by the project BIOTRACER - the contents of NITROEUROPE project only partially overlap with the recommendations of EUROCROP, which recommend strengthening an agronomical approach for greenhouse gas emissions. Proposals of written topics for titles A, B, C and D are included in the final report. It must be reminded that EUROCROP, during its whole process, examined a large number of issues and that the complete framework and topics proposals could be used with profit as a suggestions box, since the order of priorities could certainly be reconsidered in more regional perspectives. EUROCROP in numbers • European Commission provided 600 000 € budget • 26 partner institutions • 120 experts mobilized at least once, from approximately 100 institutions of different European countries. • 15 workshops and 8 crop chains reports • 10 workshops and 6 horizontal issues reports • 3 Plenary project Advisory Committee sessions in Brussels + 4 coordination meetings • 4 scenarios elaborated • SRA structure based on 5 stakes, 36 challenges, 105 goals • 2 synthesis reports WP2 et WP3 + 1 final report EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 15 of 171

• • • •

72 research “topics” have been elaborated 1final open conference organized in collaboration with the European Economic and Social Committee in Brussels gathered around 60 participants 1 web site 3 interaction meetings with the Standing Committee for Agricultural Research (SCAR).

List of participants: Coordinator: CETIOM, Centre de Grignon, 78850 Thiverval-Grignon, France Contact: Etienne Pilorgé / Tel: +33.1.30.79.95.66

Fax: +33.1.30.79.95.90 / E.mail:[email protected]

The EUROCROP team EUROCROP PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Chairman: Xavier Beulin, PROLEA, Filière française des huiles et protéines végétales, France / http://www.prolea.com/ Coordinator : Etienne Pilorgé, CETIOM: Centre Technique Interprofessionnel des Oléagineux Métropolitains, France / http://www.cetiom.fr/ Members : Marie France Boury, CEMA European Committee of Associations of Manufacturers of Agricultural machinery, Brussels, Belgium / http://www.cema-agri.org/ Arnaud Bouxin, FEFAC European Feed Manufacturers Federation, Brussels, Belgium / http://www.fefac.org Bernard Chevalier, ORGECO: Organisation Générale des Consommateurs, Boulogne-Billancourt, France / http://www.orgeco.net Dominique Dejonckheere, COPA-COGECA Comité des Organisations Professionnelles Agricoles/ Confédération Générale de la Coopération Agricole, Brussels, Belgium / http://www.copa-cogeca.be Jacques Dehollain CEMA European Committee of Associations of Manufacturers of Agricultural machinery, Brussels, Belgium / http://www.cema-agri.org/ Beate Kettlitz, CIAA Confederation of Food and Drink Industries in the EC, Brussels, Belgium / http://www.ciaa.be Helmut Messner, ESA European Seeds Association, Brussels, Belgium / http://www.euroseeds.org/ Claudia Michel, ECPA European Crop Protection Association, Brussels, Belgium / http://www.ecpa.be Marian Mours, CEFIC European Chemical Industry Council, Brussels, Belgium / http://www.cefic.be/ Christian Pallière, EFMA European Fertilizer Manufacturers Association, Brussels, Belgium / http://www.efma.org/ Stefano Picchi, GRUPPO 183 Associazione per la difesa del suolo e delle risorse idriche, Roma, Italy / http://www.gruppo183.org/ Marie Christine Ribera, COPA-COGECA Comité des Organisations Professionnelles Agricoles/ Confédération Générale de la Coopération Agricole, Brussels, Belgium / http://www.copa-cogeca.be Bert Scholte, ESA European Seeds Association, Brussels, Belgium / http://www.euroseeds.org/ Nicolas Stolfi, GRUPPO 183 Associazione per la difesa del suolo e delle risorse idriche, Roma, Italy / http://www.gruppo183.org/ Fons Werrij, EURAGRI European Agricultural Research Initiative, Wageningen, Netherlands / http://www.euragri.org/uk Benjamin Van Zeveren, ECPA European Crop Protection Association, Brussels, Belgium EUROCROP CORE GROUP Coordinator/ WP1 leader : Etienne Pilorgé, CETIOM: Centre Technique Interprofessionnel des Oléagineux Métropolitains, France (pilorge(at)cetiom.fr) / http://www.cetiom.fr/ WP2 leader : Ryszard Kozlowski, Institute of Natural Fibres, Poznan, Poland (sekretar(at)inf.poznan.pl) / http://www.inf.poznan.pl/ WP3 leader: Davide Viaggi, DEIAGRA: Università di Bologna, Dipartimento di Economia e Ingegneria Agrarie, Bologna, Italy (davide.viaggi(at)unibo.it) / http://www.agrsci.unibo.it/deiagra/ WP0 leader: Pierre Burghart, CETIOM: Centre Technique Interprofessionnel des Oléagineux Métropolitains, France (burghart(at)cetiom.fr) WG2.1 major cereals: Jack Massé, Emeric Emonet, ARVALIS- Institut du Végétal, Paris, France (E.EMONET(at)arvalisinstitutduvegetal.fr) / http://www.arvalisinstitutduvegetal.fr WG2.2 minor cereals, Petr Misa, Agricultural Research Institute Kromeriz,Ltd Czech Republic (misapetr(at)vukrom.cz) / http://www.vukrom.cz WG2.3 oilseeds: Manuela Specht, UFOP: Union for the Promotion of Oil and Protein Plants, Berlin, Germany (m.specht(at)bauernverband.net) / http://www.ufop.de/ EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 16 of 171

WG2.4 sugar beet: Jean-Pierre Vandergeten, IIIRB International Institute for Beet Research, Brussels, Belgium (jp.vandergeten(at)irbab.be) / http://195.101.239.36/ WG2.5 Fibre crops: Przemyslaw Baraniecky, Institute of Natural Fibres, Poznan, Poland (baraniecki(at)inf.poznan.pl) WG2.6 Potatoes, Sue Cowgill , Michael Storey, BPC: British Potato Council, Oxford, United Kingdom (mstorey(at)potato.org.uk, scowgill(at)potato.org.uk) / http://www.potato.org.uk/ WG2.7 Grain legumes, Anne Schneider, AEP: European Association for Grain Legumes Research, Paris, France (a.schneider-aep(at)prolea.com) / http://www.grainlegumes.com/ WG2.8 Maize: Agustin Mariné, CEPM: Confederacion Europea de Productores de Maiz, Barbastro, Spain (agpmspain(at)terra.es) WG3.1 technical aspects at farm level: Aurora Sombrero, ITACYL: Instituto Tecnológico Agrario de Castilla y León, Valladolid, Spain (somsacau(at)itacyl.es) / http://www.itacyl.es WG3.2 farm economics and production costs: Tanjia Moellman, Yelto Zimmer, VTI : Johann Heinrich von ThünenInstitut fur Ländliche Räume, Wald und Fischerel, Braunschweig, Germany (yelto.zimmer(at)vti.bund.de, tanja.moellmann(at)vti.bund.de) / http://www.vti.bund.de/de/ WG3.3 Outlets and markets, Christine Michel, INRA; Davide Viaggi, David Cuming, Università di Bologna, Dipartimento di Economia e Ingegneria Agrarie, Bologna, Italy (davide.viaggi(at)unibo.it) WG3.4 Quality of agricultural products: David Turley, James Copeland CSL:Central Science Laboratory, Sand Hutton, York, UK (d.turley(at)csl.gov.uk, j.copeland(at)csl.gov.uk) / http://www.csl.gov.uk/ WG3.5 Environmental impacts: Thomas Nemecek, ART: Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station, Zurich, Switzerland (thomas.nemecek(at)art.admin.ch) / http://www.art.admin.ch WG3.6 Socio-economic issues: Rino Ghelfi, DEIAGRA: Università di Bologna, Dipartimento di Economia e Ingegneria Agrarie, Bologna, Italy (rghelfi(at)agrsci.unibo.it) / http://www.agrsci.unibo.it/deiagra/

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 17 of 171

List of EUROCROP reports WP1 EUROCROP strategic framework EUROCROP Retropro questionnaire synthesis, by Pilorgé E/ CETIOM, September 2006 D1.1/D1.3 EUROCROP report Methodological definition, working methods specifications for addressing research needs, by Pilorgé E. / CETIOM, 9 January, 2007 EUROCROP scenarios report, by Pilorgé E. / CETIOM, September 2008)

WP2: vision from crop chains D2.2 A – Wheats chain synthesis report, by Emonet E. & Massé J. / Arvalis Institut du Végétal D2.2.B - Minor cereals chain synthesis report, by Misa P./ Agricultural Research Institute Kromeriz, Ltd D2.2 C Oilseeds chain synthesis report, by Specht M/ Proteinpflanzen e.V. (UFOP)

Union zur Förderung von Oel- und

D2.2 D Sugar beet chain synthesis report, by Vandergeten J-P. & Cariolle M./ IIRB, International Institute for Beet Research D2.2 E Fibre crops synthesis report, by Baraniecki P./ INF Poznan, Institute of Natural Fibres D2.2.F Potato Chain Synthesis Report, by Storey M.J. & Cowgill S.E./ British Potato Council D22G. Grain Legume Chain - Synthesis report, by Schneider A et al / AEP European Association for Grain Legumes Research D2.2 H Maize chain synthesis report, by Mariné A./, CEPM (European Confederation of maize producers) D2.3/D2.4 report Consolidated analysis of crop chain approach; research axes per crop D2.3. Research needs in a thematic perspective, general framework and key questions as identified per crop, by Baraniecki P. and Pilorgé E. (27 November 2007)

WP3 Horizontal aspects D3.1 draft report Horizontal issues research status, by Viaggi D., Furlan A., Ghinassi A. (2007), Bologna, June 2007. Methodology for Wp3-Wg3.x organisation, by Viaggi D., June 2007. D3.3 WP3 upgraded discussion paper - Research axes synthesis, by Viaggi D. and Cuming D. (2008a) - Bologna, June 2008

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 18 of 171

D3.3A1 Summary of the WP2 outcomes, regarding technical aspect at farming level, by Sombrero A. (2007a). November 2007 Sombrero A. (2007b). Stakes, challenges, goals, version 3, December 2007 D3.3.A2 Report of the Working Group 3.1 on Technical Aspects at Farming Level, by Sombrero A., de Benito A. and Casta P. (2008), March 2008. D3.3B EUROCROP: Report of the Working Group 3.2 on Farm Economics and Production Costs, by Zimmer Y. and Möllmann T. (2008). Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institute, Federal Research Institute D3.3 C1 WG3.3: Outlets and Markets Paris meeting – by Michel C. (2008) 27/03/2008 Report D3.3C2 Report of the Working Group WG 3.3 – Outlets and Markets, Bologna, by Viaggi D. and Cuming D. (2008b), September 2008. D3.3 D EUROCROP : Report of the Working Group 3.4 on Quality of Products, by Turley D. and Copeland J. (2008), April 2008. D3.3 E1 Overview of literature related to the topic “Environmental impacts of arable crops in Europe”, by de Baan L. (Oct 2007) D3.3 E2 EUROCROP - Report of the Working Group 3.5 on Environmental Impacts, by Nemecek T., de Baan L. and Gaillard G. (2008), March 2008. D3.3F EUROCROP : Report of the Working Group WG 3.6 - Socio-economic Issues, DRAFT MARCH 12th 2008, by Ghelfi R., Samoggia A., Trapani F. and Sergio Rivaroli (2008). D3.4 WP3 Synthesis: ranked proposals to improve arable crops competitiveness, by Viaggi D, Cuming D, Dorigo Salamon N. Riedel B. June 2008, revised January 2009

WP4: Dissemination D4.3.1 EUROCROP document for Public consultation, October 2008

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 19 of 171

List of participants The EUROCROP team EUROCROP PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Chairman: Xavier Beulin, PROLEA, Filière française des huiles et protéines végétales, France / http://www.prolea.com/ Coordinator : Etienne Pilorgé, CETIOM: Centre Technique Interprofessionnel des Oléagineux Métropolitains, France / http://www.cetiom.fr/ Members : Marie France Boury, CEMA European Committee of Associations of Manufacturers of Agricultural machinery, Brussels, Belgium / http://www.cema-agri.org/ Arnaud Bouxin, FEFAC European Feed Manufacturers Federation, Brussels, Belgium / http://www.fefac.org Bernard Chevalier, ORGECO: Organisation Générale des Consommateurs, Boulogne-Billancourt, France / http://www.orgeco.net Dominique Dejonckheere, COPA-COGECA Comité des Organisations Professionnelles Agricoles/ Confédération Générale de la Coopération Agricole, Brussels, Belgium / http://www.copa-cogeca.be Jacques Dehollain CEMA European Committee of Associations of Manufacturers of Agricultural machinery, Brussels, Belgium / http://www.cema-agri.org/ Beate Kettlitz, CIAA Confederation of Food and Drink Industries in the EC, Brussels, Belgium / http://www.ciaa.be Helmut Messner, ESA European Seeds Association, Brussels, Belgium / http://www.euroseeds.org/ Claudia Michel, ECPA European Crop Protection Association, Brussels, Belgium / http://www.ecpa.be Marian Mours, CEFIC European Chemical Industry Council, Brussels, Belgium / http://www.cefic.be/ Christian Pallière, EFMA European Fertilizer Manufacturers Association, Brussels, Belgium / http://www.efma.org/ Stefano Picchi, GRUPPO 183 Associazione per la difesa del suolo e delle risorse idriche, Roma, Italy / http://www.gruppo183.org/ Marie Christine Ribera, COPA-COGECA Comité des Organisations Professionnelles Agricoles/ Confédération Générale de la Coopération Agricole, Brussels, Belgium / http://www.copacogeca.be Bert Scholte, ESA European Seeds Association, Brussels, Belgium / http://www.euroseeds.org/ Nicolas Stolfi, GRUPPO 183 Associazione per la difesa del suolo e delle risorse idriche, Roma, Italy / http://www.gruppo183.org/ Fons Werrij, EURAGRI European Agricultural Research Initiative, Wageningen, Netherlands / http://www.euragri.org/uk Benjamin Van Zeveren, ECPA European Crop Protection Association, Brussels, Belgium EUROCROP CORE GROUP Coordinator/ WP1 leader : Etienne Pilorgé, CETIOM: Centre Technique Interprofessionnel des Oléagineux Métropolitains, France (pilorge(at)cetiom.fr) / http://www.cetiom.fr/ WP2 leader : Ryszard Kozlowski, Institute of Natural Fibres, Poznan, Poland (sekretar(at)inf.poznan.pl) / http://www.inf.poznan.pl/ WP3 leader: Davide Viaggi, DEIAGRA: Università di Bologna, Dipartimento di Economia e Ingegneria Agrarie, Bologna, Italy (davide.viaggi(at)unibo.it) / http://www.agrsci.unibo.it/deiagra/ WP0 leader: Pierre Burghart, CETIOM: Centre Technique Interprofessionnel des Oléagineux Métropolitains, France (burghart(at)cetiom.fr) EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 20 of 171

WG2.1 major cereals: Jack Massé, Emeric Emonet, ARVALIS- Institut du Végétal, Paris, France (E.EMONET(at)arvalisinstitutduvegetal.fr) / http://www.arvalisinstitutduvegetal.fr WG2.2 minor cereals, Petr Misa, Agricultural Research Institute Kromeriz,Ltd Czech Republic (misapetr(at)vukrom.cz) / http://www.vukrom.cz WG2.3 oilseeds: Manuela Specht, UFOP: Union for the Promotion of Oil and Protein Plants, Berlin, Germany (m.specht(at)bauernverband.net) / http://www.ufop.de/ WG2.4 sugar beet: Jean-Pierre Vandergeten, IIIRB International Institute for Beet Research, Brussels, Belgium (jp.vandergeten(at)irbab.be) / http://195.101.239.36/ WG2.5 Fibre crops: Przemyslaw Baraniecky, Institute of Natural Fibres, Poznan, Poland (baraniecki(at)inf.poznan.pl) WG2.6 Potatoes, Sue Cowgill , Michael Storey, BPC: British Potato Council, Oxford, United Kingdom (mstorey(at)potato.org.uk, scowgill(at)potato.org.uk) / http://www.potato.org.uk/ WG2.7 Grain legumes, Anne Schneider, AEP: European Association for Grain Legumes Research, Paris, France (a.schneider-aep(at)prolea.com) / http://www.grainlegumes.com/ WG2.8 Maize: Agustin Mariné, CEPM: Confederacion Europea de Productores de Maiz, Barbastro, Spain (agpmspain(at)terra.es) WG3.1 technical aspects at farm level: Aurora Sombrero, ITACYL: Instituto Tecnológico Agrario de Castilla y León, Valladolid, Spain (somsacau(at)itacyl.es) / http://www.itacyl.es WG3.2 farm economics and production costs: Tanjia Moellman, Yelto Zimmer, VTI : Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut fur Ländliche Räume, Wald und Fischerel, Braunschweig, Germany (yelto.zimmer(at)vti.bund.de, tanja.moellmann(at)vti.bund.de) / http://www.vti.bund.de/de/ WG3.3 Outlets and markets, Christine Michel, INRA; Davide Viaggi, David Cuming, Università di Bologna, Dipartimento di Economia e Ingegneria Agrarie, Bologna, Italy (davide.viaggi(at)unibo.it) WG3.4 Quality of agricultural products: David Turley, James Copeland CSL:Central Science Laboratory, Sand Hutton, York, UK (d.turley(at)csl.gov.uk, j.copeland(at)csl.gov.uk) / http://www.csl.gov.uk/ WG3.5 Environmental impacts: Thomas Nemecek, ART: Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station, Zurich, Switzerland (thomas.nemecek(at)art.admin.ch) / http://www.art.admin.ch WG3.6 Socio-economic issues: Rino Ghelfi, DEIAGRA: Università di Bologna, Dipartimento di Economia e Ingegneria Agrarie, Bologna, Italy (rghelfi(at)agrsci.unibo.it) / http://www.agrsci.unibo.it/deiagra/

PARTICIPANTS TO EXPERTS GROUPS WG2.1 major cereals Jöel ABECASSIS, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), France Alberto LAFARGA, Intituto Technico y de Gestion Agricola (ITGA), Spain Anne DUVAL , Home-Grown Cereals Authority (HGCA), UK Roger WILLIAMS, Home-Grown Cereals Authority (HGCA), UK Jon BIRGER PEDERSEN, Danish Agricultural Advisory Service (DAAS), Denmark Klaus NEHRING, Institute of Farm Economics (FAL), Germany Maria Grazia D'EGIDIO, Istituto Sperimentale per la Cerealicoltura, Italy Iuliana IONEL, Institute for Agricultural Economics, Romania Jack MASSE, ARVALIS - Institut du Végétal, France Emeric EMONET, ARVALIS - Institut du Végétal, France

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 21 of 171

WG2.2 minor cereals Petr Misa, Agricultural Research Institute Kromeriz, Czech Republic Molnarova Juliana, Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources, Slovakia J. L. Molina-Cano, Centre UdL/IRTA Lleida, Spain Stuart Swanston, Scottish Crop Research Institute, UK Clothilde Rouillon, ARVALIS - Institut du Végétal, France Sbigniew Bystry, PHR, Tulce Poland Jerzy Nawracala, Agricultural Academy, Poland Karel Klem, Agricultural Research Institute Kromeriz, Czech Republic Jaorslaw Spunar, Agricultural Research Institute Kromeriz, Czech Republic Petr Martinek, Agricultural Research Institute Kromeriz, Czech Republic WG2.3 Oilseed crops • Manuela Specht, UFOP, Germany, Claire-Waldoff-Straße 7, 10117 Berlin, Germany • Bernd Ulber, University Göttingen, Germany, Griesebachstraße 6, 37077 Göttingen, Germany • Xavier Pinochet, CETIOM, France, Centre de Grignon BP 4, 78850 Thiverval-Grignon, France • Michel Renard, INRA, France, Domaine de la Motte BP 35327, 35653 Le Rheu, France • Petr Baranyk, University Prag, Czech Republic, Kamycka 129, 16521 Prague 6 – Suchdol, Czech Republic • Heike Hintze-Gharres, HGCA, United Kingdom, Caledonia House, 223 Pentonville Road,London N1 9HY, UK • Roger Williams, HGCA, United Kingdom, Caledonia House, 223 Pentonville Road, London N19HY, UK • Geert Vanmarcke, Fediol, Belgium, Guldenbergplantsoen 2, 8500 Kortrijk, Belgium • Wolfgang Sauermann, Landwirtschaftskammer Schleswig-Holstein/UFOP, Germany, AmKamp 9, 24783 Osterrönfeld, Germany • Christian Haldrup, Landscentret, Denmark, Udkaersvej 15, 8200 Aarhus N, Denmark • Laszlo Lajko , Agricultural Genetist Engineer, Hungary, Magyar u. 19, 5000 Szolnok, Hungary • Dieter Bockey, UFOP, Germany, Claire-Waldoff-Straße 7, 10117 Berlin, Germany WG2.4 sugar beet J.P Vandergeten, IRBAB, Belgium Patrick J. Jarvis, British Sugar PLC., Peterborough, UK Guy Legrand, IRBAB, Belgium Cariolle Michel, Institut bTechnique de la Betterave, France Frans Tijink, IRS, Netherlands Nicola Minerva, Beta Society for Sugar Beet Research, Ravenna, Italia, Massimo Zavanella, Beta Society for Sugar Beet Research, Ravenna, Italia Herbert Eigner, Zuckerforschung Tulln GmbH, Tulln, Österreich Rodrigo Morillo-Velarde, Asociacion de Investigacion para la Mejora Del Cultivo de la Remolacha Azucarera (AIMCRA), Valladolid, Spain Bernward Märländer, Institut für Zuckerrübenforschung, Göttingen, Deutschland Frans Tijink, Stichting IRS, Bergen op Zoom, Nederland Jean-François Misonne, vzw KBIVB - IRBAB asbl, Tienen, België Keith Jaggard Broom's Barn Research Station, Higham, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, UK Olsson Robert Sockernäringens BetodlingUtveckling (SBU) Bjärred, Sweden: Marc Richard-Molard Institut Technique Français de la Betterave Industrielle, Paris WG2.5 Fibre crops Ryszard Koslowsky, Institute for Natural Fibres, Poznan, Poland Przemyslaw Baraniecki, Institute for Natural Fibres, Poznan, Poland EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 22 of 171

Urania Kechagia, National Agricultural Research Foundation, Cotton and Industrial Plants Institute, Thessaloniki, Greece Krzysztof Heller, Institute for Natural Fibres, Poznan, Poland Jerzy Mankowski, Institute for Natural Fibres, Poznan, Poland Marcin Praczyk, Institute for Natural Fibres, Poznan, Poland WG2.6 Potatoes Professor Sorin Chiru, INCDCSZ, Romania Mr Michel Martin, ARVALIS - Institut du Végétal, France Dr Norbert Haase, BFEL, Germany Professor Enrique Ritter Neiker, Spain Professor Anton Haverkort, WAU, The Netherlands Professor Howard Davies, SCRI, UK Dr Jonathan Yuen, Uppsala University, Sweeden Dr Michael Storey, British Potato Council, UK Dr Sue Cowgill, British Potato Council, UK WG2.7 Grain legumes Anne Schneider, AEP, France Anthony Biddle, Processors and Growers Research Association, UK Benoît Carrouée, UNIP, Union Nationale des plantes riches en protéines, France Gaétan Dubois, UNIP, Union Nationale des plantes riches en protéines, France Erik S. Jensen, RISOE, Denmark Frédéric Muel, GL-TTP, France Gérard Duc, INRA Dijon, France Y.Crozat, ESA Angers, France T.H. Noel Ellis, JIC. UK Catherine Golstein, GL-TTP Alfons Jansman, Animal Sciences Group, The Netherlands Marie-HéIène Jeuffroy, INRA, France Tanja Moellman, FAL, Germany Thomas Nemecek, ART Research Station, Switzerland Frédéric Pressenda, CEREOPA, France WG2.8 Maize Agustin Mariné, CEPM, Spain Alain Charcosset , INRA Le Moulon, France J.P. Renoux, ARVALIS - Institut du Végétal, France Joao Coimbra, Portugal Szabolcs Ruthner, Hungary Christian Leclerc, France Jesús Uruel, Spain WG3.1 technical aspects at farm level Aurora Sombrero, ITACYL, Spain Avelino de Benito, ITACYL, Spain Pierre Casta, ITACYL, Spain Manuel Rodriguez, ITACYL, Spain Bernhard C. Schaefer, FACHHOCHSCHULE SÜDWESTFALEN, Germany Alberto Lafarga, ITGA of Navarra, Spain Alvaro Ramos, University of Valladolid, Spain André Falisse, Faculté Universitaire de Sciences of Gembloux, Belgium EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 23 of 171

Carlos Escribano Villa, AAMS IBERICA, S.L., Spain Carlos Hernández, ETSI Agrónomos, Spain Etienne Pilorgé, CETIOM, Thiverval-Grignon, France Jorgen Olesen, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences of Aarhus, Denmark Jose Roldán, University of Córdoba, Spain Philippe Debaeke, INRA, Toulouse, France Willem B. Hoogmoed, University of Wageningen, Netherlands WG3.2 farm economics and production costs Yelto Zimmer, Head of agri benchmark Cash Crop Team, vTI - Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries, Institute of Farm Economics, Germany Thomas de Witte, vTI - Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries, Institute of Farm Economics, Germany Tanja Moellman, vTI - Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries, Institute of Farm Economics, Germany Ben Lang, University of Cambridge, Rural Business Unit, Department of Land Economy, UK Jean-Yves Longchamps , Arvalis – Institut du Végétal, Economic Studies Department, France Zoltan Zsiga, University of Kaposvar, Hungary Iuliana Ionel, Institute of Agricultural Economics, Romanian Academy, Romania Andres Krafft, Landmännen, Stockholm , Sweeden Jacek Prochorowicz, University of Szczecin, Poland Tomas Doucha, VUZE- Research Institute of Agricultural Economics, Head of Department of Economics of Agrarian Sector, Czech Republic Lorenz von Schintling-Horny, consultant, Germany Maria Blanco, Technical University of Madrid, Department of Agricultural Economics, ETSI Agronomos – Ciudad Universitaria, Spain WG3.3 Outlets and markets Friedrich Meuser, University of. Berlin, Germany Sergio Rivaroli, University of. Bologna, Italy Dimitre Nikolov, Institute of Agricultural Economics, Bulgaria Edward Majewski, University of. Warsaw, Poland Knud Erik Bach Knudsen, Faculty of Agricultural Science, Denmark Paul Colonna, INRA, France Christine Michel, INRA, France Daphné Lorne *(did not attend, but provided input prior to Meeting 1), IFP, France Davide Viaggi, University of. Bologna, Italy Rino Ghelfi, University of. Bologna, Italy David Cuming, University of. Bologna, Italy Etienne Pilorgé, CETIOM, France Ghislain Gosse, INRA, Lille, France Stuart Swanston, Scottish Crop Research Institute, UK Fons Voragen, WUR, The Netherlands Florian Wild, Fraunhofer-Institut, Germany Erik Jensen, Risø National Laboratory for Sustainable Energy, Denmark Jacques Evrard, CETIOM, France Joël Abecassis, INRA, France Siebe van de Geijn, WUR, The Netherlands WG3.4 Quality of agricultural products Workshop participants included - David Turley, Central Science Laboratory, UK EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 24 of 171

-

James Copeland ; Central Science Laboratory, UK Dr Sue Cowgill, Research and Development Project Manager, British Potato Council, UK scogill(at)potato.org.uk - Ian Munnery, Commercial Manager, United Oilseeds Marketing Limited, UK MUNERY(at)aol.com - Dr Peter Kettlewell, Reader in Crop Physiology, Crop and Environment Research Centre (CERC), Harper Adams University College, UK pskettlewell(at)harper-adams.ac.uk - Dr Anthony Biddle, Processors and Growers Research Organisation (PGRO), UK anthony(at)pgro.org - Dr Martin Whitworth, Cereals and Milling Science Manager, Campden & Chorleywood Food Research Association (CCFRA), UK m.whitworth(at)campden.co.uk - Dr Sarah Hugo, Head of UK GM Inspectorate, CSL, UK s.hugo(at)csl.gov.uk - Dr Laurence Castle, Scientific Development & Food Contaminates, Food Science Group, CSL, UK l.castle(at)csl.gov.uk - Dean Cook, Grain Storage, CSL, UK dean.cook(at)csl.gov.uk Others providing input - Prof. John W Snape, Department of Crop Genetics, John Innes Centre, UK john.snape(at)bbsrc.ac.uk WG3.5 Environmental impacts Thomas Nemecek, ART: Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station, Switzerland Laura de Baan, ART: Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station, Switzerland Gérard Gaillard, ART; Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station, Switzerland Christian Bockstaller, INRA Colmar, France Carlos Hernandez, University of Madrid, ETSI Agrónomos, Spain John Holland, The Game Conservancy Trust, Fordingbridge, Hampshire, UK Jan Kren, Mendel University of Agriculture and Forestry Brno, Faculty of Agronomy, Czech Rep Ib Sillebak Kristensen, University of Aarhus, Denmark Jonathan Marshall, Agroecology Limited, Barton, Winscombe, UK Alicja Pecio, IUNG Pulawy, Poland WG3.6 Socio-economic issues Rino Ghelfi, University of Bologna, Italy Davide Viaggi, University of Bologna, Italy Antonella Samoggia, University of Bologna, Italy Sergio Rivaroli, University of Bologna, Italy Alberto Caiti, University of Bologna, Italy David Cuming, University of Bologna, Italy Oonagh Mc Nerney, iPIC, Barcellona, Spain Annette Piorr, Leibniz-Zentrums für Agrarlandschaftsforschung (ZALF), Müncheberg, Germany Dimitre Nikolov, Institute of Agricultural Economics, Sofia, Bulgaria Narciso Arcas-Lario, Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena, Cartagena, Murcia – Spain Isidoro Guzman, Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena, Cartagena,Murcia – Spain Francesco Garibaldo, IPL – Istituto per il lavoro, Bologna, Italy

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 25 of 171

LIST OF ACRONYMS AC: Arable Crops CS: Cropping Systems ETP: European Technology Platform GL: Grain Legumes LFA: Less Favoured Areas NGT: Nominal Group Technique SRA: Strategic Research Agenda WG: Working Group WP: Work Package WTO : World Trade Organisation

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 26 of 171

REPORT 1. General methodology, organisation 1.1. Objectives, definitions EUROCROP project “aims to define a common vision for the future of research and development related to arable crops (AC). It enables to get together all concerned stakeholders and actors, in order to organize a collective analysis of research needs for improving the European arable crops competitiveness, and to propose relevant research actions. EUROCROP aims to propose a strategic research agenda (SRA) for the arable crops sector in 2015. The objective of EUROCROP is to identify critical research issues for increasing competitiveness. Improving competitiveness in arable production will rely first on the profitability at the individual farm level. Farmers will need to grow for the market, be sustainable and efficient and be seen to be giving taxpayers value for money both in terms of providing consumers with higher quality products as well as protecting the environment and enhancing environmental quality. Second, competitiveness has to be foreseen as a whole including the processing of raw materials and the marketing of end products. To meet its goals EUROCROP operates according to a cross-cutting approach, first by arable crop (cereals, oilseeds, sugar beets, fibre crops, potatoes, grain legumes and maize), and second by horizontal aspects of the competitiveness including technical aspects at farming level, farm economics and production costs, outlets and markets, quality of agricultural products and environmental impacts, social aspects. These topics are addressed by specialists, through a series of workshops, according to a common methodology. Each working group is led by a WG leader who is himself member of the EUROCROP core group and a specialist of the subject. The general organisation of the project is presented in chart (1) The action is built in such a way that crop chain approach is fully considered in WP2, in order to identify specific bottlenecks for increasing crop chains competitiveness. This vertical approach is then completed by a transversal one in WP3. The main arable crops (cereals and minor cereals, oilseeds, sugar beet, fibre crops, grain legumes and maize, starch potatoes, which benefited from CAP subsidies until its last reform), are represented through specialists and specific working groups. The role of alternative crops is taken into account in WP3. These subjects have been addressed by specialists and invited experts, in a series of workshops, according to a common method. The main results of the 32 months coordination action are (i) a strategic research plan and research proposals to be submitted to policy makers and planners, and widely discussed and disseminated by an open conference, and (ii) the setting-up of a European network of experts, to continue to work beyond the end of the action to set up RTD projects. The stakeholders involved in arable crop competitiveness include: farming and processing chains, agro-industrial end users and agricultural research, as well as associated actors as agro input suppliers (seeds, agrochemicals, fertilizers...), environment and consumers. Stakeholders and users of research are present mainly in the EUROCROP Project Advisory Committee (PADCO) in order to debate and give advice on the project priorities and direction. The objective of the action is to complete the representation of the crops production chains, from the consumer to the farmer, in order to take into account the whole “arable crops production system” and its environment: consumers and environment organisations, representative organizations of the Agro Industry. EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 27 of 171

Chart (1) General Organisation of EUROCROP

WP1 Socio-political management/ lead by CETIOM

Information

General specifications and methodology / Set of indicators to assess the proposals / Validation of the proposals

Project Advisory Committee (PADCO):

INF

Vision from crop chains of the issues to be addressed to research Lead by INF Poznan

WG 2.1 WG 2.2 WG 2.3 WG 2.4 WG 2.5 WG 2.6 WG 2.7 WG2.8

Cereals Minor cereals Oilseeds Sugar beet Fibre crops Potatoes Grain legumes Maize

Dissemination

WP2

ARVALIS Inst Kromeriz UFOP IIRB INF Poznan BPC AEP CEPM

WP3

Cross synthesis by horizontal topics to opening up research opportunities / Lead by DEIAGRA Universita di di Bologna

WG 3.1 WG 3.2 WG 3.3 WG 3.4 WG 3.5 WG 3.6

Technical aspects at farming level Farm economics and production costs Outlets and markets Quality of agricultural products Environmental impacts Socio economic issues

WP0

WP4 lead by CETIOM Final conference

ESA EURAGRI FEFAC Gruppo 183 ORGECO PROLEA DEIAGRA

Web site

CEFIC CEMA CIAA COPA-COGECA ECPA EFMA CETIOM

ITACYL FAL (GE) INRA CSL ART DEIAGRA

General Coordination of project activities

Lead by CETIOM / support team

Scientists and members of science and technology transfer organizations are leaders of the concerted actions WP and main actors of the WG. They come from different regions of the European Union, in order to represent the main production social and economical contexts and production systems.

Arable crops: The field of EUROCROP has been voluntarily limited to the AC which benefited from CAP subsidies until its last reform, i.e. a limited number of field crops which constitutes the main activity of the farming systems specialized in vegetal productions, and also the central point of crop chains. EUROCROP intends to consider both the “vertical” vision of the competitiveness of a single crop and its value chain, i.e. a crop chain approach, and the “horizontal” vision through transversal topics which correspond in fact to the main fields of competitiveness and public good. Crops chains may be considered as value chains crossing fields of impacts, benefits of losses, and so fields of competitiveness.

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 28 of 171

Chart (2) WP1 General specifications, scenarios ; led by CETIOM Methodology to assess the proposals, Validation of the proposals (PROLEA, EURAGRI, ESA, EFMA, ECPA, COPA/COGECA, ORGECO, FEFAC, CEMA, Gruppo183, CIAA, CEFIC)

WP2: Vision from CROP (VALUE) CHAINS / led by INF WP3: horizontal topics / Led by DEIAGRA Cereals Universita di Bologna (IMPACT DIMENSIONS)

Arvalis

Min cereals I.Krom eriz

Oil Seeds UFOP

Sugar Beet IIRB

Fibre Crops INF

Pota toes BPC

Grain Legu mes AEP

Maize CEPM

Farms competitiveness: agricultural producton systems

ITACyL Farms competitiveness: farm economics and farmers’ income

vTI Consumers &users: markets &outlets

Consumers and users: quality

CSL

DEIAGRA

WP0

GENERAL COORDINATION / led by

Final conference

Society / socio-economics issues

Web site

ART

Dissemination

WP4 / led by CETIOM

Environmental issues

What is arable crops “competitiveness” for EUROCROP? This question was among the first subjects of debats during the July 2006 kick-off meeting in Brussels. The debates around competitiveness led to the consideration of a three-pronged approach: - markets, and economical competitiveness as a key component - regulations dealing with social, sustainability and other miscellaneous aspects. Meeting regulations has a cost or a value for crop chain actors - sustainability or social issues, not yet transformed into regulations or immediate costs or values, require that crop chain practices are verified as being cross compliant. For its current works, EUROCROP distinguishes between two levels: “Competitiveness C1”: Economical competitiveness and markets, with two sub entries: - Economic competitiveness of arable crops at farm level in EU countries (one crop versus other crops, arable crops versus other land uses): focus on yield, production costs, net income, farm economics (assuming the respect of current regulations when enforced) - Economical competitiveness of EU arable crops in markets: meeting the demand of industries and consumers (quantity, quality, specifications aspects, regularity of the production, market prices…): focus on quality, cost per unit produced, market access costs. EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 29 of 171

This first level is a more or less short/medium term approach. “Competitiveness C2”: Sustainability and social issues, which need assessment through indicators. EUROCROP examines the interactions between arable crop production and “external” factors of public interest, such as environmental issues and social issues (citizen demand, employment, rural life…), in a medium term/ long term approach.

1.2. General organisation and methodology Chart (3) Overview of the methodology/ tasks organisation POLITICAL / GLOBAL LEVEL / WP1 – PADCO / Core Group

SCIENTIFIC LEVEL WP2 & WP3 – Core Group

Understanding the Arable Crops System What is going to change ? (in the context and in the system

Evaluation of the AC system “competences”: What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Arable crops chains?

Identification of stakes and challenges to future Building scenarios

Rank alternatives

Analysis of present research status and knowledge facing stakes/challenges

How to fill the gap ? Identifying research axes and research challenges

Brief description of research axes deliverables

As shown in chart (3), EUROCROP worked on two interactive levels: At the level of WP1 / PADCO + core group, a three-step strategic thinking process was developed, using basic retrospective and prospective approaches with 2015 as the horizon: Identification of the main challenges to guarantee AC competitiveness through to 2015: o Understanding and describing the European arable crops system (structure and dynamics), o Identifying potential changes and making hypotheses on the changes in the system and in its context o Identifying and analysing the actual strengths and weaknesses of AC EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 30 of 171

-

Building scenarios for contexts Ranking the research areas in terms of priorities and in coherence with the scenarios

Making priorities in a list of needs – whatever expressed as challenges of research topics - requires a consensus vision of future It may be attempted through forecasts, generally based on the continuation of tendencies, but this approach reveals insufficient in most cases, since it is unable to take into account unexpected events or ruptures. The recent and still ongoing world crisis is a very good illustration of this situation and of the limits of forecasts… For this reason, building strategies on forecasts may be risky. Furthermore, important factors for the future of AC are numerous and making hypotheses on the future behaviour of individual factors soon lead to consider high number of combinations. It is the reason why the project team chose to elaborate scenarios, based on sets of hypotheses which are coherent, relevant for the AC, and plausible. Scenarios are not intended to forecast future, but to provide a frame for strategic thinking.

At the scientific level (WP2 and WP3) the identification of priority areas was carried out through: a preparatory work on the present status of research and knowledge organized to take into consideration the main challenges and the weaknesses of AC identifying priority research areas and research challenges to fill the gap (experts groups) briefly describing the topics and deliverables expected in each research area.

1.3. Definition of the final product of EUROCROP The final deliverable of EUROCROP must express the strategic thinking developed during the 32 months of the project and show the coherence of the proposals for research with the main challenges that arable crops have to face. These challenges may vary in importance in different context scenarios. In practice, to structure its works and express priorities in its proposals, EUROCROP used a hierarchical thinking with 4 levels as shown on chart (4): Level 1: “Stakes” Level 2 “Challenges” Level 3 “goals” Level 4 “research actions” The definition of these hierarchical levels has been the object of a common understanding rather late in the project life, and the following definitions were agreed: The “Stake” refers to the AC system. It is a dimension, a major field of competitiveness: what is “at stake”. The Challenge refers to the AC system. It is a strategic objective (covering a set of actions, a behaviour) to increase competitiveness: a competitive action. The (research) “goal” refers to research. It is a research objective that could contribute significantly to win one or more challenges The “research action” or “research gap” refers to research. It represents a deficiency in research to be filled to respond to research goals (more detailed than goals). EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 31 of 171

Chart (4) Key factors Internal factors hypotheses

External factors WP1

stakes

10

competitiv +

challenges challenges

30

ACTORS

Main research Main research goals goals

Scenarios on AC Context evolutions Weights / ranking

100

WP2 / WP3

Pertinence Research Research Research action action

action

Research action

Some

The hierarchical representation is generally clear at the level of challenges, with single connection between a challenge and a stake, but finds rapidly its limits since the experience shows that a research goal may contribute to several challenges: a matrix representation is then needed. Once priorities clarified, EUROCROP proposals were made as Research topics. A Research topic is a coherent proposal for research, designed consistently with research topic description in FP7 workprogrammes. It may include elements from research goals, research gaps, or even more detailed. The detailed description of the research topics includes actions and deliverables and refers to the hierarchical thinking considering the challenges for AC. Its presentation is as follows: 1. Reference challenge/research goal 2. Background/problem description 3. Objectives & research challenges 4. Expected output/deliverables

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 32 of 171

1.4. Setting the EUROCROP strategic framework of thinking The elaboration of the EUROCROP strategic thinking framework went through several steps: (see scenarios report) The consensus description of the arable crop system elaborated during the first year of the project, is summarized in the following figure: Social and economics world level/ Markets and trade

Social and economics / EU outlets & demand

Currencies

World food / AC

World and EU non

Consumers demand

Image of agriculture

World AC products

Policies & regulations

World AC products EU agro industries

Price of markets

Distribution Biofuels

Animal productions Aquaculture outlet

Citizens demand

C2 PK availability

Soil Water supply

Environ ment

Natural ressources

CAP Other policies & regulations

Land uses

Production costs/ inputs energy

Innovation in AC production techniques

Quality of

EU enlargement

Transports costs

EU Arable crops competitiveness C1 In 2015

Yield level, progress in yield

Climate change

WTO

Transports

Farm

Kyoto Crop protection

Farmers demography

Public and private research issues, technologies

A Crops chains actors dynamics

Rural areas populations

Actors interests and behaviors

Crops chains Other factors ?

Agricultural near context / Rural socio economics

Chart (5) AC CROPS SYSTEM AND ITS ENVIRONMENT

This representation includes 5 external dimensions (Social and economics aspects IN EU, EU outlets and demand / World level markets and trade / Policies and regulations / Environment / agriculture near context, rural socio economics) and 1 internal dimension (on farm production). These dimensions were used to identify challenges and elaborate scenarios.

Reference: see report “questionnaire retropro synthesis” At that stage, the EUROCROP team had at its disposal a rather complete list of dimensions, factors and hypothesis of changes, with an assessment of their relative importance. This basic information constituted the common thinking framework of EUROCROP, used for the elaboration of scenarios (PADCO + core group) and as global context description in the WP2 and WP3 working groups.

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 33 of 171

2. Crops chains priorities (3 to 5 pages per sub-chapter) Arable crops cover 40% of the European Union's utilised agricultural area, and are found in all the Member States. In economic terms, AC are one of the main sectors of European agriculture, with about 10,7% of total agricultural output value and about 20% of the value of crop production. Within the sector, cereals, with 9,2% of output value and about 270 million tonnes in 2006, represent by far the main crop category. For their relative importance and basic consumption uses (food, feed, others) AC are a main component of the agricultural economy and a key sector to ensure food availability, safety and accessible food prices. For their role as raw materials for downstream sectors, AC are a key component of competitiveness for livestock production and food/non food processing industries. For their wide cultivation, AC play a major role in all issues concerning agriculture and the environment, either in terms of adaptation of agriculture to different climatic conditions, in terms of impacts on the environment and in terms of the positive role of landscape creation and management by agriculture. AC production has a very different role in different agricultural systems. In some cases, AC are the core business of very specialised, competitive farms. In other cases, however, they represent the residual land use of marginal areas. Chain connections related to AC may include the agro-food industry, feed production, or non-food/non feed. Though they are mainly commodity goods, in some cases AC are connected to much specialised, high value added, and territorial specific value chains, e.g. durum wheat. The EUROCROP Project takes into account eight crop chains (major cereals, minor cereals, oil crops, sugar beet, fibre crops, potato, grain legumes and maize), covering 21 crops. The vertical approach of EUROCROP Project considered how the issue of competitiveness would likely (or should) influence the development in considered crop chains. The objectives of EUROCROP were to identify issues crucial for arable crops chains competitiveness: what is at stake and what are the bottlenecks. Some priorities proved to be universal and common to majority or all crop chains. Yet, generally, analyses of current situation and conditions for each considered crop chain differ from each other. Each crop chain defines its stakes and challenges differently; therefore individual crop chains have specific problems and needs. This synthesis summarizes these main specific points.

2.1. Cereals 2.1.1 Positioning of the cereals chain in the EU economy Soft wheat and durum wheat are used for human consumption worldwide in foodstuffs like bread, pasta, flour, biscuits, dough, semolina… Soft wheat is also used in feed, in the starch industry, for biofuel production and in green chemistry. Over 500 Mt of soft wheat are produced each year in the world.

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 34 of 171

Chart 6: Cereals chain

Inputs Cies -Agrochem -Fertilizer -Machinery -manufacturers

Common wheat

Flour exports Food 55Mt

Flour mills Green chemistry Other processing industries biofuels Merchants& cooperatives Grain Exports 14,6Mt Animal feed industries

Wheat Growers

Common wheat 116 MT/ 21,8Mha UE27

Animal Feed 52,5Mt

Animal production farmers

Seeds growers Seeds companies

Sowing seeds exports

Durum wheat is essentially destined for the semolina and pasta industry. Main competitor’s products and countries are: - for feed: maize (US), barley, by-products of cereals coming from industrial processes,… - for food export market : wheat from Australia, the USA, Argentina, Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan - for the starch industry :maize (Argentina), potatoes,… - for biofuel: maize (USA), sugar beet (Brazil), sugar cane, palm oil (Asia), oilseed… and fossil resources are the main competitors in the fuel and green chemistry markets. Yield levels are very different between EU countries. They are higher and more consistent in Germany, the UK, France and Denmark than in Spain, Italy, Romania, and Poland... Northern and western countries benefit from a temperate climate and more efficient production systems (input utilisation, variety…) compared with other countries of eastern EU. This allows them to achieve a more stable wheat production.

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 35 of 171

Chart 7: Durum wheat chain Hard wheat

Inputs Cies -Agrochem -Fertilizer -Machinery -manufacturers

Food: 7,9Mt

Semolina and paste industry

Cooperatives &Merchants Animal Feed 0,6Mt

Exports 1Mt Durum wheat 8Mt / 3Mha

growers

Seeds companies

Seeds growers

exports

The table below gives information on the wheat market and production in the EU and in the world (year 2006). Table 1: Key data for Common Wheat in the EU - 2006 Harvest (stratégie Grains 169) Production

Area

Yield

Stock level

Import intra EU

Import extra EU

Export intra EU

Export extra EU

Food / industry uses*

Feed uses

Mt

Mha

t/ha

Mt

Mt

Mt

Mt

Mt

Mt

Mt

EU 27

116.4

21.8

5.3

20.4

19.5

4.2

19.4

14.6

54.8

52.5

France

33.5

4.8

7

2.8

0.1

0

8

6.2

8.7

10

Germany United Kingdom

21.9

3.1

7.1

4.9

1.4

0

3.6

2.5

8

10.4

14.7

1.8

8

1.8

0.6

0.5

1.7

0.2

6.3

7.2

Poland

7.1

2.2

3.2

1.5

0.8

0.01

0.1

0.4

4.4

2.6

Romania

4.8

1.9

2.6

1.1

0.4

0

0.2

0.3

3.4

0.8

Denmark

4.8

0.7

7

0.6

0.2

0

0.6

0.07

0.4

3.9

Hungary

4.4

1.1

4.1

2.3

0.1

0

1.1

1.4

1.2

1

Spain Czech republic

4

1.4

2.8

0.4

3.2

1.3

0.05

0

3.8

4.9

3.6

0.78

4.6

0.8

0.07

0

0.6

0.3

1.2

1.7

Italy

0.8

0.6

5.1

0.7

3.1

1.6

0.02

0

5.8

1.8

Bel/Lux

0.3

0.2

7.8

0.3

2.3

0.1

0.4

0.06

2

1.7

Netherlands

0.2

0.1

8.6

0.2

3.8

0

0.2

0.04

2.5

2.1 * including flour

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 36 of 171

Table 2: Key data for Common Wheat worldwide - 2006 Harvest (stratégie Grains 169) Production

Acreage

Yield

Stock level

Export Total

Export within EU

Import Total

Import within EU

Food / industry uses

Feed uses

Mt

Mha

t/ha

Mt

Mt

Mt

Mt

Mt

Mt

Mt

130

100

457

95

21.8

5.3

20.4

14.6

19.5

54.8

52.5

-

-

2

-

-

9.7 6.1 31.3

4

World

553

EU 27

116.4

China South Korea / Japan

103

Brazil

100 19.4

4.2

-

-

India

70

-

-

USA Russia + Ukraine

49.3

15.5

0.9

3.1

44+14

6.2

26.2 7.9 + 3.6

0.9+0.9

4.3

Canada

26

9.8

20

1

-

North Africa

19

-

-

Argentina

14

0.6

8.7

Kazakhstan

12.5

-

5.1

Australia

10

-

14.3 0.2

-

12.3

13.5

Nigeria

-

-

-

4

-

Iraq

-

-

-

4.2

Table 3: Key Data for Durum Wheat in the EU - 2006 Harvest (stratégie Grains 169 ; CIC / ONIGC) Import within EU

Import outside EU

Export within EU

Export outside EU

Mt

Mt

Mt

Mt

Mt

1.8

1.5

1

7.9

0.6

1.4

0.02

0.01

5.2

0.02

0.07

0.02

0.6

0.7

0.5

0.06

0.05

0.03

0.4

0.2

0.5

0.4

Area

Yield

Mt

Mha

t/ha

Mt

Mt

8

3

2.8

1.5

1.5

Italy

3.4

1.3

2.6

0.5

0.7

France

2.1

0.5

4.7

0.2

Spain

1.6

0.6

2.5

0.1

Greece

0.9

0.5

1.7

0.4

0.02

0

EU 27

Price

Stock level

Production

Food / industry uses*

Feed uses

0.08 0.04 0.7 0.1 * including semolina and secondary products

Table 4: Key Data for Durum Wheat worldwide- 2006 Harvest (stratégie Grains 169 ; CIC / ONIGC) Stock level

Export Total

Export within EU

Import Total

Import within EU

Food uses

Feed uses

t/ha

Mt

Mt

Mt

Mt

Mt

Mt

Mt

Production

Area

Yield

Mt

Mha

Price

World

33.9

5

6.3

EU 27

8

3

2.8

1.5

1

1.5

1.8

1.5

7.9

0.6

3.5

1.7

2.1

3.3

3.7

1

0

0

0.3

0.4

Canada Turkey

6.3

3

0.1

0.02

0.1

0

-

-

Kazakhstan

2.6

-

0.03

-

0

-

-

Algeria

2.2

-

-

1.5

0.9

-

-

Syria

2

-

0.06

-

-

-

-

Morocco

1.9

0.6

-

0.3

0.2

-

-

USA

1.5

0.8

0.2

0.6

0.04

Tunisia

1.4

-

-

0.1

0.04

India

1.1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0.1

0.3

-

-

-

-

Australia

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

1

2.1 -

-

Page 37 of 171

In countries in the north and west of the EU, yields improved consistently for 30 years but have progressed more slowly for the last few years. Wheat competitiveness has tended to decrease because of this, and because of a fall in prices after the 1992 CAP reform. Since the start of decoupling of EU subsidies in 2003, farmers have become more sensitive to market price fluctuations. Competitiveness depends on their ability to reduce the cost of production. Production cost levels vary quite considerably between EU countries. In the north and west of the Union, they are rather high, but lower in the UK, Italy, and Denmark than in France or Germany. In France, they have been stable for several years. The farming population has tended to decrease in those countries, and farm sizes to increase. Eastern and southern countries such as Spain, benefit from lower production costs. In eastern countries (Romania, Poland,…), farm size and type are more varied. Logistic costs are higher. There are many more farms and much more rural labour. Yields fluctuate more because of continental climatic conditions. Production costs may rise in the medium term as higher inputs increase yields. Productivity should be improved even if climatic conditions impact strongly on the level of production. Except for home-grown wheat used as animal feed, the wheat chain is a “long chain process”, with secondary processing. Soft wheat benefits from numerous markets compared with durum wheat. The structure of the chain varies depending on the country. For example in France, cooperatives are a major player in the chain. In the UK, coops have about 33% of the market share. Market Food Feed Biofuel Biomass fuel Green chemistry

Distributor food processing companies, retailers compound processors fuel companies, retailers grain storage organisations, processor

Customers consumers, institutions farmers consumers, companies consumers, farmers, companies, institutions

food processing companies, retailers

consumers, companies, institutions

Competition between markets has an impact on wheat usage, but will also affect and change grain storage organisations’ strategies and relations with processors. There may be consequences at local, national, EU, or world level. It may affect organizations and the role of people involved in the chain, as well as crop localisation. Quality covers various aspects: safety, technological, nutritional, methods of production. Associated requirements are increasingly demanding for all those aspects. Technological requirements for grain depend on specific needs and end-use properties (food, feed, non-food), on markets (EU, export) and on the operator. For instance, protein content, gluten quality and colour are important for durum wheat export and for high quality pasta production. Processors also need regular quality and quantity. On the world market, technological quality and price are the main criteria. In the EU, safety and environmental requirements are added to technological ones. Safety issues have increased over the last 15 years. The EU recently set up hygienic packaging regulations for food and feed uses. Each operator in the wheat chain must fulfil safety and traceability requirements. For the wheat chain, the issue of mycotoxins is a major risk needing to be managed. Constraints and risk management tools are not adequately harmonized between EU EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 38 of 171

countries, or with world competitors. International standards should be set up on safety and technological issues in order to make exchanges easier. 2.1.2 Strengths and weaknesses analysis of the cereals chain and major challenges strengths of wheat chain: - Wheat plays a major part in European cropping systems. - It is suited to various pedoclimatic conditions. - Even if problems remain, wheat pathogens, weeds and pests are managed rather well. diseases through the use of fungicides and improved varieties, weeds through chemical protection and cropping techniques, insects through chemical solutions and improved varieties. - Wheat crops have a relatively low environmental impact and a rather satisfactory energy balance. Compared with other crops, wheat production uses moderate amounts of pesticides, water, Phosphorus and Potassium fertilizers, and energy. - Biomass production is rather high, and carbon stocks in the soil are significant if the straw is incorporated. - Soft wheat has the advantage of having many potential food and non food markets - Wheat producing countries in the EU are capable of regular production, with quality levels suited to the markets and safety quality levels which are, on the whole, under control. - Rather optimised systems in Western and northern EU countries from an agronomical and economical point of view Main Weaknesses: - dependency on pesticides - The main input to consider is nitrogen. It can lead to water pollution, and degrade the energy balance of the crop. - Rather high production costs in western and northern EU countries Threats -

-

Innovation from private research programmes on pesticides and molecular availability may decrease Depending on the type of molecules involved, the resistance of crop pests, weeds and pathogens can increases or not A reduction in the number of chemical solutions may have an impact on the safety quality of wheat. Soft wheat is in competition with other raw materials in some markets. The balance of power between upstream and downstream of the sector is uneven. Production and marketing rules (import/export, environment, GMOs, safety quality, regulations, subsidies) differ from one country to another, and can distort competition, hinder innovation or even modify the way the sector is organised in a region or a country (e.g.: Denmark, Italy). The competitiveness of European wheat also depends on the €/$ rate of exchange.

Main challenges identified in major cereals crop chain: 1. Increase production level. 2. Manage environmental impact of crop system. 3. Decrease production costs. 4. Improve inputs efficiency. 5. Assessing, foreseeing and mitigating the impact of climate change 6. Obtain and maintain good sanitary and technologically quality. EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 39 of 171

2.1.3 Priority questions to research from the cereals chain Some recommendations can be made to the wheat chain. Develop integrated systems and multi criteria assessments Establishing wheat production techniques that are capable of taking account of various specific situations is a priority. Depending on the situation, and if the objective is to improve system productivity, priority should be given to improving input efficiency (nitrogen and pesticides). Conversely, some production systems may require a reduction in input levels. The development of this type of flexible system means developing multidisciplinary initiatives, including agronomy, plant protection, varietal choice, labour organization, precision farming, etc… Depending on the context, the cropping system will have to focus on either: − input use and strategies (chemicals, water resources, fertilizer), − energy cost level, − or machinery management (minimum tillage systems,…) Our ability to assess production systems and innovations is another major research subject. This assessment must be based on a benefit and risk assessment. It involves developing tools and methods based on indicators, diagnoses, accreditation certificates in fields as varied as environmental impact, product quality, energy consumption, competitiveness... On environmental issues, research is focusing on: − biodiversity: definition, indicators…. − water supply and management, water quality − air quality assessment − use of energy resources − input use : pesticides, fertilizer including phosphorus and potassium − impact of GM crops − impact of systems on soil fertility: organic content of soil (southern EU countries issue) In order to disseminate those innovations and to get new techniques approved decision support systems must be developed to help farmers. They will help them make choices. Models, databases, and new information technology must be fully utilised. Production systems must be adapted according to the impact of climate change The impact of climate change and the adaptation of wheat cropping systems to cope with this phenomenon (temperatures, CO2, water, pests, weeds and pathogens) is one of the main issues for research in the future. Climate change will affect: − abiotic stress: warming, water availability, increasing CO2 levels,… − biotic stress: diseases, insects,… − crop cycle: earliness, fertility of crop, photoperiod system,… − cropping techniques: sowing date,… − characteristics of products: protein content,… − crop distribution Many research fields will help face this challenge: physiology, agronomy, model-building, climatology, epidemiology, entomology, genomics… For example, we must improve our knowledge of wheat insects and diseases and their behaviour as a result of climate change.

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 40 of 171

Varietal selection and genetic research are “key” research fields. Breeding and genomics are certainly one of the most useful research fields to adapt crops to climate change. They can also help to meet expectations for safety, technological quality and nutritional properties of wheat. It requires modern technology tools and methods to improve plant breeding efficiency and gene selection methods, as well as to explore genetic resources. Examples of research fields on key genetic drivers: − yield improvement, − vigorous plant emergence, − length of crop cycle, earliness, duration,… − resistance/tolerance to non-biotic stresses: temperature, CO2, water − resistance/tolerance to biotic stresses: diseases, pests, − quality characteristics: allelic variations on interesting genes − safety quality: varietal resistance, ability to limit mycotoxin levels, − technological quality in relation to end-use − nutritional aspects − wheat biomass (wholecrop, grain and by-products) for energy − processes for green chemistry : increase starch content of grain destined for industrial uses, … − medicinal issue. − … Innovation coming from biotechnology must be assessed according to a benefit/risk approach. Wheat properties: a “key” issue for the chain In order to find new uses for wheat, its technological properties must be explored (characterization, availability, behaviour, extraction of agro-polymers). It will help to adapt the process to a particular use, to create new ones and to improve the ability of the raw material to be processed. Examples of issues to be solved: NB: in brackets = (relevant market). − nutritional properties (food, feed): availability of components. E.g.: to reduce fat content, increase flavour. Knowledge of whole grain use and properties. − properties of wheat (grain and straw) and its by-products for feed, energy, biofuel production, or green chemistry uses (feed, non-food). How to split components? How to obtain polymers? − assess benefits of wheat for medicinal purposes (non-food) − safety quality (food, feed): how to limit levels of mycotoxins, heavy metals contaminants, etc. Wheat competitiveness for each use and consequences for the chain should be assessed. In order to guarantee food safety, sanitary risk management tools or techniques must be encouraged all along the chain (in the field, during storage, and during the processing), even when farms are directly in contact with processors. Main research themes for this issue: − develop contaminant management methods and tools: mycotoxins, insects, heavy metals, pesticide residue… − develop quick monitoring methods to manage batches − alternative (non-chemical) methods of pest control in grain stores and in processing facilities. New grain cooling strategies to cope with global warming for example. − link between safety guarantees and crop protection methods. EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 41 of 171

Associated issues Tools and methods must be harmonised at EU level: economy (calculation of production cost …), environment (indicators...), quality (standards…), insurance system (benchmarking…),… Information networks must be developed within the EU on market, price, varietal properties, etc. For example, a common method to assess varieties (identity cards of varieties at EU level) could be created and combined with regional segmentation. The comparison of cropping systems at EU level would be useful to develop revised strategies and choices. It would help the players in the chain, but also public authorities before they set regulations. In order to reduce the gap between agriculture and society, methods should be developed to study consumer expectations and future needs for wheat by the food industry. Socio-cultural approaches could help to understand what the public and consumers want, taking into account the differences between countries, and the difference in attitudes depending on the issue: GMOs, contaminants, allergens, new products… It must combine communication tools, including official ones, to develop consumer knowledge of food (quality, composition…), and to improve confidence in wheat process and production (from farm to fork): benefits of wheat for a balanced diet, food quality and health (see “Healthgrain” project), and production methods. Research and development should combine knowledge and techniques to create tools and methods able to assess systems (benefit, risk, cost…) in order to help make decisions and communicate. Dynamic innovations within the EU play a major part in wheat competitiveness, and must be encouraged. This requires effective relations and partnerships between research and other wheat chain operators: between public and private research, between research and industry with a link to consumers, between research and public authorities, and between research and farmers.

2.2. Secondary cereals (barley, oat, rye, triticale) 2.2.1 Positioning of the minor cereals chains in the EU economy Barley Barley is grown all around the Europe. The highest yields are attained in Belgium, Ireland, France, Netherlands, Germany and UK. Due to harvesting area and high export (both malt and feed) barley is the second most considerable cereal grown in the EU. Use (main products): - Feed for animals - Barley not meeting criteria for malt and other special objectives is used. However, demands for special feed quality standards are stronger and stronger (animal production farmers, producers of feed mixtures). Opportunity for new varieties with specific feed quality is here. - EU is considered (especially France and Germany) one of greatest exporters of barley. Perspective markets – China, India, North Africa; the strongest external competitors Australia, Canada, Ukraine and Russian Federation. - Food use -malt EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 42 of 171

-

-

About 14 % of production is used as malt barley for beer production. Share of malt barley in EU (25) is about 24% (including exports). The strongest external competitors – Australia, Canada. - FAO estimates the total food use at about 20% of total world production, i.e. approximately 30 million tons (average 2003-2005). Non-food, non-feed use - Perspective, but the amount is low so far. Substitutions - Feed – other cereals. - Malt – over 90% of beer is produced from barley. Beer from other cereals is produced mainly in non- European countries (maize – Canada, South Africa and other African countries; sorghum and millet – Africa).

Chart 8: Barley chain Barley chain

Inputs Cies -Agrochem -Fertilizer -Machinery -manufacturers

Exports >13Mt

Grouts

Processing industry

Collectors and merchants

consumers

growers Malt factories EU: 14Mha/ 56Mt

beer breweries Malt Malt: 24% of the production including exports = 13,5Mt Malt Exports 1Mt malt

Price difference Between malt and Feed barley = 30%

Animal feed industries « the major part of the production »

Seeds growers Seeds companies

Animal production farmers

Sowing seeds exports

Table 5: Barley main producing countries in EU (25) Country Production ( t) Harvesting area (ha) Germany 11734081 2000298 France 10397621 1663849 Spain 7931706 3164285 United Kingdom 5906000 1010667 Denmark 3720631 704025 Poland 3328091 1047732 Czech Republic 2198217 513492 EU (25) 56450000 13148736 Average of years 2003-2005 (data source - FAO)

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 43 of 171

Table 6: Production of malt barley in the world Region, country Production (mil. t) EU (25) 14.0 Canada 2.0 Australia 2.5 USA 2.0 China 1.0 Russian Federation 0.5 South America 0.5 Average of years 2003-2005 Table 7: Barley EU imports and exports / Main exporters - world Country Production ( t) Export ( t) France 10397621 6656220 Australia 9330256 4833410 Germany 11734081 3144320 Ukraine 8964233 2880560 Russian Federation 16991467 2396700 Canada 12665067 1835510 Average of years 2003-2005 (production), resp. 2002 – 2004 (export). Data source - FAO Table 8: Barley main exporters – EU countries Country Production ( t) Export ( t) France 10397621 6656220 Germany 11734081 3144320 United Kingdom 5906000 1656150 Denmark 3720631 1065460 Czech Republic 2198217 453430 Average of years 2003-2005 (production), resp. 2002 – 2004 (export). Data source - FAO

Markets and markets tendencies “Feed” barley - EU is considered (especially France and Germany) one of greatest exporters of barley. Perspective markets – China, India, North Africa; the strongest external competitors Australia, Canada, Ukraine and Russian Federation. Malt barley - World production of beer grew about 30% in last 15 years and the growth has stabile linear character. The most rapid increase of production and consumption is in Asia. However, it is opportunity for quality malt barley. But other great world exporters (Australia, Canada) also will interest in this market Oats Oats lose interest of processing industry and consumers, consequently economical competitiveness. The harvesting area is small. Oats become a perspective for growing in LFA, new ways of market use are needed for stabilization of their area at least (new food products, industrial using, pharmacy using etc.) Oats is also suitable for organic farming systems and environmental friendly systems. Table 9: Oats main producing countries in EU (25) Country Production ( t) Harvesting area (ha) Poland 1312119 528614 Finland 1123400 380733 Germany 1117013 233219 Sweden 924633 233105 Spain 816392 469567 EU (25) 7500000 2650000 Average of years 2003-2005 (data source – FAO, Eurostat)

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 44 of 171

Table 10: Oats main exporters - world Country Production ( t) Export ( t) Canada 3602133 1176050 Finland (EU) 1123400 430570 Sweden (EU) 924633 360350 Australia 1569512 214850 United Kingdom (EU) 636667 170110 Chile 461334 115600 Average of years 2003-2005 (production), resp. 2002 – 2004 (export). Data source - FAO

Rye Rye loses interest of processing industry and consumers, consequently economical competitiveness. The use of rye is above all as a bread cereal in the countries of central Europe (see table of main producing countries in EU), i.e. the growing of rye is regionally specific in the EU. It is suitable for organic farming systems and environmental friendly systems. If rye becomes perspective for growing in LFA (Less favoured Areas), at least new ways of market use are needed for stabilization of their area (new food products, industrial using, etc.; comparatively like USA, Canada, Japan). Table 11: Rye main producing countries in EU (25) Country Production ( t) Harvesting area (ha) Poland 3618985 1481424 Germany 2966958 568425 Czech Republic 223138 49343 Austria 169990 42838 Spain 157739 90823 EU (25) 8700000 2500000 Average of years 2003-2005 (data source – FAO, Eurostat)

Table 12: Rye main exporters - world Country Production ( t) Export ( t) Germany (EU) 2966958 1181020 Ukraine 1090233 230980 Russian Federation 3550743 163930 Canada 367867 129590 Belarus 1234404 117660 Denmark (EU) 148900 64740 Poland (EU) 3618985 31380 Average of years 2003-2005 (production), resp. 2002 – 2004 (export). Data source - FAO

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 45 of 171

Triticale Triticale has not great interest of processing industry and consumers and consequently economical competitiveness. Triticale is grown only for feed (mainly) and industrial use. International market is not monitored for very low importance. Triticale is suitable for organic farming and low-inputs systems and for growing in LFA. Table 13: Triticale main producing countries in EU (25) Country Production ( t) Harvesting area (ha) Poland 3479289 1079443 Germany 2815348 495996 France 1636455 316230 Hungary 489551 151048 Sweden 248933 48992 EU (25) 10684000 2500000 Average of years 2003-2005 (data source – FAO, Eurostat)

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 46 of 171

2.2.2 Strengths and weaknesses analysis of the minor cereals chains Barley Strengths: Weaknesses: -

High yield level in some EU countries Rising beer production and consumption (out of EU) Share on the world market Well-established make in malting quality Adaptability of the crop Wide variety of germoplasm (relatively easily accessible for breeding) Possibilities of cultivation in low input systems Important feed component Perspective new food, non-food, non-feed uses European speciality Growing beer market Organic cultivation

Oats Strengths: -

Suitability for organic and low-input growing systems Suitability for LFA Perspective new food, non-food, non-feed uses Suitable for special/high quality food Perspective, non-food, non-feed uses Low inputs crop

Rye and Triticale Strengths: -

Suitability for organic and low-input growing systems Suitability for LFA (sandy and acid soils) *Stability of regional demands and tradition in use Triticale – most suitable grain species for bioethanol production Triticale – high dietary value for feed High competitiveness to weeds Organic cultivation Suitability for LFA Increasing market for organic products Rye – special or high quality food product Non-food, non-feed uses

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

-

Unstable yields Strong competition on world market Quality fluctuation Changes in demanded quality parameters Small number of varieties grown on large area Genetic similarity between the most widespread varieties Mycotoxin in grain Intensive pesticide use Subventions to exports Need for quality standards

Weaknesses: -

Low yield level Small acreage Low and decreasing interest on markets Mycotoxin in grain Occurrence of weeds impossible to manage by CPP (Avena fatua) Subventions to exports Presence of quarantine pests Need for quality standards

Weaknesses: -

Low yield level Yield stagnation (triticale) Small acreage (considering whole EU) – regional crop *Low and decreasing interest on markets Low income for farmers Lack/insufficient knowledge in genomics Mycotoxin in grain (rye) Specificity in use (triticale – feed only)

Page 47 of 171

2.2.3 Priority questions to research from the minor cereals chains 1. Increasing yield stability through varieties and crops physiological plasticity 2. Increasing yield potential of varieties by breeding 3. Breeding for high water use efficiency 4. Understanding crop species nitrogen use physiology 5. Developing precision farming systems 6. Preventing contamination 7. Innovating in plant protection products 8. Optimizing cropping systems with reduced or no tillage 9. Optimizing and management of crop rotations 10. Monitoring and ensuring food safety along the crop chains 11. Developing alternative crop management 12. Increasing yield potential of varieties by management practices 13. Understanding and managing the determinants of quality along the crop chain 14. Breeding for quality 15. Improve nitrogen fertilization practices in crops 16. More systematic use of wild relatives in crop breeding programs (disease and drought tolerance) 17. Developing more effective support for farmers: extension and services

2.3. oilseed crops 2.3.1 General description of the oilseed crops chain in Europe The crops concerned within EU are rapeseed, sunflower and soybean. Chart 9: Oilseeds chains Oilseeds chains Oleo-chemical industry Inputs Cies -Agrochem -Fertilizer -Machinery -Manufacturer s -Seeds Cies

Crushing industries

Crude oil

Non-food technical oils

Trading companies

Refinning industries

exports imports Edible oils

supermarket

consumer

Oilseed Collectors and merchants Esterification Biofuel industries

Farmers Cooperatives

Animal feed factories

Bio-diesel

Petrole Cies imports

Animal

Animal production farmers

Seeds Seeds

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

exports

Page 48 of 171

Tab14: Oilseeds main producing countries in EU (2005): Country Rapeseed Sunflower Soybean Germany France GB Poland Spain Hungary Italy EU-15 EU-25

1,000 ha/1,000 t 1,344 5,052 1,211 4,419 603 1,914 540 1,453

3,476 4,695

12,186 15,339

1,000 ha/1,000 t

Wheat

1,000 ha/1,000 t

644

1,450

56

145

520 517 110

399 1,189 250

150

550

1,000ha/1,000 t 3,163/ 23,693 4,863/ 36,840 1,870/ 14,888 2,280/ 8,928 1,350/ 2,986 1,138/ 5,170 627/ 7,042

1,394 2,038

2,295 3,785

228 273

758 851

14,069/ 101,211 22,730/ 123,528

Source: ZMP Marktbilanz 2006

Tab 15: Oilseeds main producing countries outside EU (2005): Country Rapeseed Sunflower Soybean 1,000 ha/1,000 t 1,000 ha/1,000 t 1,000 ha/1,000 t China 14,815 11,300 9,500 16,900 India 7,220 6,200 3,000 1,850 7,000 6,000 Pakistan 6,900 400 Canada 5,253 9,660 1,158 2,999 USA 1,045 1,756 28,842 82,820 Argentina 1,896 3,652 14,037 38,300 Brazil 22,859 50,195 Russia 5,320 6,280 690 740 Ukraine 3,668 4,400 Bulgaria 653 850 Romania 950 1,257

Wheat 1,000 ha/1,000 t 22,500/ 97,000 26,300/ 72,000 8,341/ 21,600 9,831/ 26,800 20,226/ 57,280 6,069/ 12,100 2,374/ 4,873 23,045/ 47,700

2,462/

7,027

Source: ZMP Marktbilanz 2006

The main production areas in EU are located: • In Germany: in all regions with main focus round the northern and eastern regions; • In France: in the North rapeseed and in the South sunflower; • In GB: in all regions; • In Poland: in all regions; • In Spain: in all regions; • In Hungary: in all regions; • In Italy: main focus round the northern regions. Main products and competitor products (possible substitutions) at world level, external competitors: • Food (oil, protein) • Biofuels (oil) • Feed (protein) • Oleo-chemical industry (oil) The edible oils rapeseed oil, soybean oil and sunflower oil are usable for a lot of food and non-food products, e.g. ingredient of most food products and biofuels. Other important oils at world level are palm oil from Asia (most important), soybean oil from North and South America, canola oil from North America, sunflower oil from South America and East Europe, cotton oil (less important) and ground nut oil (less important). Oliseeds are produced all over the world. The choice of the species (palm, soybean, sunflower, rapeseed or canola) depends on the climate conditions of each region. Main actors (crushing and trading companies of edible oils and production of biodiesel) world-wide belong to international EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 49 of 171

companies. Otherwise there are other oil mills and traders in several countries inside and outside EU. Main actors of the European oilseeds chain are farmers, companies producing inputs (seed companies, fertilizer companies, pesticide companies, machinery companies), traders, processing industries (oil mills, biodiesel plants), food industry and consumers of food and non-food.

Experts of oilseed workgroup agreed that soybean cultivation in EU-27 offers no potential to important increase in future (237,000 ha in EU-25 in 2005 vs. 4.7 million ha rape seed and 2 million ha sunflower). Winter oilseed rape is today the most important oil crop in EU-27. Therefore the experts call the EUROCROP project attention to rape seed chain and to sunflower chain. Tab 16: World production of oilseeds1) (2002/03 - 2006/07; in million t) 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/062) 2006/073) 2006/07:05/06 in % Oilseeds totally

330,27

335,19

381,32

388,38

395,43

+1,8

Soybean

197,03

186,77

215,95

218,04

226,85

+4,0

Sunflower

23,93

26,76

25,30

29,77

30,45

+2,3

Rapeseed

32,91

39,43

46,14

48,55

46,61

- 4,0

Groundnut

30,84

32,81

33,43

33,75

31,69

- 6,1

Cotton seed

32,67

35,60

45,40

42,51

43,78

+3,0

7,76

8,43

9,51

9,98

10,85

+8,7

Palm seed

1) Estimation of the US Ministry of Agriculture 2) preliminary 3) estimated

Tab 17: Consumption and main uses in EU countries 2005: Rapeseed oil Country Import 1,000 t Export 1,000 t Consumption 1,000 t Main uses Germany

426

503

2,276 biofuels, food

France

144

425

622 biofuels, food

GB

79

131

623 biofuels, food

Poland

18

113

381 biofuels, food

EU-15

52

93

4,677

EU-25

69

99

5,476

Source: FEDIOL 2005 Annual Statistics

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 50 of 171

Tab 18: Consumption and main uses in EU countries 2005: Rapeseed meal Country Import 1,000 t Export 1,000 t Consumption 1,000 t Main uses Germany

434

1,619

2,034

feed

France

466

134

1,511

feed

GB

136

186

882

feed

Poland

3

323

348

feed

EU-15

90

27

6,566

EU-25

137

43

7,248

Source: FEDIOL 2005 Annual Statistics

Tab 19: Consumption and main uses in EU countries 2005: Sunflower oil Country Import 1,000 t Export 1,000 t Consumption 1,000 t Main uses Germany

259

38

254

food

France

243

240

408

food

Spain

223

65

568

food

13

138

126

food

Italy

177

17

324

biofuels, food

EU-15

846

67

2,201

EU-25

898

136

2,471

Hungary

Source: FEDIOL 2005 Annual Statistics

Tab 20: Consumption and main uses in EU countries 2005: Sunflower meal Country Import 1,000 t Export 1,000 t Consumption 1,000 t Main uses Germany

98

14

129

feed

France

182

24

651

feed

Spain

204

27

687

feed

54

49

324

feed

372

2

594

feed

EU-15

1,664

0

3,469

EU-25

1,946

6

4,121

Hungary Italy

Source: FEDIOL 2005 Annual Statistics

Tab 21: Consumption and main uses in EU countries 2005: Soybean oil Country Import 1,000 t Export 1,000 t Consumption 1,000 t Main uses Germany

103

422

357

food, feed biofuels, tech. uses

99

42

148

food, feed

Italy

141

32

391

food, feed, biofuels

EU-15

246

466

1,991

EU-25

261

473

2,278

France

Source: FEDIOL 2005 Annual Statistics

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 51 of 171

Tab 22: Consumption and main uses in EU countries 2005: Soybean meal Country Import 1,000 t Export 1,000 t Consumption 1,000 t Main uses Germany

2,614

1,430

4,011

feed

France

4,465

65

4,796

feed

Italy

2,465

164

3,628

feed

EU-15

21,606

538

27,844

EU-25

23,029

546

31,481

Source: FEDIOL 2005 Annual Statistics

Oils for food: In the past edible oil was mainly used as an ingredient of food products and also as a pure food oil. Even today edible oils (mostly rapeseed oil, soybean oil and palm oil) are very important in the food industry and non-food industry (especially as fuels). The first and most important market for European oilseeds and edible oils is the food market! At the moment about 3.4 million tons of rapeseed oil and more than 90% of the whole sunflower oil in EU is used for food. The new fatty acid profile of rapeseed oil and sunflower oil allows a better utility of this edible oil in additional markets, e.g. to deep-fry. In the past, Germany was one of the greatest exporting countries of edible oils within EU and outside EU. In the last few years Germany and EU-25 as well have developed as great importers of edible oils and fats. Oils for biofuels: Therefore the section of biofuels is a very “new story” and this impact should be mentioned to a greater extent in the report. From a very early stage, Germany and France had seen a new commercial alternative in rapeseed cultivation on set-aside land to produce biodiesel, albeit pursuing different strategies. France consistently pursued an admixture of biodiesel and petroleum diesel, starting with a pilot project, which resulted in a production capacity of about 250,000 t in 1995. Germany did not pursue this strategy, which is specified by petroleum taxation frameworks. In Germany, the use of pure biodiesel (free of tax) started with a production capacity of 60,000 t in 1996. The new EU guidelines for promoting biofuels (2003/30/EC) and the energy taxation (2003/96/EC) provided an incentive to develop biofuels as strategic energy supply elements on the basis of target levels. It also provided the authorization required for national tax exemption of biofuels. The target levels specified by the EU´s Action Plan, at the beginning of 2% in 2005 and gradually increasing to a calorific value of up to 5.75% by the end of 2010 are very ambitious in view of the raw materials required for this purpose. Potential availability of raw materials for producing biodiesel is limited. In the member countries of the EU-25, 19.2 million t of oilseeds were harvested from about 7 million hectares in 2004 (rapeseed: 15.1 million t; sunflower: 4.1 million t), corresponding to an oil quantity of about 8 million t. Measured against the diesel demand of the EU 25 in 2010 (165 million t), about 11 million t of biodiesel would be required after accounting for the calorific value. Enforcement of an EU-wide admixture requirement (Austria, Netherlands, UK) logically increases the potential for imports of vegetable oils and biodiesel. Even today a new proposal of the EU Commission to increase biofuels in the EU up to 10% in 2020 is therefore being discussed intensely.

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 52 of 171

Tab 23: EU-Action Plan Biofuels/EU-Summit June 2006/ Proposal of the EU-Commission 2020

Target Quantity

2%

5,75 %

8,0 %

10 %

Consumption of Diesel 1

158,6 Mio. t

165,0 Mio. t 4

165,0 Mio. t5

178,0 Mio. t5

Biodiesel Demand

3,69 Mio. t

11,0 Mio. t

15,3 Mio. t

20,7 Mio. t

Area Demand 3

2,63 Mio. ha

7,88 Mio. ha

11,92 Mio. ha

14,7 Mio. ha

Consumption of Gazoline 1

124,8 Mio. t

113,6 Mio. t 4

105,0 Mio. t5

113,4 Mio. t5

Ethanol Demand2

3,7 Mio. t

9,7 Mio. t

12,44 Mio. t

16,8 Mio.t

1,85 Mio. ha

4,84 Mio. ha

6,2 Mio. ha

8,4 Mio. ha

4,48 Mio. ha

12,72 Mio. ha

18,2 Mio. ha

23,1 Mio. ha

2

Area Demand

3

Total Area

Agricultural used land EU 27 (incl. Grassland): 187,3 Mio. ha Source: D. Bockey, UFOP 1 EUROSTAT (2002) 2 Basis: Heating Value Diesel: 43 MJ/kg, Heating Value Biodiesel: 37 MJ/kg, Heating Value Gazoline 40 MJ/kg, Hearing Value Ethanol 27 MJ/kg 3 Biodiesel Yield 1,4 t/ha, Bioethanol Yield 2 t/ha 4 Assumption: Reduction of Consumption of Gazoline 9 %, Growth for Diesel 4 %

UNION ZUR FÖRDERUNG VON OEL- UND PROTEINPFLANZEN e. V.

EU-Action Plan Biofuels/EU-Summit June 2006/ Proposal of the EU-Commission 2020 2005 2010 2015 2020

5 Estimation

Meals for Feed: In 2004/2005 according to data from USDA 204.3 million t of oilseeds meals were consumed, 8% above the previous year. In 2005/2006 a plus of further 8 million t up to 212.1 million t is expected. In 2005/2006 the supply side announced a prospective growth of nearly 8 million t up to 212.6 million t. Thereof 68% soybean meal, 12% rapeseed meal and 5% sunflower meal. Rapeseed meal will be more and more accepted in animal feeding in substitution to soybean meal because of its excellent advantages and price competitivity. A fermentation use of oilseed meals and cake in biogas facilities is therefore being discussed intensely. Protein for Food: A use of rapeseed protein and/or sunflower protein as concentrate and/or isolate for human consumption is being discussed intensely. First research projects, e.g. NAPUS in Germany started some years ago.

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 53 of 171

2.3.2 Critical analysis of the oilseeds crops chain (SWOT analysis) SWOT analysis of oilseeds crop chain: RAPESEED CHAIN STRENGTHS

WEAKNESSES

high yield level in EU countries;

strong competition on world market;

very healthy oil for human nutrition;

costs of cultivation less in case of GMO in North America;

rising biofuels production and consumption;

static yields in commercial crops (situation UK);

share on the world market;

limitations on rotations (disease pressure);

valuable part of arable rotations;

relatively nitrogen inefficient (high input of energy);

familiar to growers;

slug control;

genetic potential (conventional and GMO);

establishment, rooting, canopy management in commercial crops difficult (situation in UK);

many opportunities!

limited uses for co-products e.g. rapeseed meal

OPPORTUNITIES

THREATS

new fatty acid profiles with specific food quality (e.g. HOLLi** or LCPUFA***); climate changes, especially lack of water; fungal diseases, virus diseases and insect pests, poor cultivar resistance; increasing of world animal feed use; development of food use of protein;

rising of production costs;

biodiesel;

more successful producers and exporters outside EU;

industrial uses (biolubricants, biopolymers);

reduction of biofuels use because of future trends of new generations of engines;

potential for improvement in yields of commercial crops

static yields in commercial crops (situation in UK); resistance to GM approaches in EU; perception of allergic reactions (pollen); perception of environmental footprint (but: environmental footprint of rapeseed – more strengths than weaknesses!!!)

SUNFLOWER CHAIN STRENGTHS high yield level in EU countries;

WEAKNESSES

very healthy oil for human nutrition;

strong competition on world market; costs of cultivation less in South America and especially in Eastern Europe;

rising biofuels production and consumption;

limitations on rotations (disease pressure);

share on the world market; new fatty acid profiles with specific quality (e.g. HO*)

valuable part of arable rotations OPPORTUNITIES

THREATS

development of food use of protein;

climate changes, especially lack of water;

new fatty acid profiles with specific food quality,

fungal diseases, virus diseases; bacterium diseases;

biodiesel;

rising of production costs;

industrial uses/cosmetic; pharmaceutical/;

more successful producers and exporters outside EU;

potential for improvement in yields of commercial crops

reduction of biofuels use because of future trends of new generations of engines

*HO = high oleic / ** HOLLi = high oleic low linolenic // *** LCPUFA = long chain poly unsaturated fatty acid

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 54 of 171

2.3.3 Priority questions to research in the field of oilseeds crop chain The challenges for oilseeds crop chain, as expressed in the WG3.3 group, cover four items: 1. Increase production level and decrease the production costs. 2. Improve the quality of products for existing and new outlets. 3. Sustainable production and improve of competitiveness on EU and non EU market. 4. Improve the crop chain organization. From the number of items relevant to particular challenge as formulated about the most crucial is the first one. But there are narrow relations between all four challenges. Challenge 1: Increase production level and decrease the production costs. This challenge is addressed by numerous research goals /research needs: • Increase yields by breeding and genetics. • Development of (genetic) resistance against disease and pest pressure. • Improve research on fungal diseases. • Increase, development and registration of new pesticides and on new molecules and targets. • Increase research on resistant management. • Decrease costs of production by better machinery and efficient field systems. • Decrease energy input in crop management. Challenge 2: Improve the quality of products for existing and new outlets. This challenge is addressed by the following research goals/research needs: • Development of modified fatty acid profiles for special existing food and non food markets e.g. HOLLi-rapeseed. • Improvement of quality of meal /cake and increase volume in animal nutrition. • Research on importance of rapeseed oil in human nutrition, e.g. content of omega-3-acid. • Detection and development of innovative new markets for food, feed and non food, applications e.g. rapeseed protein in human nutrition. • Secure low and stable content of free fatty acid (FFA) of sunflower. • Increase processing research. Challenge 3: Sustainable production and improve of competitiveness on EU and non EU markets. This challenge is addressed by the following research goals/research needs: • Improvement of substitutability non EU vegetable oils and meals/cake, avoiding adverse environmental impact both edible oils and biofuels. • Development of New Integrated Crop Management Strategies and Integrated Pest Management. • Improvement of forecasting, diagnostic, monitoring and decision support systems and their introduction into practical farming, e.g. damage thresholds. • Optimisation of life cycle assessment particular with regard to biofuels. Challenge 4: Improve the crop chain organization. This challenge is addressed by the following research goals/research needs: • Harmonization of national /international regulations, e.g. WTO- and GMO-regulations. • Improvement of research organization in EU and national, stimulate creativity of research and improve exchange of the data between research centres. • Improvement of field trials, especially for varieties – research on varieties specifically suitable for the region. • Establish area-wide independent advisory service.

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 55 of 171

2.4. Sugar beet 2.4.1 Positioning of the sugar beet chain in the EU economy Table 24: World production and consumption of centrifugal sugar in 1.000 t raw sugar value

2005/06 Beet / Cane production

consumption

Europe B C Total America Total Oceania Total Africa

B B B B B C

Total Asia B B Total

30.468 3 30.471 4.481 48.768 53.249

31.484

36.825 0

5.814 5.814 1.000 9.595 10.595

13.726

2.685 43.770 46.455

62.081

1.548

WORLD

production (%) consumption 107.950 Beet Sugar (73,6%) Cane Sugar 38.645 (26,4%) Total 146.595 145.664 Sources: FAO, Rome - F.I.R.S., Paris ISO, London - F.O. Licht Ratzeburg USDA, Washington - Zuckerindustrie, Berlin CEFS, Bruxelles - CIBE, Paris

The world production of beet and cane sugar including non centrifugal sugar in raw sugar value represents in 2005/06, 159.245.000 t (38.645.000 t for sugar beet and 120.600.000 t for sugar cane)

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 56 of 171

Chart 10: Sugar beet chain Export

Sugar consummers

Inputs Cies -Agrochem -Fertilizer -Machinery -manufacturers

sugar

Processing industry

Food industries

Distilleries Non-food industry

Animal Feed Soil

Animal production farmers growers

Lime

?

Seeds growers

Sowing seeds

Sowing seeds exports

Seeds companies

2.4.2. Challenges to the sugar beet chain Report on sugar beet CC identifies nine challenges as listed below. It seams the most important for this crop chain are the first two as addressed with higher number of research goals/research needs. Also producing renewable energy seams to be third important challenge being addressed by relatively high number of elements. Challenges for sugar beet cover seven items: 1. Maintain the efficient crop protection. 2. Increase water use efficiency. 3. Facing climate changes. 4. Improve sugar beet production efficiency. 5. Producing renewable energy. 6. Improving impacts of sugar beet on the environment. 7. Energy and emissions balance in sugar beet production. 8. Predictability of consumers demand and behavior. 9. Safety of chain process.

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 57 of 171

Table 25: EU production of centrifugal sugar EU sugar industry and production

2005-2006 in 1.000 t raw sugar value

total capacity

ha harvested yield

Beet / Cane 2005/06 companies factories t roots/day 1000 ha EC A B/L BG CZ D DK E F FIN GB GR H I IRL LT LV NL P PL RO S SK SL OTHER COUNTRIES AL BIH BLR CH HR MAK MD RUS SCG

B B B B B B B C B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B

B B B B B B B B B

531 1004 5 607 4400 516 1180 3 4550 195 1457 337 536 1960 230 137 77 1060 84 2232 93 442 287 51

1 3 2 6 (1) 4 1(4) 7 11 5 26(2) 1 3 3 11 1 12 30 1 2 2 6 1 5 3 5 5 17 1 1 2 3 2 2 2 3 4 2 5 40 6 6 (4) 1 2 3 4 1 1

t raw sugar/ha

40066 60019 4000 43469 289322 29616 90000 1100 324000 14198 60466 30342 33870 105000 8000 8995 4400 55911 7272 148130 15500 26224 17100 4000

44 87 2 63 419 47 102 1 340 31 126 42 58 253 31 21 14 92 9 278 19 48 32 5

12,1 11,5

20100 17400 19000 1400 23400 261280 46000

103 19 25 3 31 759 68

4,2 2,8 8,4 6 4,7 3,5 7

149300 382950 2337719

336 623 4184

6,7 3,3

7,6 10,5 11 11,6 13,4 6,3 11,6 8 5,8 9,1 7,4 6,5 5,5 11,5 9,3 8 4,9 9,3 9 9,1

1 (4) 1 (4) 434 240 210 18 145 2715 420

TR B 2250 UKR B 2065 Total 30.471 30471 Sources: FAO, Rome - F.I.R.S., Paris ISO, London - F.O. Licht Ratzeburg EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

4 1 3 1 2

4 2 3 1 7 85 (4)

6 31 7 (4,5,6) 154 (4)

9

Page 58 of 171

USDA, Washington - Zuckerindustrie, Berlin CEFS, Bruxelles - CIBE, Paris Sources: CEFS, Bruxelles; Zuckerindustrie, Berlin 1 Excluding 2 juice extraction plants 2 Excluding 1 molasses desugarizing plant 3 Excluding 5 French DOM cane sugar factories 4 Not resp. not all factories in operation 5 Without factories in construction 6 Some operating are also refineries 7 For the harvested area the beet area for alcohol production is not included

2.4.3. Priority questions to research from the sugar beet chain Challenge 1 Maintain the efficient crop protection is addressed by the following research goals/research needs: To reduce “diseases pressure”. Playing with synergies amongst crop system & rotation on the same field. Using biological control, how to define it? Integrated pest management/control. Improving knowledge on soil biology. Improving detection and knowledge / crop enemies evolutions and new crop enemies. Developing surveys methodologies to detect crop enemies evolutions.

Challenge 2 Increase water efficiency is represented by the following items: Increase efficiency of water use by sugar beet especially by breeding cultivars using water more efficiently, modifying cropping period and more efficiently use soil properties for water balance. Harvesting dry matter not water.

Challenge 3 Facing climate changes is addressed by one research goal: Define more precisely the climatic changes in order to allow farming system to adapt.

Challenge 4 Improve sugar beet production efficiency Covers issues related to improvement of knowledge on local natural and technical conditions to achieve the most efficient use of resources.

Challenge 5 Producing renewable energy is addressed by one research goal Increase the amount of produced energy from photosynthesis. Reducing N20 emission from fields. Decrease the amount of Greenhouse gas.

Challenge 6 Improving impacts of sugar beet on the environment is addressed by the following research goals/research needs Improving impact on biodiversity.

Challenge 7 Sustainability in sugar beet production Reduction of energy consumption/ reduction of CO2 emissions in processing industries.

Challenge 8 Energy and emissions balance in sugar beet production is represented by one research goal: Better understanding between consumer and fields of production.

Challenge 9 Safety of chain process is addressed by one research goal: Implementation of HACCP system on farms.

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 59 of 171

2.5. Fibre crops 2.5.1. Positioning of the fibre crops chains in the EU economy Fibrous crops comprise plants cultivated mainly for the fibre. Generally fibrous corps cover numerous plant species specific in terms of geographic distribution with most species grown in tropical and subtropical regions. In Europe three species have commercial importance: cotton (Gossypium sp.), fibrous flax (Linum ussitatissimum) and industrial hemp (Cannabis sativa). In the world of fibre production natural fibres share is approximately 50% out of which 38% is cotton. This share is equivalent to cultivation area of 30-36 million ha yielding ca 25.2 million tons of fibre

Chart 11: Flax and Hemp chains Flax & hemp chains Inputs Cies -Agrochem -Fertilizer -Machinery -manufacturers

Spinning, weaving industry

Primarly processing industry

Non-Apparel textiles Automotive ind. Pulp & paper ind Solid biofuel Animal bedding

Food, functional food

Cooperatives growers Seed

Cosmetics

Sowing seeds Seeds growers

Seeds companies

.

Polypropylene 5% Polyamide 6%

Polyacrylic 4% Cotton 38%

Polyester 37%

other Natural Fibres 8%

Wool 2%

Saurer Report „The Fibre Year 2004”

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 60 of 171

Cotton. Cotton is first ranking fibrous crop in Europe cultivated on ca 450 000 ha yielding 500 000 t of fibre which represents about 2.5% of global production. The EU share in cotton export is 3.3%. The main cultivation and production centres in Europe are Greece (380 000 ha) and Portugal (70 000 ha). Although being a tropical crop, and therefore not wide spread throughout Europe, locally it is very important crop. Cotton in Greece accounts for nearly 10% of the country’s final agricultural output and in Spain for 1.5%. In some sections of Greece the crop accounts for 60% of arable land used. The profitability of cotton is higher than of any other arable crop. Chart 12:: cotton chain Inputs Cies -Agrochem -Fertilizer -Machinery -manufacturers

Cotton Textile industry Processing industry Food (oil)

Feed Animal production farmers Cooperatives growers

Cosmetics (oil)

Sowing seeds Seeds growers

Seeds companies

Cotton cultivation is fully mechanized and the best practices are usually applied including sowing techniques, pest control and harvesting. The large amount of fertilizers and pesticides normally used call for employment of strict environmental control. The governmental measures in compliance with EU rules are focused on Integrated Crop Management from sowing to collecting and ginning including pest and weed control. Cotton is a subtropical crop which in combination with the fact that Greece is the northern boundary of cultivation range, there are few pest enemies and their effect is quite limited compared to other countries (African, South American, USA etc). Cotton is commonly known as a high water consuming crop and almost 100% of cotton cultivation is irrigated. Therefore, water management is of outmost importance due to the declining of water resources. Drip irrigation is recommended where the cost can be afforded while the use of urban effluents is investigated. Cotton fibres are used mainly as a raw material in the textile industry for production of cloths and apparels. Lately, the production of non woven products such as cosmetics, diapers, etc. is getting importance.

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 61 of 171

Table.26. Cotton production in the world Annual production (average 1999-2006) Global share (%) million tones China 4.5 22.6 USA 4.0 20.1 Pakistan 2.6 13.1 India 1.8 9.0 Uzbekistan 1.1 5.5 CFA-Zone Africa 0.9 4.5 European Union 0.5 2.5 Total represented 15.4 77.4 World total 19.9 100.0 Source: USDA, DG AGRI-EU Country

Flax. Flax in Europe has been cultivated since pre-historic times. Until the 1920’s the natural fibres enjoyed an absolutely dominant position in the textile market. In the 1960’s and 1970’s, when the synthetic fibres were the object of general admiration, there was little respect for the long known advantages of the natural fibres. The main world producers of fibre flax are Russia, Belaruss and China. In Europe, sharing 50% of world fibre production, the leading position is taken by France, Belgium and The Netherlands which hold about 85% of EU cultivation area and ca 95% of long and over 90% of short fibre. Table 27. Main flax producers in Europe. Cultivation area [ha]. Country

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

F+Be+Nl

71016

87836

86153

98360

102621

Germany

402

200

200

224

180

Austria

450

132

171

142

109

Latvia

1600

-

-

-

1654

Lithuania

8600

9600

9346

10000

5494

Czech Republic

6302

7095

5885

6003

5499

Poland

5093

4520

5100

6000

5745

Table 28. Main flax producers in Europe. Fibre production Country

Long fibre [t]

Short fibre [t]

Belgium

19 029

11 893

Czech-Republic 2 930

3 550

France

105 000

75 000

Lithuania

317

753

Latvia

2 553

3 795

Netherlands

4 516

3 333

Poland 456 461 Cultivation of fibrous flax is fully mechanized although requiring specialized harvesting machines and machines for post harvest straw handling. EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 62 of 171

Flax is a crop characterized by moderate input of energy in cultivation. Insects are not big danger for flax the fungi diseases, however, are very large problem in individual countries of EU, mainly rust and Fusarium wilt. The best way to control them is breeding resistant cultivars. The main product of flax is fibre used mainly for textile applications (apparels – especially long fibre). It is the unique fibre properties that keep it still in use despite strong competition from cotton and man-made fibres. The most important advantages of flax fibres are: • • • • • • •

Air-permeability, Capability to absorb and remove moisture, Lack of emission of substances harmful to health, Lack of allergenic activity, Lack of static charge generation, Biodegradability, Reproducibility.

Short fibre is also sometimes used for composites manufacture (mainly in automotive industry) and by pulp and paper industry. Other flax products are sowing seeds and shives. The latter being a byproduct from the process of fibre extraction and primary processing. Hemp. Hemp is grown primarily for its fibre which is used mainly for different technical textile and nontextile applications and seeds being a source of very valuable oils rich in polyunsaturated fatty acids and protein. Also hurds – woody particles obtained during fibre extraction and processing – are used for animal bedding and as a fuel. Hemp is a crop subject to certain national and European restrictions connected with the content of psychoactive compounds, namely cannabinoids, specifically Δ9tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). No cultivar can be registered and cultivated unless the content of THC is below 0.2% in dry panicles of hemp. Hemp was important crop in Europe before the WWII and gradually was loosing its importance since 1950s mainly in technical textiles, to man-made fibres and imported tropical natural fibres (mainly sisal and jute). Due to this competition and the content of psychoactive substances, hemp was banned in Europe in early 1980s except France and East European Countries. This situation changed in the beginning of 1990s when more and more attention was paid in Europe to non-food crops and renewable resources. The ban was lifted in most EU countries. Up to know hemp is a minor crop in EU The overall acreage in 2005 in Europe was about 15000 ha. The main use of hemp fibre in Europe covers mostly non-textile applications: non-woven and fibre for insulation and composites, the latter mainly in automotive industry. Table 29. Cultivation area of hemp in EU – main producers [ha] Country Data source France Germany UK Poland Czech Rep

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Estat INF Estat INF Estat INF Estat INF Estat INF Estat INF Estat INF 7,074

6,928 2,967

2,297 0,089

7,559 2,035

2,733 0,145

9,395

8,581

9,075

2,005 1,396 2,367 1,539 1,539 3,0 0,083 0,1010,910 0,476 0,8500,162 0,494 0,150 0,159 0,156

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

1,730

1,730

8,083 1,235 1,416 0,930 1,162

Page 63 of 171

Table 30. Hemp fibre production it EU in 2006 Country Czech Rep. Germany Spain France Italy Hungary Netherlands Poland UK Total:

Hemp fibre production [t] 300 3 768 2 047 18 000 88 482 100 547 233 1 062 26 626

Source: EC, document AGRI.C.1 of 18/05/2006 : OLK122 production and areas 2005-06.xls

In Europe hemp is grown for fibre and to lesser extent for seeds. Still this is a marginal crop (ca 15 thousand ha) comparing to most agricultural crops including also fibre crops such as fibre flax (11.8%) and cotton (1.5%). Being potentially a crop with numerous versatile uses, hemp main products are fibre used for nontextile and textile applications, seeds for food uses (oil and de-hulled seeds) and cosmetics (oil and hemp essential oils). The main outlet for hemp today is non-textile application of fibre including automotive industry and building industry.

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 64 of 171

2.5.2. Strengths and weaknesses analysis of the fibre crops chains Crop Fibrous plants - flax hemp

Strengths Weaknesses Limited cultivation scale and production Low or very low (hemp) inputs. Whole plant is used. volumes. Low stablility of yield. Large influence of and Drought tolerant (hemp). High biomass yield (hemp). environmental conditions. Low capacity processing industry Weed suppressing (hemp). compared to main competitors. High nutritive value – nutraceuticals. High energy consumption of processing Tradition of cultivation. industry. European specialty. Unique properties of fibre. Limited control of fibre quality (dewQuality of textile products (mainly retting process highly dependant on weather). flax). Drought sensitive (flax). High nutritive quality oil. Content of psychoactive substances in Versatile uses. hemp (still prohibited in some EU Very good break crop (hemp). Applicable for cultivation on heavy countries. metal polluted soil (non food uses). Very limited choice of pesticides in hemp (especially in seed production). Organic cultivation possible (hemp). Lack of strong marketing focused on Fungi resistant cultivars (flax). Good perception of textiles by consumer. customer compared to man-made Difficulties with genetic improving functional characteristics fibres. Facility of hybrids reproduction in Lack of objective and unified methods for fibre (quality and quantity) evaluation. cultivar breeding process. Sensitivity to crop rotation – 7 years break (flax). Necessity of use of speciality equipment for harvesting Textile industry vanishing from Europe. Fibre crops Very good productivity and Low acreage compared to main - cotton profitability. cultivation regions. Relatively low pest pressure in Often grown in monoculture. High inputs. Europe. Versatile uses. High water requirements. Optimized agronomy (also for Stagnation of yields (exhausting classical efficient water management). breeding capacity). High capacity processing industry. Textile industry vanishing from Europe. Good perception of cotton textiles by customer compared to man-made fibres.

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 65 of 171

2.5.3. Priority questions to research from the fibre crops chains 1. Yield level and yield stability 2. More effective breeding methods 3. Breeding for resistance to biotic and abiotic stress with better gene expression yield as refers to quantity and quality 4. Optimizing and targeting cultivation technologies (textile, high biomass, technical fibre, food, etc). 5. New competitive niche market commodities. 6. Ensuring the quality of the first processor products (including fibre homogeneity) 7. Environmentally sound technologies of plant protection application. Integration of plant protection treatments. Biological control measures. 8. Reduce fibre crops processing cost by genetic improvement of the crop and engineering of high performance machinery 9. Better adaptation of flax and hemp fibres for blends with cotton and man-made fibres by engineering of machinery. Improvement in spinning efficiencies. 10. Better identify the product on the market 11. Develop fibre standards 12. Knowledge and better employment of the residual effect of fibrous plants 13. Change the citizen approach to hemp

2.6. Potatoes 2.6.1 Potato Crop Chain in the EU economy Chart 13: potatoes chain Ware potatoes export Inputs Cies -Agrochem -Fertilizer -Machinery -manufacturers

>1Mt Packing industry

Fresh food 8,5Mt in West EU

Processing industry Merchants (?)

supermarkets

consumers

Processed food 12Mt restaurants

Starch growers

8Mt

alcohol

2,6Mha 52,6Mt Animal feed

Seeds growers

Seeds companies

100758ha

Seed potatoes

Animal production farmers

exports >0,5MT?

Introduction The potato is the fourth most important food crop and for most of the 20th century Europe was the world leader in its production. During the 1990s this situation changed with increasing production in Asian nations; China and India now produce over 1/3rd of all potatoes harvested. At the same EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 66 of 171

time there was a significant (~40%) decline in the potato producing area in Europe. This has mainly taken place in Germany and Poland, while in other main potato producing countries, such as The Netherlands, France, UK and Belgium the area has remained stable or declined marginally. The decline in potato area is partly compensated by the increase in the yield per hectare which has occurred over the last 10 years. The average EU yield was 36.1 tonnes/ha in 2004 compared with 28 tonnes/ha in 1995. The highest yields can be found in Belgium and The Netherlands (44 tonnes/ha), followed by the UK with 42 t/ha. The total production in the EU25 is about 70 million tons of which about 45 million is harvested in EU15. Four members of EU25 are among the top 10 global producers. Table 31. Worldwide potato production 2006-2007: top ten potato producers (Source FAO stat; cited in http://www.potato2008.org/en/world/index.html) Country

Quantity (tonnes) 2007

Country

Kg per capita 2006

1. China 2. Russian Federation 3. India 4. Ukraine 5. US 6. Germany 7. Poland 8. Belarus 9. Netherlands 10. France

72,000,000 35,718,000 26,280,000 19,102,300 17,653,920 11,604,500 11,221,100 8,497,000 7,200,000 6,271,000

1. Belarus 2. Netherlands 3. Ukraine 4. Denmark 5. Latvia 6. Poland 7. Belgium 8. Lithuania 9. Russian Federation 10. Kyrgystan

835.6 415.1 414.8 291.1 286.0 271.5 267.4 261.2 259.0 219.4

Potatoes in Europe are grown for human consumption (fresh & processed), starch production and the production of seed tubers. There is also some use of potatoes for alcohol production and animal feed, however these are not a significant contribution to the overall use of potatoes and is not discussed in this report. Human Consumption, including market trends. Asia consumes almost half of the world's potato supply, but its large population means that consumption per capita was approximately 25 kg in 2005. In contrast, per capita potato consumption in EU25 ranges between 75-85kg/pa. Southern and Eastern European consumers still eat the majority of potatoes fresh (boiled, baked, fried), whilst consumption of fresh potatoes has declined in North West Europe (UK, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium). This decline in the fresh sector has generally been offset by an increase in the consumption of processed potatoes as crisps or chips (French fries) and other value added formats such as chilled, peeled, ready to fry and microwave ready products i. The Netherlands has the largest potato processing industry in Europe, with 70-80% of total Dutch production of potatoes for human consumption being processed, primarily into frozen French fries. Approximately 90% of these processed products are exported, making the Netherlands the major potato processor in the EU25. Sixty percent of these exports go to UK, Germany and France even though these countries have their own potato processing capabilities. Several Mediterranean countries specialize in the export production of early potatoes for Northern Europe. Potato trade between the European and American continent is not allowed for fresh potatoes. However potato products can be exported. In 2007, there was evidence of a growing demand for fresh potatoes from Eastern European countries and Russia. EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 67 of 171

Seed potatoes Seed potato production is an important segment of the potato production in Europe. Overall, the average total area of seed potatoes grown in EU25 during 2003 to 2006 was 112, 000 ha. Due to climatic conditions and the association with the lack of certain pests and diseases of the crop, the main seed areas are located in Northern Europe (The Netherlands, UK (Scotland), Northern Germany, Denmark). These countries dominate the seed potato market in Europe and several parts of the world in comparison with the local production in various other potato producing countries. The main export destinations for Dutch seed potatoes in 2006 were Algeria (80,000 tonnes), Germany (75,000 tonnes), Italy (70,000 tonnes) and Spain (50,000 tonnes). Starch potatoes Total production of starch potatoes is 800,000 tonnes/pa. Potato is the most important source of starch after maize. These crops are grown under the EU starch regime and in northern Europe production is of significant economic importance. Statistics on the production areas of the main starch producing countries in the EU are Germany 95,000ha; The Netherlands 51,000 ha; France 29,000ha; and Denmark 22,000ha. 2.6.2 Strengths and weaknesses of the potato crop chain Strengths • High dry matter production, KCal and nutritional yield/ha • High harvest index • Limited pollen dispersal & few wild relatives – less issues within containment of GM pollen and the co-existence of GM and non-GM crops • Weed suppressing • Labour intensive & profitable– stimulating the local economies • Potatoes can be grown in a wide range of environments • Potatoes can be eaten without need for industrial processing • Nutritional benefits of potato, including high satiety index. • Innovation and the development of new, niche products (fresh and processed) to stimulate demand Weaknesses • Water use requirement is high • Pesticide application requirements eg., for the control of potato late blight • Impact on of cultivation practices on soil structure and soil biodiversity • Generation of waste from washing, processing activities – although may have potential to generate fuel grade ethanol • Energy costs associated with cold storage and the impact of the energy use on the crop’s carbon footprint • The trend for more healthy food will continue with large challenges for the potato industry (e.g. less deep frying and more baked products) Stakes and Challenges for the Potato Crop Chain Two main stakes were identified: • Continued consumer demand for fresh potatoes and processed products in 2015 • Sustainable, competitive potato production in 2015

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 68 of 171

2.6.3 Priority questions to research from the potato crop chain Challenges associated with these stakes, research gaps and examples of expected outputs/uptake of the research are provided below. Stake

Challenge

Continued demand

Improved utilisation Improved of potato in understanding of the processed products functionality of potato as a raw product

Continued demand

To address Nutrigenomics• consumer demands understand the for healthy food benefits of compounds • in tubers & exploit them in functional foods To identify and Evaluation of • exploit compounds phytochemical present in potato for diversity in potato & non-food uses related species and the potential to exploit the chemicals for nonfood uses

Tools to design better diets for individuals Improved understanding of the role of compounds in potatoes in healthy diets

Continued demand

Utilisation of GM Identification of • potatoes for the situations were use of production of “molecular pharming” molecules for provides benefits medicinal & compared to industrial use conventional (“molecular production methods pharming”)

Scientific & economic assessment of the potential of “molecular pharming”

Sustainable production

To produce new Develop tools for cost • varieties with effective marker improved pest & assisted breeding disease resistance •

Exploitation of information from global genome sequencing initiative Potato varieties with multiple trait modifications

Sustainable production

Improved resource To understand & • use efficiency exploit Genotype x Environment x Management

Varieties to tolerate short periods of drought, higher CO2 levels, reduced nutrient availability

Continued demand

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Research Gap

Expected Outputs Information to improve the selection of varieties or germplasm to: • produce processed products and convenience foods with improved taste and texture • exploit new cooking and/or processing techniques available in 2015 • Potato-based products with low Glycaemic Load

Phytochemicals for use in industrial processes

Page 69 of 171

interactions

• •

Sustainable production

Sustainable production

Sustainable production

Collate existing • information/models to produce a simple, comprehensive • approach (sustainability indicator) Evolutionary Utilisation of • potential of pests & genomics to improve pathogen crop protection populations Evolutionary Mapping & • potential of pests & interpretation of the pathogen genetic diversity of populations key potato • pests/pathogens across EU To develop a robust tool to measure and compare “sustainability”

Ability to predict impact of changing environmental conditions on quality Improved decision support systems (DSS) with practical utility Quantification of the impact of different land use options on “sustainability” Tool for policy makers, producers & consumers to inform decision making Information to design durable integrated control programmes EUwide information exchange to promote best practice for control Ability to anticipate changes in pest & pathogen population distributions

Following discussion of these Challenges and Research Gaps the Potato Experts working group ranked the challenges for their importance. The most important areas for potato competitiveness in 2015 were identified as: • Meeting consumer demand for safe and healthy products; novel, functional foods • Exploitation of genomics and related technologies; development and use of commercially viable marker assisted breeding, realising the potential of GMOs e.g. through gene stacking and multiple trait modifications. • Appropriate Sustainability Indicators for policymakers and the public; improving resource use efficiency These challenges are applicable to potato production in all EU countries. In the case of the development of functional foods, the main beneficiaries would be consumers. The exploitation of genomics technologies would provide benefits for farmers in the form of improved varieties able to tolerate a range of biotic and abiotic stresses. It would benefit citizens and consumers through the availability of high quality fresh food and processed products produced via potentially more environmentally benign crop systems. The Sustainability Indicator would be of use to national and local communities, farmers, consumers and policy makers as it would support decision making processes regarding the most sustainable use of land. Rabobank Industry Note 180-206. Global Potato Sector: challenges and opportunities of matching supply with demand. Deborah Perkins, August 2006.

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 70 of 171

2.7. Grain Legumes This technico-socio-economic analysis of the development and dynamics of the grain legume economic chain in Europe was discussed with experts (scientists and stakeholders, in the AEP network and the Eurocrop project) in order to assess its strengths and weaknesses, the actors and factors influencing its functioning and the opportunities and threats that this sector faces (2, 3, Figure 1). These discussions form a basis for defining a strategy in which legume crops really contribute to sustainable agriculture. Chart 14: Grain Legumes chains Grain legumes chain actors

Inputs Cies -Agrochem -Fertilizer -Machinery -manufacturers

Food industry

consumers

Animal feed factories

Feed

Animal production farmers

Non-food industry

GROWERS

Collectors and Merchants Export

Sowing seeds Seeds growers

Seeds companies

2.7.1 Grain legume economic chain in the European agriculture Between 2003 and 2006, the world production of grain legumes averaged 268 million tonnes per year, 78% of which was soybeans. Grain legumes other than soybeans amounted to 60 million tonnes. EU production In recent years, EU production of grain legumes amounted to 5.9 million tonnes (2.2 million ha) and was composed of 45% pea and 22% faba beans. The area dedicated to grain legumes in the EU is relatively low: only 1% to 7% of the arable crops area according to member states compared with 10% to 30% outside Europe. Following the rapid increase in the 1980s, backed by a proactive state and EU policy (Insert 1), EU production of grain legumes reached a kind of ceiling between EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 71 of 171

1998 and 2000 with variations among years followed by a decreasing trend since 2005 (Figure 2). Their development has been accompanied by research and development but the on-going enhancement of these crops is in fact recent compared with other arable crops such as cereals, oilcrops and potatoes. Grain legume outlets In general, the EU outlets are mainly animal feed (about 80%) with some expanding added value markets, such as food exports and food ingredients. It has been showed that 90% of the peas used in feedstuffs market for compound feed production are incorporated in pig feed, significantly in excess of poultry (8%) and ruminant (2%) feeds (5). There is also some on-farm consumption, that is more or less important according to the regions. The price of feed pea is directly linked to the prices of the two main raw materials used in animal feed: wheat (or other major cereals such as maize or barley) and soybean (1). There is a high variability in the market prices of raw materials but the 2007-2008 prices are quite attractive. In terms of end use, the major competitor of EU grain legumes is imported soybean meal (6). The major exporting countries of peas, faba beans and lupines are France, Canada, the UK and Australia. These exports are used for human consumption in the Asian sub-continent (yellow peas) and the Middle East (faba beans). 2.7.2 Strength and weaknesses analysis of the GL crop chain Strengths The fact that grain legumes are nitrogenfixing plants is their unique characteristic and key strength. They do not need fertilisers to grow well and therefore have economic, agronomic and environmental advantages (4). The yield of the following crop is higher, the rotation costs lower and soil quality is maintained. The consumption of fossil energy and the emissions of greenhouse gases (and other pollutant substances) are significantly reduced when farm rotations include legumes. In addition, the different properties of the grains, providing protein and starch 1 (meeting protein and energy demands), and having health and functional properties (ingredients for food or non-food uses) are important benefits.

1

except soya and lupin which produce protein and oil.

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 72 of 171

Opportunities The current climate of increasing energy prices is an opportunity for low energy demanding legume crops. Development of grain legume production is also favoured by their beneficial effects on the environment: low emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) (Kyoto protocol), photo-oxidants and acidification (Göteborg protocol) (Insert 3). Grain legumes represent only 3% of the arable area in the EU whereas a possible target could be up to 10% to 15% of arable areas because there are legume species adapted to all EU arable regions. Exploiting the benefits of local raw materials should be the main lever for EU grain legumes: for example, exploiting the environmental benefits of local production, health claims and regional specificities, inputs for regional rural development and local industrial contracts. Furthermore, the outlets for grain legumes, which can provide both energy and protein, are far from saturated: the EU deficit in materials rich in proteins for the feed industry is 75%. Their seed composition is complementary to other raw materials and so there are several market opportunities. There are also niche markets with added value being developed (ingredients for industries, diet and healthy food). Such expending outlets require regular supply and could propose contracts More added value markets could also increase interest in this crop chain. Why is the EU area currently decreasing? Since 1990, grain legume areas have fluctuated between 1,200,000 and 1,400,000 ha (EU-15) (Figure 2). In the 1980s agricultural policy incentives had a strong impact on grain legume developments to meet feed industry requirements. However the policy changes put in place before this sector reached maturity made the economic chain weaker since the grain legume sector was not yet established as a ‘major crop chain’. These changes occurred at the same time as some technical problems that were not yet controlled because genetic progress was only beginning for these crops. The occurrence of Aphanomyces root disease affecting pea (the most frequently grown species) impacted on the grain legume areas and yields in the 1990s. In the most recent campaigns, the high temperatures and water stress at some critical stages of the cycle (spring time, April, May or June) also impacted strongly on the yields of grain legumes. Therefore the changes in market policies, the attractiveness of other lower-risk crops backed by political strategies, combined with the diseases and climatic accidents in the campaigns of the past decade, have resulted in reduced volumes of grain legume crops. This in itself creates problems for the durability of the grain legumes chain unless voluntary strategies are set up.

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 73 of 171

Identifying weaknesses and threats The major technical weaknesses, such as the lack of reliable yields, and the current low volumes of production, make the chain fragile. The poor contractual links with industry is certainly also a weakness, and so the current increase in interest in innovative agro-industrial uses for grain legumes can play a positive role. The major threat is associated with the threshold of supplies, and this makes the technical advice, collection and distribution stages of the economic chain more difficult. Economic and market factors In terms of production, cereals or the other break crops are likely to be the major competitors of grain legumes. Although the profitability and sustainability of the whole rotation and the whole farm system would, in theory, be the major objective to target, the current situation is such that the key factor for the farmer is still the ‘attractiveness’ (both psychological and factual) of a given crop at the beginning of the campaign, in terms of specific politics, agronomic performance and price trends. In fact, at the farm level, rotations that include grain legumes are as profitable as other crop rotations when well managed: with the current specific aid for protein crops taken into account, similar rotation margins are obtained. However farmers and advisors usually consider only the crop margin and therefore the benefits of the preceding pea (higher yields and lower input costs for the cereal) are included in the margin of the following cereal. The margin of the whole rotation (‘rotation margin’) should be the indicator used to demonstrate effectively the benefits of diversification in crop rotations. In addition, local stakeholders must commit to grain legumes so as to ensure favourable logistics for the supply of inputs and seed collection in the regions. The decisions of farmers at the beginning of the agricultural campaign are also based on a wish to minimise risk. Therefore they are currently more easily attracted by crops supported by policy strategy and/or under contracts with industrial users (malting barley or biofuels). 2.7.3 Major challenges for the grain legumes chain Past experience with legume crops shows the joint impact of agricultural policies, technical problems, and commercial opportunities offered to farmers. A joint strategy is needed Given the current EU challenges, legume crops could provide a clue for the development in the EU of more sustainable agriculture, which would be energy efficient, less polluting and based on home production (Insert 3). Therefore we need to define further the joint strategy among scientists, economic players and policy makers, to fully exploit this legume sector in Europe and take advantage of the human scientific resources that have been mobilised for legumes. Currently, it is a matter of urgency to develop the grain legume sector up to a minimum stage (volumes, technical advice, logistics) so as to create a self-sufficient economic chain. Since the outlets are not the major problem, the key issue is to make these crops more attractive for growers: improve crop competitiveness and risk management for farmers, through (i) policy and industry support (general strategies, incentives and contracts) as well as through (ii) systems that put an economic value on the environmental benefits. At the same time, the level and stability of legume crop yields should be tackled: greater investments in breeding to accelerate the tolerance of grain legume crops to major yield constraints and the development of winter types, and also technical innovations to facilitate crop management. Five major challenges There are five major challenges for the grain legumes economic chain now and in the future: EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 74 of 171

Challenge 1: Enhance the stability of yields for legume crops (to get more predictable yields) - Develop improved genotypes that tolerate a variable climate (especially with improved plant architecture and maturation) and the specific constraints such as pathogens, insects and high temperatures or water deficit: control major disease such as Aphanomyces root rot in pea, control most damaging insects such as bruchids in faba beans and peas or pea moths, control orobanche parasit in southern regions, enhance plant tolerance to frost, high temperatures and water deficit - Develop improved winter varieties (yields, determinate pea, enhanced resistance to frost & diseases) - Develop integrated strategies and new crop systems to enhance yield stability (with winter types, intercropping systems, organic systems, etc.) Challenge 2: Reinforce chain organization to reach self-sufficient stage of development - Facilitating partnerships among European actors which have a genuine interest in legumes crops: joint references & contracts, collect with segmentation for different qualities (to clarify market, reduce risks for farmers, enhance added value of end-products, balance outlet interests among food / feed / others outlets) - Complementing the identification of bottlenecks for legume development, assessing scenarios of positive incentives and market systems (EU or regional) - Ensuring efficient use of the new technologies and knowledge: Information of progress, shared strategies to ensure enough financial resources for transfer process to economic applications (first to the breeding companies: available markers and genetic resources, techniques to accelerate breeding programmes) - Dissemination of know-how and resources: Inform better traders and feed manufacturers about grain legumes values Dissemination of know-how and technologies for crop management with demonstration trials Challenge 3: Optimise the agricultural systems by exploiting legume benefits - Enlarge legume area - Optimise the management of cropping systems including grain legumes - Quantify and optimise environmental impact of systems with legumes - Integrate and optimise innovations in farm systems and animal production systems using legumes - Regional strategy for reduced energy use and lower greenhouse gases emissions - Favour regional strategies to ensure local supply for local uses Challenge 4: Contribute to establish ways for valuing environmental benefits - Inform policy-makers & citizens about legumes interests in agricultural systems and industry - Propose policies and market rules Challenge 5: Answer the new demands and increase added values of current outlets (healthy food, energy, environment, organic products, functional feed products) For any use - Develop organic products For feed uses - Decreasing production costs through increasing yields - Improvement of seed quality - Increase protein content for poultry - Enhance quality for ruminants - Enlarge fish uses - Analyse benefits on gut health in animals for use as pre-biotics - Develop feed added value products (concentrates, isolates, etc) - Develop regional chains: local production for local uses (added regional values) EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 75 of 171

For food uses - Demonstrate & promote benefits on health - Develop convenient ready-to-use food - Define high visual quality for market of the whole seeds - Develop common international quality criteria (with measurement techniques) For non-food uses - Legumes as a feedstock component in bio-refinery concepts - Develop biodegradable products uses (bio-plastics, pharmacology capsules, etc.) - Investigate uses for energy technologies. 2.7.4 Priority questions to research from the grain legumes chain The overall challenge to legume research is to determine how, once integrated into sustainable farming systems, their profitability can be optimised for the farmer while maintaining their environmental benefit. Two major linked research areas emerge from this challenge: i. how can these crops best be improved and managed for maximal productivity and minimal environmental impact ii. how the quality of products, food, feed, fodder or fuel, can be improved or maintained with increasing production efficiency, or be tailored to specific end uses? The goals which emerge from the overall analysis could be linked to five priorities listed below, in which the questions to research are outlined as follows. Priority 1: To design future European cropping systems, which integrate a higher proportion of herbaceous, grain and tree legume species than present, to exploit their multiple services related to crop production (food, feed, bioenergy and other non-food uses): energy use efficiency, environmental benefits such as reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity enhancement, and other non-nitrogen benefits and social benefits. - How to optimise the environmental benefits related to grain legumes in the crop rotations and farm systems? - Which process and quantity of N2O emissions are linked to the grain legumes cropping? - Which specific strategies for the conventional or organic sectors respectively? - Etc. Priority 2: To analyse and enhance specific traits of the nitrogen-fixing plants by exploiting legume knowledge and resources to improve crop performance. - Yield sustainability and tolerance to diseases and pests are of key importance for legume crops to be competitive in agricultural systems. - An integrated study of legume root biology focussed on the control of root diseases. - Genetics of the efficiency of nitrogen fixation in agriculture, both in terms of the efficiency of nitrogen use by the legume and the recycling of non-harvested nitrogen to the subsequent crop. - Temperature dependence and water relations of legume crops, key determinants of their utility and so their optimisation. - Control of plant architecture and maturation rate to facilitate the inclusion of legumes in rotations by enhancing the consistency of their performance and the timing of harvest to respond to environmental constraints or on-farm logistics. - Comparative genetics and genomics of legumes to enhance crop improvement. - The tools of translational genomics should be applied to transfer data rapidly to lesscharacterized legume species. - The combination of genetic, genomic and ecophysiological analyses, and refined genetic tools, can help us understand the basis of, and to reduce, yield variability in major legume crops. EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 76 of 171

- Development of genetic resources for future use, based on models of climate change, to include expansion of pests and diseases. Both natural and induced sources of biological diversity, and the associated databases, should be organised, at least virtually, into a single European Legume Stock Centre. - To maintain, develop and provide access to genetic and genomic resources for legumes developed within the EU, including the outputs from the FP6 Grain Legumes Integrated Project and other EU projects, for further analyses with biology-based goals to assess crop traits of importance for enhanced farm production or specific new uses Priority 3: To ensure efficient exploitation of the knowledge and results thanks a reduction to practice, by involving stakeholders in the technology transfer at the primary production and industry levels, and by communicating with citizens and consumers. - Maintain the exchanges among the scientists and the stakeholders for concerted approaches and develop communication towards society and non legume experts. - Sustainable user access to research progress and resources, with appropriate training and reduction into practice for breeding applications with tools for accelerating applied breeding programmes (to enhance yields by optimisation of the crop nitrogen budget, to develop winter types, to increase yield stability through improved stress resistance). - Agricultural actors and industry should also be targeted for dissemination of information and for reduction to practice to develop innovative agricultural systems and novel high quality products. Priority 4: To exploit legumes for green industry: assess and develop enhanced biomass and added value products from bio-refinery and other process for different uses in energy, biochemistry and pharmacology. - Biomass-based varieties: legume characteristics for biomass, biomaterials, bioenergy, biorefineries. With a focus on alfalfa and robinia. - Low protein legume seeds (to target first enhanced yield and second enhanced energy value) - The development of genetic resources for Robinia pseudoacacia to facilitate its positive contribution to sustainable forestry and biomass production. - High protein legume seeds for food and non-food ingredients - A better understanding of the key factors controlling the quality traits to improve them for each specific use. Priority 5: To meet societal concerns of health care and economic need of added value products, by developing health references and exploiting bio and techno functional benefits from grain legumes. - Demonstrate & promote benefits on health - Develop convenient ready-to-use food - Develop common international quality criteria (with measurement techniques) Priority 6: Develop innovation in feed uses. - Improvement of seed quality for specific uses - How to develop environmental footprint in the feed formulation and the feed industry and uses - Increase protein content for poultry - Enhance quality for ruminants - Enlarge fish uses and aquaculture outlets - Analyse benefits on gut health in animals for use as pre-biotics - Develop feed added value products (concentrates, isolates, etc) - Develop regional chains: local production for local uses (added regional values)

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 77 of 171

2.7. 5. Conclusion The grain legume sector in the EU is still a relatively new and fragile arable crop chain and needs to be consolidated in the current fluctuating socio-economic context, so that its strengths in using home “renewable nitrogen” can be exploited for the benefits of a sustainable EU agriculture. Source: Anne Schneider* and colleagues** *AEP, Paris, France www.grainlegumes.com ([email protected]) **Colleagues from the Grain Legumes Working Group of Eurocrop: Anthony Biddle, Benoît Carrouée, Yves Crozat, Gaetan Dubois, Gérard Duc, Noel Ellis. Eric Steen Jensen, Marie-Hélène Jeuffroy, Tanja Moellman, Fréderic Muel, Thomas Nemecek, Fréderic Pressenda, Olaf Sass.

(1) Carrouée, B. and Lacampagne, J.-P. (1999). Grain Legumes 26, 22–23. (2) Collective (2008). Grain legumes chain – Synthesis report by the GL working group of Eurocrop (FP6-2004-SSP4022757) – Version 2. (3) Collective (2008). La filière protéagineuse — quels défis? Editions QUAE, INRA grain legume group ISBN 978-27592-0072-6, 148 pages. (4) Hauggaard-Nielsen H?. and Jensen E.S. (2008) Grain legumes: which benefits for the environment? http://www.grainlegumes.com/index.php/aep/environment/overview_legumes_environment/grain_legumes_which_ben efits_for_the_environment_summary (5) Pressenda F. et al. (2007). Report on the economic analysis of the animal feed sector. The place of peas in the feed industry and ways to improve pea uses. Grain Legumes Integrated Project, EU contract FOOD-CT-2004-506223, Deliverable D 2.2.1b., 61p. (6) Schneider, A. et al. (2007). Dynamics and prospects for grain legumes in the European feed market, Grain Legumes 49, 20–21.

2.8. Maize 2.8.1. Positioning of the crop chain in the EU economy Chart 15: Maize chain Inputs Cies -Agrochem -Fertilizer -Machinery -manufacturers

Maize Food

Processing industry

Animal production farmers

Animal Feed

Starch non food

Growers

Biomass

Seeds growers

Biofuel

Sowing seeds Seeds companies

2.8.2 Strengths and weaknesses analysis of the maize chain and major challenges Most of general points concerning chains, general conditions of production, of regulations are identical to those of other cereals. Many cross aspects are similar. EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 78 of 171

They are identical to cereals objectives but with a slightly different priority order, bound to the status of summer crop of maize and therefore more depending on climatic conditions: 1) the productivity and the regularity of production to come up to market expectations. The stabilization of performances is an increasing requirement in a more and more constraining regulation (divide of water resource) and climatic (warming) environment. For maize plant, this objective essentially depends on rapidity and quality of genetic progress as well as adaptation of techniques and crop strategies. 2) the technological quality as well as sanitary quality coming up to regulation and industrial standards. The file of sanitary quality is particularly sensitive with fixation of mycotoxins thresholds in progress. 3) the compatibility of production and productivity techniques with a reduced impact on the environment (on water quality precisely). 4) the contribution of maize to country development of some regions or production basins, very dependant on this crop. Effectively maize is more and more produced in its excellent areas, in situations where it often expresses a production potential higher than other crops. This explains the significant part of monoculture, a maize specificity that will have to be taken into account. What are the challenges of tomorrow for corn? Corn is present in the majority of outlets: animal feeding, human feeding, biofuels, biomass. In all of these, it is faced by competing cereals or crops. However, the growth in world demand for foraging cereals (emerging countries) and in industrial uses (USA ethanol) creates a growing tension between offer (stable) and demand. In Europe, the opening up to the East has brought large producer countries with high agricultural potential: Hungary, Rumania. Nevertheless, the majority of corn areas in central Europe are carried out under dry conditions subject to large climatic risks (but with significant progress margins). As soon as the corn crops in western Europe see genetic progress absorbed by growing constraints (climatic, hydrous, problem of protection) and their output stagnating, the challenges to be targeted will converge. 1. The main challenge will be to limit corn’s vulnerability with regard to water by stabilising performances whatever the agronomic constraints. By using the combination: - of genetic progress and genomic advances; - the adaptation of crop strategies and technical routes to each context (seed data, prior treatment, architecture and population, efficiency of irrigation, adaptation of cycles to the climate) in more flexible production systems. Alongside, accompanying the risk in the latitude of crops, with optimal production more and more northwards (particularly for biomass production); and guaranteeing the lifetime of viable production systems in southern Europe (corn, sorghum, hard wheat, sunflower…). 2. Assure the protection of crops tomorrow, - in a climatic, biological and ecological environment in rapid evolution and by limiting the effects of distortions of competition in Europe. - While limiting the effects on the environment by means of close development on the land and regions: crop and environmental diagnosis of each basin, proposal of innovative or classical routes depending on the constraints and outlets, by placing the farmer at the centre of the action. EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 79 of 171

3. Satisfy market needs in quantity and quality, particularly satisfy health quality regulations. This supposes turning at once to genetic progress and having sufficient security to protect the crop. 4. Base work on the possibilities of multiple use of the corn plant (biomass, grain, starch, « corn cob mix », whole plant…) and the possibilities of genomics, to assure one’s place in all present and future outlets. 2.8.3 Priority questions to research from maize chain Challenge 1 Increase the yield level and yield stability is addressed by genetic progress and adaptation of techniques and crop strategies. Challenge 2 Costs optimisation and technical efficiency is approached by two routes: 1. Reduce cost for corn produced on irrigated land and rainfall zones. On irrigated land in south of the European Union this issue is approached by: creation of “maize populations” from a mixture of efficient hybrids that can be reproduced by the farm itself, without having to acquire new seed each year (12% in cost savings); improvement of the management of fertilizers (dosage and application) (20% in cost savings); ultra-early sowing system and new short-cycle, high-efficiency varieties chosen (20% in cost savings); In the rainfall zones in the centre of Europe by: the use of early varieties and advancing the date of sowing (5% in cost savings); genetically improved varieties, resistant to temporary shortages of rainfall and low temperatures;

2. Costs optimisation and technical efficiency, where the following goals/research needs have been identified: Diagnosis of cultural routes and their environmental impact by small region and production basin. Modification of strategies by more innovative routes. Improvement of the varieties and the products for protecting plants. tools of prevention and management of risks (bio surveillance, indicators).

Challenge 3 Reduce corn vulnerability to water deficiency stress associated with two research goals/research needs: Adaptation of crop strategies and technical routes to each context (seed data, prior treatment, architecture and population, efficiency of irrigation, adaptation of cycles to the climate) in more flexible production systems. Moving crop cultivation northwards – genetic progress and genomic advances.

Challenge 4 Maintaining the quality following the establishment of “food” regulations in 2007 refers to genetics related research crop management and organisation issues: Improvement of crop techniques and the prevention of fungal risks in the country. Use of genetic variability on tolerance to the different Fusarium, the preparation of tools for farmers or harvester in preventing, alerting and managing risk. Co-ordination of all of the actors in the line.

Challenge 5 Geographical spread of corn “bio aggressors” has been addressed by three research goals/research needs: Parasite biology and the impact of global warming on their behaviour. Evolution and adaptation of self-propagating flora. Epidemiology of Fusarium toxines, conditions of appearance, development. Use of genomics in plant protection.

Challenge 6 Secure the outlets (biomass, grain, starch, “corn cob mix”, whole plant…) has been identified only one research area: Genomics.

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 80 of 171

2.9. Synthesis: Stakes, challenges and questions to research as seen from the crop chains Every crop chain working group had its own analysis of the current situation and future evolutions, and its own definition of what are stakes and challenges for itself The common understanding of what are stakes/challenges has been the source of many discussions among the project group. These discussions were the basis on what has been built the common framework formulating stakes, challenges and goals, or questions to research as seen from the crop chains. The basic point of our definitions is that we consider the things from the point of view of the arable crops chains. We defined stakes and challenges as: STAKES: the crop chain may win and loose when facing the evolutions of the context, depending of external factors (high level of interactions). A stake is a global / strategic axis of action for the actors of the CC to adapt to future, which finds its origin in the evolutions of the context and the strategies of the other actors. The strategic aspect is linked to a notion of irreversibility or main options which might influence the existence or the structure of the crops chains. CHALLENGES: fields of actions for the CC to win the stakes. A challenge is a way to deal with a stake for a given actor, and may be more or less critical depending on the strengths, weaknesses and global positioning of this actor. “Challenges” constitute the translation of a stake by a given actor in strategic terms. Facing the same stake, different actors may identify different challenges because their actual positioning, strengths and weaknesses are different, and consequently, they have to adapt according to different priorities. Stakes must be distinguished from external factors on which the crop chain is not able to have any significant influence. But external factors generally generate stakes or reinforce existing stakes for the crop chains. For example, the price of energy is not a stake, in our understanding, since arable crops have, at the moment, no significant influence on energy prices. But the price of energy influences a lot stakes related to competitiveness on world markets, since it affects the production costs at different extents for different productions in different parts of the world. A challenge for arable crops then become, at a first level of understanding: “to reduce the impacts of the energy prices on productions costs”, or, at a second level of understanding: “to become less dependant on energy in production processes”. Stakes (for the crop chains) must also be distinguished from “global” benefits (global = for external beneficiaries) Going from changes in the surrounding context to stakes, and then challenges, goals, research needs / questions to research and at last questions of research is a chain of reasoning going from global to specific. The 8 crops chains WG reports propose a list of priority questions to research coming form the crops chains’ strategic understanding of the future. Examining the reports in the perspective of the global context evolutions allows to identify a series of main stakes and then of challenges which may be common or not to several crops chains. Table ( 32 ) shows the similarities and differences in strengths and weaknesses as expressed by the experts of the crop chains groups.

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 81 of 171

Table ( 32 ) common strengths and weaknesses of crop chains from crop chains reports

WG21 WG22

WEAKNESSES mycotoxins in grains high inputs needs

wheat x x

low efficency of the crop in using inputs / nitrogen water needs Yields/ low, unstable, stagnating low scale/ low volume of production / decreasing interest in cultivation high pesticides use / environment contamination insufficient variability in choice of chemical pest control products pest control problems, vulnerability to pests, new deceases lack of GM crops development and international competition lack or insufficient implementation of EU standards efficiency of processing industry quarantine pests / intra EU trade

WG23

minor sugar cereals barley oilseeds beet x x ? x x x

X?

x

WG24

fibre crops

WG27 WG28

potatoes GL

maize x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

Trend

x

x

WG25 WG26

X

x

x

x

x

x

hemp

x

x

x

x

cotton

x

x

x

x

oats

Trend?

x

?

x

trend

x

x

x

x

x

x

x?

STRENGTHS Moderate use of inputs

x

high productivity versatility of uses suitable for organic cultivation rusticity

x x

specific cultivars to specific markets and uses positive role in crop rotations availability of DSS sufficient agronomic solutions

x

X (water)

x

x

x x

x x

flax, hemp x x

x x

hemp, cotton x

x x

hemp

x

x hemp x

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

cotton

Page 82 of 171

Table (33) checks out the fact that the idea corresponding to a defined “challenge” has been expressed in the different crop chains groups. Table 33 STAKES AND RELATED CHALLENGES as seen in WG2.X crops chains reports (synthesis table)

CHALLENGES MENTIONNED BY WG (first analysis)

21

22

23

1.1 enhance level and stability of yields:

x

x

x

1.2 costs optimisation and technical efficiency

x

x

x

cross optimisation: economic competitiveness through 1.3 innovating cropping systems

x

x

x

1.4 developing and increasing logistics efficiency

x

1.5 increase efficiency of transformation processes

x

1

2

24

26

28 Link to

x

x

x WG3.1

x

x

x

x

x

x WG3.2 x

x

WG3.1 WG3.2

x

x

WG3.3?

SECURING EXISTING OUTLETS and continued demand x

x

agricultural primary products meeting industrial quality 2.2 standards

x

x

x x

x x

developing transformation processes to enhance products 2.3 qualities

x WG3.4 x

x

x

2.4 increasing nutritional value of AC products

x

image: reaching a positive perception of arable crops and 2.5 arable crops products

x

2.6 addressing consumers' demand for healthy food

x

2.7 understanding consumers and purchasers demand

x

2.8 characterization of quality and standardization

x

x x x

(x)

x

x

WG3.4

x

WG3.3

x

WG3.3

x x

x

x WG3.4 WG3.4

WG3.3 x

x

HORIZONTAL EXPANSION: developing new outlets and new markets for arable crops

WG3.4 WG3.3

3.1 developing New food uses

x

x

x

3.2 developing New feed uses

x

WG3.3

x

3.3 developing Non food/ non feed uses: green chemistry

x

x

x

x

x

3.4 developing bio energies outlet

x

x

x

x

x

4

27

COMPETITIVENESS ON MARKETS

2.1 ensuring food safety of AC products

3

25

x

x x

SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION: environment aspects

improving resource use efficiency: fertilizers (including 4.1 nitrogen)

x

x

4.2 improving resource use efficiency: energy

x

x

4.3 improved resource use efficiency: water

x

4.4 maintaining diversity in genetic resources

x

x

maintaining an efficient crop protection on long term facing 4.5 evolutions of pests & pathogen populations

x

x

4.6 mastering crops impacts on environment and biodiversity

x

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

x x x

WG3.1 x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x WG3.1

x

x

WG3.1

x

x WG3.1 WG3.5

Page 83 of 171

improving crops physiological plasticity to face climate 4.7 diversity

x

x

4.8 developing innovating sustainable cropping systems

x

x

4.9 developing common sustainability assessment methods SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION: long term economic aspects. keeping producers to produce (PRODUCERS 5 INCOME and interest), crops chains organization

x

x

x

x

x x

x

x

x WG3.1

x

WG3.5

x

WG3.2

developing farmers security within crops chains: coordination 5.1 and services to farmers

x

developing crops incomes with direct relation to the 5.2 production 5.3 developing income with undirect relations to the production 6

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION: crop production SOCIETAL ACCEPTANCE and confidence

WG3.2/3.6

x WG3.6

improving the integration of arable crops in rural territories 6.1 economy

x

6.2 improving farmers' training and innovation transfer

x

x

WG3.6

x

NB: most of these challenges were mentioned as challenges, sometimes as stakes or goals.

This analysis led to keep 6 major stakes (without aspect of priority in numbering) which have been expressed under miscellaneous forms in the reports, in coherence with competitiveness aspects and with horizontal issues: 1 Competitiveness on markets 2 Securing existing outlets and continued demand 3 Horizontal expansion: developing new outlets and new markets for arable crops 4 Sustainable production, environmental aspects 5 Keeping producers to produce: producers’ income 6 Crop production societal acceptance and confidence These 6 stakes described below have been later reduced to 5 by the project group, gathering stakes 5 and 6. Competitiveness on markets Main beneficiaries: all crop chains actors, then consumers. / Main connection with EUROCROP horizontal aspects: farm economics, technical aspects at farm level ( WG3.2 / WG3.1) Competitiveness on the crops chains products, elaborated products as well as raw products is fundamental in a global open market. This competitiveness may be evaluated as the capacity of EU actors to produce standard goods at markets prices, for delivery in Europe or abroad (the difference lying in marketing/transportation costs). The competitiveness lays in the technical and economic efficacy of the crop chains at all steps: efficacy of agricultural production for the raw products, of agro-industries for the different phases of transformation. The competition on markets plays for the same goods produced in different competitor countries or for goods equivalent for their use, i.e. substitution products. On existing markets, the global competitiveness of a crop chain also includes its capacity of "vertical development", i.e. to maximize the added value between the resources and the final product.

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 84 of 171

Securing existing outlets and continued demand Main beneficiaries: consumers, then all crop chains actors/ Main connection with EUROCROP horizontal aspects: quality aspects Securing existing outlets is a stake in so far the existing activity is the basis of any future development of EU crops chains. This stakes recovers the continuous adaptation to the consumers’ needs and demands, including innovation on current markets, accompaniment of consumers’ preferences and way of life evolutions, products quality, health and sanitary aspects. The final indicator is the preference of the consumer to buy a European product, and, in the best cases, his acceptation to pay a quality premium. A synonym appellation could be "keeping consumers confidence and preference to European crops chains products”. The related global benefits for the European society lay in a positive commercial balance on agri-products, a convenient part of self sufficiency for food, a significant employment in agriculture and agro-industries, the disposal of quality and nutritional value products. This stake is specially related to the WG3.4 issues. Horizontal expansion: developing new outlets and new markets for arable crops Main beneficiaries: all crop chains actors, then consumers and social actors. Main connection with EUROCROP horizontal aspects: outlets and markets In a competing market, innovation offers a strategic advantage. The horizontal expansion of crop chains depends on both new products and new markets. Opening new outlets for the arable crops products (through the identification of new needs or other ways to answer old needs, and through innovative research) is a way to develop the demand of arable crops products and so sustain prices, and to develop economic activity in EU. Sustainable production: environment aspects Main beneficiaries: citizens and crops chains actors/ Main connection with EUROCROP horizontal aspects: environmental aspects, and technical aspects at farm level. Sustainable production is both a question of long term survival and of societal acceptance. This stakes covers the necessity for the crop chains to limit the negative impacts on environment and to prevent the degradation of the renewable resources status (quality and quantities) and of biodiversity. On the long run, arable crop chains have also to seek for a decreasing dependency on non-renewable resources, i.e. to offer a "zero" balance regarding these non-renewable resources (or even positive regarding energy aspects, due to the harnessing of solar energy). Reaching sustainable production is a field of progress in technical efficiency, taking into account long term considerations and compatibility with economy. Sustainable production issues may be considered under two main aspects: - The dependency of AC to vital resources and capacities, whose availability is not secured on the long term: energy, water, fertilizers, crop protection facilities facing the crops enemies’ evolutions. The matter is here to decrease this dependency. This aspect is a basis for “competitiveness” on markets in the long term. - The impacts of the AC on environment and on public resources and common heritage. This aspect is directly connected to societal acceptance: harmonious relations of AC to environment. Keeping producers to produce: producers’ income Main beneficiaries: farmers, then all crop chains actors / Main connection with EUROCROP horizontal aspects: farm economics and socio-economic issues The basis of the activity and independence of any EU crop chain is the agricultural production. Securing a significant part of their supply chain with required quality and services is a key advantage for industries, and agro industries and not exception. Keeping local (EU) agricultural EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 85 of 171

production is a strategic point for all European crops chains actors, which necessitates guaranteeing common standards of living to the farmers/producers. Farmers income is dependant on the prices levels, prices variations management, repartition of the added value along the crops chains and on the existence of other sources of income. This stake recovers aspects related to economics, social, crop chains actors’ dynamics, policies and their consequences. From a specific crop chain point of view, the competitiveness of the concerned crop compared to the other arable crops must be taken into account, the resulting indicator being the arable crops rotations and products diversities. The dynamics of the actors of a specific crop chain are strategic too, so far as places for dialogue, internal negotiations and basic common organization are factors of strength facing the world competition. Crop production societal acceptance and confidence Main beneficiaries: crops chains actors and citizens. Main connection with EUROCROP horizontal aspects: Socio-economic issues The transformation of agriculture on one side and the growing urbanization of the populations in a context of abundance in economically developed countries led to chaotic and sometimes conflict relations between agriculture and society. Societal acceptance became a real stake for agriculture in general and arable crops in particular. To renew the social acceptance bases, and the confidence of social actors, crops chains must not only answer the societal concern about environment, but also renew the insertion of agriculture in the territories and its role in rural development. These 6 stakes have been specified under goals or questions to research (see WP2 report, Sept 2007) to formalize the first framework, transmitted to WP3 groups. This framework has been amended and completed later (final version April 2008)

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 86 of 171

3. Horizontal approaches (WP3) The main objective of WP3 was to provide an analysis by thematic working group related to horizontal issues (WG3.x). Compared to WP2, WP3 tried to consider explicitly the interaction between crop chains and with their socio-economic environment. It addressed these problems according to six main issues, each one related to a working group (WG): WG3.1 Technical aspects at farm level; WG3.2 Farm economics and production costs; WG3.3 Outlets and markets; WG3.4 Quality of agricultural products; WG3.5 Environmental impacts; WG3.6 Socio-economic issues. Arable crops cover 40% of the European Union's utilised agricultural area, and are found in all the Member States. In economic terms, AC are one of the main sectors of European agriculture, with about 10,7% of total agricultural output value and about 20% of the value of crop production. Within the sector, cereals, with 9,2% of output value and about 270 million tonnes in 2006, represent by far the main crop category. For their relative importance and basic consumption uses (food, feed, others) AC are a main component of the agricultural economy and a key sector to ensure food availability, safety and accessible food prices. For their role as raw materials for downstream sectors, AC are a key component of competitiveness for livestock production and food/non food processing industries. For their wide cultivation, AC play a major role in all issues concerning agriculture and the environment, either in terms of adaptation of agriculture to different climatic conditions, in terms of impacts on the environment and in terms of the positive role of landscape creation and management by agriculture. AC production has a very different role in different agricultural systems. In some cases, AC are the core business of very specialised, competitive farms. In other cases, however, they represent the residual land use of marginal areas. Chain connections related to AC may include the agro-food industry, feed production, or non-food/non feed. Though they are mainly commodity goods, in some cases AC are connected to very specialised, high value added, and territorial specific value chains, e.g. durum wheat. Methodology WP3 activities were based on expert meetings carried out within the six working groups. Each group focused on some specific parts of the whole agricultural system and reflected a different thematic approach: • WG3.1 - Technical aspects at farm level: horizontal issues of crop management, the farming system, and the connection to the production system; • WG3.2 - Farm economics and production costs: the farming system and the connection to the “external agricultural system”; • WG3.3- Outlets and markets: the upstream side of the agricultural system and its connection with consumers; • WG3.4 - Quality of agricultural products: the agricultural system; • WG3.5 - Environmental impacts: the agricultural system and its connection with the outside environment; • WG3.6 - Socio-economic issues: the agricultural system and its connection with the outside socio-economic environment. The concept of agricultural system is wider than that of “Cropping system” (the set of technical practices operated on fields managed in the same way, defined by the nature of the crops, the crop rotation, and the crop management techniques applied to these crops) and “farming system” (including connexions with other activities in the farm, e.g. animal husbandry… in fact quite similar to “production system”, with a more technical/organizational approach). EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 87 of 171

The agricultural system as investigated in EUROCROP encompasses not only the primary sector, but also processes in the secondary (food processing, storage, etc.) and partly the third sector. So it is not restricted to agriculture only. Chart 16 – Eurocrop WG3.X in the Agricultural System

WG3.3 Interface AS

WG3.6

Socio-economic environment

WG3.2

Core AS

WG3.4

WG3.1

WG3.5

Physicalecological environment

The work started with the provision of background information. The main sources were the WP2 crop chain analysis and research needs, past research, technology platforms, the FP7 work programme, factors affecting farming in the future. The core part of the work was carried out through 10 expert meetings (generally 2 by WG) which brought together about 56 experts. The product of WP3 working groups is represented by: • the analysis of arable crop systems by horizontal issues; • the identification of challenges, research goals and research topics covering such issues; • the detailed description of selected research topics.

3.1. Technical aspects at farm level Within EUROCROP, the working group 3.1 covers technical aspects at farm level of arable crops and the objective is to identify the challenges and research needs related to arable crops and farming systems competitiveness towards the 2015 scenario. For that, this group considered the results from the past research on sustainable agriculture with emphasis on agro-ecosystems conditions and drew new perspective for future research actions in order to improve arable crops competitiveness. Two workshops were organised to identify the stakes, challenges, goals and knowledge gaps, describe research needs related to technical aspects and analyse its feasibility in order to develop the priority research proposals. System Description The WG3.1 takes into account different approaches for sustainable agriculture, and knowledge on agroecosystems within diversity of climates, soils, cropping and farming system, rainfed and irrigated systems, crop rotations, mixed crop livestock, and socioeconomics aspects. Farming systems constitute the key level for the consolidation and implementation of all policies and for the EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 88 of 171

valorisation of research results, since farmers intend to reach coherent and balance farming systems. Since all technical aspects at farm level are not equally appropriate for all agroecosystems and farms practising crop production in Europe, the diversity of situations has been examined under several aspects: 1. The environmental and socioeconomic conditions as defined mainly by soil - climate complex. In order to simplify the agricultural European space has been divided in three main climatic regions: North Europe (Oceanic-temperate climate), Central Europe (Continental climate) and South Europe (Mediterranean climate). 2. A general overview of European countries statistics, climate, soil, cropping and farming systems. 3. The existence in the farming system of significant interaction between animal (livestock) husbandry and crop husbandry. It means the presence in the same farm of animals and crops but also means that there is an integration of both types of productions, e.g. through the production of consumed fodder crops, farmyard manure restitution to soils, possibility of devoting parts of the land to grass perennial or pluriannual crops. 4. the different tendencies of innovation in cropping systems linked to sustainable agricultural practices. Four variants have been considered: conventional system, with quick adoption of genetic and technical advances, organic farming, conservation agriculture and integrated production. The technical aspects issues at farming level and main related problems for crop production have first been listed, as shown in table34. Critical topics were considered: soil management and soil fertility management, water, machinery, breeding, weed, pest and disease management and agronomy (crop rotations/ Intercropping/ cover crops). Identification of priority challenges and research needs On the basis of these relevant issues, experts for different specialities of agronomic sciences (soils and machinery, plant breeding, fertility and nutrients management, crop protection and irrigated systems) have been mobilised . During the first workshop, starting from WP2 stakes/challenges/goals outlets, the debate turned around the best way to take into account all the stakes, challenges and research needs in technical aspects at farming level, and concluded on the necessity to distinguish farming systems on the basis of fundamental criteria: - with or without livestock: Two categories of farming systems have been defined: (i) without livestock, and (ii) with livestock integrated to crop protection (mixed farming), ie.with significant interaction between animal (livestock) husbandry and crop husbandry. - main cropping systems categories, with four variants: (i) conventional system (ii) organic farming, (iii) conservation agriculture, (iv) Integrated agriculture. - regions or environmental conditions, defined mainly by soil - climate complex. In order to simplify the agricultural European space has been divided in three main climatic regions: (i) Oceanic-temperate, T, (ii) Mediterranean, M and (iii) Continental, C.

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 89 of 171

Table 34. Technical aspects issues, different types and main problems TECNICAL MAIN PROBLEMS ASPECTS TYPE OF PROBLEM RELATED ISSUES

SOILS:

CROP PRODUCTION

CLIMATE:

CROPS:

⇒ Type of soils: physical, chemical and biological properties. ⇒ Land orography Management

⇒ Diversity of climates ⇒ Droughts ⇒ climate change

Inadequate management. Soil and fertility loss (organic matter). Structure degradation porosity, bulk density, soil resistance to root penetration. Hydraulic conductivity and traffic ability. Salinity. Crusting. Pollutants. Low biology and biodiversity Low precipitations unusual temperatures changes of pattern in rain distribution frost Uncertainty of climate

⇒ Stable potential of yields and low stability of varieties. ⇒ Seed-GMO

Few cultivars adapted to local climate conditions, to pest and diseases, to drought and N deficiency. Lack of OGM varieties for competitiveness (This issue is linked to the current debate about the availability of hybrids and varieties produced through transgenic methods, GMO, genetic modified organism, cultivars.)

⇒ Crop rotations versus monoculture. ⇒ Short crop rotations. ⇒ Lack of legume, cover or catch crop in the rotations. Crop residue management. ⇒ Low crop diversity

Monocropping systems break nutrient cycling, efficient resource use by crops, and protection against insects and pathogens. Lack of legumes or cover crops implicates the increase of fertilizer application mainly N. Lost genetic resources.

⇒ Weeds, pests and diseases. ⇒ Resistances. ⇒ Environmental pressure ⇒ No uniformity in Europe registers products. ⇒ Source of contaminants of surface and ground water

Resistance of weeds and pesticides. Decrease yield in crops. Continuous single crop culture increases the probability of herbicide and pest resistance to chemicals. Unusual appearance of pest and diseases. Lack of crops rotations. Lack of new products. Deficient DSS. Deficient water management. Bad quality of water used (salinity or contaminants). Leaching of pesticides, fertilizers, heavy metals and nitrates High prices of P and K and N fertilizers. Low efficiency and lack of nutrient balances for inorganic fertilizer and mainly for manure Heavy metals with manure. Nitrogen leaching. Source of contaminants of surface and ground water.

WATER:

⇒ Scarcity, prices ⇒ Contamination ⇒ ground water depletion

FERTILIZERS

⇒ Depletion of P and K sources and high prices of fuels. ⇒ Lack of knowledge of balances for nutrients and relationship crops-nutrients. ⇒ Deficient management.

ENERGY

⇒ High dependency of fossil energy (machinery, irrigation, fertilizer, drying, transport). ⇒ High price of fossil fuels.

Continuous increase in prices of fuel. Renewable energy substitution is not competitive to fuels.

MACHINERY

⇒ High prices. ⇒ Low technical efficiency

High powered machinery not necessary. Education level of some farmers too low to use machinery properly.

NEW TECHNOLOGY

⇒ Ignorance of these techniques, unused. ⇒ High prices

Farmers have to look for ways to rationalize fertilizers, pesticides and the same time to avoid some environmental negative impact (remote sensing, GIS and GPS)

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 90 of 171

cross optimisation: economic competitiveness through innovating cropping systems

costs optimisation and technical efficiency

Mean

Estandar deviation

CV

Median

enhancing level and stability of yields:

CHALLEN GES

Table 35. Stake: Competitiveness on markets: Research gaps to goals.

Biotic tolerance

6,1

1,0

16,4

6,0

Abiotic tolerance (drought, high, cool and low temperatures)

6,3

0,9

13,9

6,5

Better use of fertility effects of pre-crops and catch crops (crop rotation)

4,8

1,2

25,9

5,0

better effects of crop rotations on W/P/D

5,6

1,0

17,1

6,0

Reducing soil degradation (in particular compaction and erosion).

4,9

1,2

24,1

5,0

Crop management system and Cropping system for non optimal conditions

5,3

0,6

11,9

5,0

Better stablisment (drougth)

4,6

1,1

24,3

5,0

STAKE: COMPETITIVENESS ON MARKET: RESEARCH GAPS TO GOALS SCORE ( 1= no priority, 7= highest priority) GOALS increasing yield potential of varieties / Breeding

increasing yield potential of varieties by management practices

increasing yield stability through genetic resistances to crops enemies ( weeds, pests and diseases) increasing yield stability through varieties and crops physiological plasticity

Research gaps

Breeding for resistance to pests and diseases

6,2

0,8

13,0

6,0

Breeding for competitiveness against weeds

4,8

1,3

26,4

5,0

dynamic models simulating G x E x M

4,6

1,2

25,8

5,0

tolerant varieties (drought, N deficiency, W/P/D)

6,1

0,8

12,5

6,0

escaping abiotic stresses

4,9

0,6

13,0

5,0

optimising investments through work organization

Optimise equipment for cropping systems

5,2

0,9

17,7

6,0

DSS for work organisation

4,7

1,1

23,6

5,0

decreasing costs: optimisation of techniques and efficient techniques of inputs uses through better decision making/ DECISION SUPPORT

Testing of low-input systems

4,9

1,3

25,5

5,0

DSS for a rapid adaptation to economic context ( Gross margin)

5,4

1,2

22,5

5,0

enhancing integrated crop management

Method to build Integrated Crop management

5,3

1,1

20,1

5,5

knowing the costs and their com- position to be able to optimize them

Cost analyses at cropping system scale

5,3

0,8

14,4

5,0

Sensors development and remote sensing and GIS/ Soil fertility.

4,8

1,0

20,3

5,0

Sensors development and remote sensing and GIS/ To control crop stage (remote sensing, infrarred pictures).

4,6

0,9

18,8

5,0

Sensors development and remote sensing and GIS/ Weed mapping / weed control.

4,7

1,2

25,2

5,0

Sensors development and remote sensing and GIS/ Quality of treatments: seeding, fertilizing, spraying,….

5,3

1,2

22,3

5,0

New methods to interpretate the spatial data

4,7

1,4

28,0

4,0

DSS site specific operations

4,7

0,9

19,1

5,0

Development of special equipment for precision farming

5,2

1,2

23,6

5,0

Optimising crop rotations in reduced or no tillage conditions

5,5

0,8

15,8

6,0

Reduction of negative effects (Weed, Pest and Disease)

5,0

1,4

28,3

6,0

Comprehensive models for optimizing crop rotation and cropping plan

5,2

1,2

23,6

6,0

Understand crop rotation effects on soil quality

4,8

1,0

19,4

5,0

Prevent and control weed infestation using crop rotation .

5,9

1,0

17,5

6,0

prevent and control disease and pest infection

5,6

0,9

17,1

6,0

developing precision farming SYSTEMS

optimising cropping systems with reduced soil cultivation

optimizing crop rotations. Management of crop rotations

The research gaps are the highest score issues presented in orange colour. Yellow colours research gaps EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 91 of 171

are score issues between 4.5 and 5.5

Estandar deviation

CV

Median

4,5

1,5

31,9

5,0

Undertanding Nitrogen metabolism and distribution in plants

4,8

1,2

25,1

5,0

Understanding nitrogen efficiency at crop level Reduced risk of crop losses (lodging, dehiscence)

5,4 4,5

1,0 1,2

19,4 26,4

6,0 4,0

Knowing better timing of N delivery (e.g. of winter wheat in autumn)

5,2

1,1

20,9

5,0

Better prediction of crop N demand (precision farming)

5,4

0,9

16,2

5,0

breeding for crops species with improved N uptake and nitrogen efficiency

5,5

Optimise legumes in Cropping systems

5,8

0,8

14,3

6,0

comprehensive models of N cycling in non-optimal conditions

4,9

1,1

22,0

5,0

Assess the effect of Harvest residues incorporated in the soil .

4,8

0,8

17,3

5,0

Better Management and new species of catch crops and improved use of them

4,8

0,8

17,3

5,0

Improved crop rotations with fewer periods with leaching risk

5,4

1,2

21,5

5,5

Better use of manures : treatment, application, timing

5,5

0,9

16,4

5,0

STAKE: SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION SCORE ( 1= no priority, 7= highest priority) GOALS Understanding crops species nitrogen use physiology

improving resource use efficiency: fertilizers

Mean

CHALLE NGES

Table 36. Stake: Sustainable Production: Research gaps to goals

improving fertilization practices on crops

breeding for crops species with improved N uptake and nitrogen efficiency

developing reduced nitrogen input and productive cropping systems/ nitrogen optimization at cropping system scale

Efficient use of manure in cropping systems

Research gaps Study nitrogen uptake from the soil

improved resource use efficiency: water

improving resource use efficiency: energy

Need to improve overall efficiencies at farm and landscape level

5,1

innovating for high energy balance of cropping systems

innovating for high energy balance of cropping systems

5,9

understanding and calculating energy costs in crop chains and at farming level

New methods and references for energy cost

5,5

1,0

18,2

5,5

develop cropping systems based on perennial crops for bioenergy purposes (breeding and systems design)

System design on perennial crops to enhance competitiveness of arable crops

5,4

1,6

28,9

6,0

improving crops (species) water USE efficiency

varietal evaluation & breeding

6,0

1,2

19,7

6,0

optimal irrigation schedules in low water resources systems facing climate change

6,0

1,0

16,7

6,0

calculation water requirements of crops and cropping systems

4,8

1,7

36,5

5,0

DSS for optimizing soil-climate-variety-management combinations

5,8

1,1

18,3

6,0

Combined water and nitrogen use efficiency (Fertirrigation)

5,1

1,4

27,2

5,0

Improve water Technical Efficiency

5,1

0,9

17,0

5,0

Sustainable irrigation in relation to water and soil (drainage, salinisation)

5,5

1,1

19,8

6,0

Optimisation of the water resources taking into account the blocking plan

4,6

1,0

22,1

5,0

To evaluate the agronomic and economic efficiency and productivity of irrigation water.

4,8

1,3

26,4

5,0

improving water management in cropping practices

Improving irrigation water at farm level

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 92 of 171

maintaining an efficient crop protection on long term facing evolutions of pests & pathogen populations

maintaining diversity in genetic resources

Improving irrigation water at irrigated bassins

understanding and forecasting crops enemies biology, attacks and wastes

innovating in plant protection products reaching an Integrated P/D/W management at cropping system level identifying and monitoring crops' enemies evolutions and emerging new crops' enemies (pests, diseases, viruses and weeds)

preserving the durability of crop protection tools (plants genetic resistances, phytochemical efficacy)

Improve the water use infrastructures

5,1

1,5

29,7

6,0

More systematic use of wild relatives in crops breeeding programs (disease and drought tolerance)

5,3

Forecasting of pests and diseases taking into account cropping and management system and crop canopy sensibility

5,8

0,8

14,4

6,0

Typology of P/D/W Management of the crop to avoid Mycotoxins

4,5 4,8

1,1 1,3

24,8 26,2

4,0 5,0

New chemical products against new plagues due to climate change

5,5

0,7

12,1

5,0

New biomolecules active in crop protection

5,2

1,1

20,9

5,0

IPM & ICP schemes

5,4

0,8

14,6

5,0

european and national monitoring

5,0

1,1

22,6

5,0

Modeling the risk of emergence of new problems

5,4

1,1

20,0

6,0

modelling the «durability» at relevant spatial and time scales

4,9

1,0

20,3

5,0

optimal rules for using tools

4,7

1,0

21,1

5,0

Better understanding and preventing development of organisms resistance to agrochemicals

5,4

0,8

14,6

6,0

better understanding of the interaction between palnts and pathogenes (plant resistance durability)

5,5

0,9

16,4

6,0

The research gaps are the highest score issues presented in orange colour. Yellow colours research gaps are score issues between 4.4 and 5.5.

Afterwards, the debate focused to two main stakes - Competitiveness on markets - Sustainable production Among the challenges identified during the first workshop, 12 challenges were kept. Regarding competitiveness on markets: - enhancing level and stability of yields - cost optimisation and technical efficiency - cross optimisation: economic competitiveness through innovative cropping systems Regarding sustainable production: - improving resource use efficiency: fertilizers - improving resource use efficiency: energy - improving resource use efficiency: water - maintaining diversity in genetic resources - maintaining an efficient crop protection on long terme, facing evolutions of pests and pathogens populations. - Mastering crops and cropping systems impacts on environment - Developing innovating cropping systems - Developing common sustainability assessment methods - Reducing soil degradation - Development of specific European experimentation networks

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 93 of 171

GOALS

1,1

20,0

5,2

1,2

22,3

Tillage effects on greenhouse gas emissions

5,5

0,9

16,1

Better understanding of manure and compost effects on gas emission

5,5

1,1

20,3

models to simulate the impact of CC and evaluate the adaptation (effect on W/P/D)

5,2

1,4

27,3

How to adapt to wet autumns and winters?

4,6

1,0

20,8

How to adapt to increased rainfall intensity and increased droughts

5,3

1,0

19,4

5,0

1,0

13,0

5,2

1,2

13,0

4,7

1,3

13,0

5,3

1,3

13,0

5,4 5,5 5,8

1,1 1,1 1,6

13,0 13,0 13,0

5,8

1,1

13,0

5,5

0,5

10,0

5,7 5,2 5,3 5,0

0,8 1,2 0,5 0,0

14,4 22,6 9,7 0,0

5,8

0,5

8,7

5,8

1,1

20,8

More innovations to test in practice .A network of european experimentations increase the involvement of the farmers

5,8

1,1

18,5

Long-term experimentations network related to cropping systems

5,8

1,3

21,5

Research gaps

controle nutrients leaching

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions

Design innovative and sustainable production systems which take account of the diversity of evaluation criteria concerning sustainability

5,2 Better management of N to avoid nitrous oxide emissions. Improved rooting of crops and catch crops for C sequestration.

Developing methods to design the cropping systems Strategies for new cropping systems for instance in mixed farming

Understanding farmers acceptability of innovations

5,4

elaborating basic references

5,1

standardizing life cycle assessments methods for crops products

5,3

elaborating multicriteria environmental and sustainability assessment methods for cropping systems in territories

comparison and selection of the most relevant methods A platform combining a chain of evaluation tools (models, indicators…) and databases to allow a routine ex ante and ex post evaluation of CMS and CS

improve soil physical properties

Management of soil structure Avoid Compaction (especially in subsoil) Reducing soil erosion

improve soil Chemical properties

improve soil biological properties

Development of specific european experimentat ion networks

Reducing soil degradation (Improve and maintain soil quality)

CV

developing innovating sustainable cropping systems

5,6

SCORE ( 1= no priority, 7= highest priority)

anticipating / forecasting the changes of climatic conditions and their effects on crops

developing common sustainability assessment methods

Estandar deviation

STAKE: SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION Mean

mastering crop and Cropping systems impacts on CHALLENG environment and ES biodiversity : WG 3.5 + WG 3.1

Table 37. Stake: Sustainable Production: Research gaps to goals

Improve Organic matter as a component of the fertility of the soil Management of cover and catch crops and residues Avoid Salinisation Avoid acidification reducing soil contamination Eliminate pollution Increasing soil biodiversity by adequate cropping systems Choose appropiate cropping systems

The research gaps are the highest score issues presented in orange colour. Yellow colours research gaps are score issues between 4 and 5.5. EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 94 of 171

These challenge cover 40 goals and 94 research gaps or topics. The workshop participants evaluated the importance of each gap relatively to the corresponding goal (see Tables 35 and 36, 37). Finally, 10 challenges were elaborated for experts covering 24 goals and 31 research topics of high priority. The proposals were grouped according to the score: 1. Enhancing level and stability of yields (Increasing yield potential of varieties by breeding, by management practices, Increasing yield stability through genetic resistances to crops enemies (weeds, pests and diseases) and through varieties and crops physiological plasticity). 2. Reducing soil degradation, improve and maintain soil quality, (Improve soil physical, chemical and biological). 3. Improved resource use efficiency: water (Improving crops water USE efficiency, water management in cropping practices, and irrigation water at farm level). 4. Mastering crop and Cropping systems impacts on environment and biodiversity (Reducing greenhouse gas emissions). 5. Developing innovating sustainable cropping systems (Design innovative and sustainable production systems which take account of the diversity of evaluation criteria concerning sustainability). 6. Maintaining an efficient crop protection on long term facing evolutions of pests & pathogen populations (Understanding and forecasting crops enemies biology, attacks and wastes and Preserving the durability of crop protection tools (plants genetic resistances, photochemical efficacy). 7. Costs optimization economic competitiveness by innovating cropping systems (Decreasing costs: optimization of techniques and efficient techniques of inputs uses through better decision making, Optimizing cropping systems with reduced soil cultivation and Optimizing crop rotations and Management of crop rotations. 8. Improving crops physiological plasticity to face climate diversity (Anticipating / forecasting the changes of climatic conditions and their effects on crops). 9. Improving resource use efficiency: energy (Innovating for high energy balance of cropping systems and Understanding and calculating energy costs in crop chains and at farming level). 10. Improving resource use efficiency: fertilizers ( Breeding for crops species with improved N uptake and nitrogen efficiency, Developing reduced nitrogen input and productive cropping systems/ nitrogen optimization at cropping system scale, Increasing yield potential of varieties by management practices, and Increasing yield stability through genetic resistances to crops enemies, weeds, pests and diseases). Cropping systems and regional Specificities The experts were also invited to evaluate the importance of the challenges in the different situations identified on the basis of relevant criteria relatively to farming conditions ( with/ without livestock; main cropping systems categories; regions or environmental conditions) The participants used a 7 degrees scale (1 = not at all important; 7 = very important) (seeTable 38). 18 farm types have been considered on the basis of two categories between animal and crop without EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 95 of 171

and with livestock, three main climatic regions and three cropping systems, conventional, organic and conservation systems. Score of Europeans Farming types, challenges, goals and research gaps. Table 38. Challenges of Technical aspects at farm level: priorities per production system, innovation system and regions (with average degree > 4,5) CHALLENGES

Enhancing level and stability of yields Costs optimisation and technical efficiency Cross optimisation: economic competitiveness through innovating cropping systems / developing innovative CS Improving resource use efficiency: fertilizers Improving resource use efficiency: energy

PRODUCTION SYSTEM With livest Without livestock ock 4,7 4,5

4,5 4,7

INNOVATION SYSTEM Organi c

4,6

5,3

5,3

5,4

4,6

5,3

5

4,8

4,9

5,1

5,5

4,5

5,2

4,9

4,8

5

5,4

5,3

4,7

5,1

4,9

4,5

5,3

5,1

5,2

4,5

4,8

4,9

4,8

4,9

4,8

4,7

4,8

4,9

4,9

6

5,3

4,7

Improving resource use efficiency: water

4,7

Maintaining diversity in genetic resources

4,9

Conser Integra vation ted

5,2

Maintaining an efficient crop protection on long term facing evolutions of pests & pathogen populations

REGIONS Oceani Medite Easter crranea n Temp n

Conve ntional

4,7

4,7

4,8

5,2

5,3

4,7

Developing innovating sustainable cropping systems

4,6

5,2

5,3

4,7

4,8

Developing common sustainability assessment methods

4,6

4,6

4,6

Reducing soil degradation

4,8

5

4,8

5

4,6

5,4

5,4

5,1

4,6

5

5,4

5

5,3

5,1

5

5,1

4,9

4,9

4,9

4,8

Devolopment of specific European experimentation networks

5,1

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions

5,2

Mastering crop and cropping systems impacts on environment and biodiversity Developing and increasing logistics efficiency

5 4,6

5 5,2 4,6

4,8

4,6

4,6

• With livestock, continental climate and cropping systems (conventional, organic and conservation), the first three challenges and goals of highest priority are: 1. - Improving crops physiological plasticity to face climate diversity Anticipating / forecasting the changes of climatic conditions and their effects on crops 2. - Enhancing level and stability of yields Increasing yield stability through genetic resistances to crops enemies ( weeds, pests and diseases) .3. - Maintaining an efficient crop protection on long term facing evolutions of pests & pathogen populations Understanding and forecasting crops enemies biology, attacks and wastes

• With livestock, Mediterranean climate and cropping systems (conventional, organic and conservation), the first three challenges and goals of highest priority are: 1. - Improved resource use efficiency: water Improving crops (species) water USE efficiency EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 96 of 171

2. - Improving resource use efficiency: energy Innovating for high energy balance of cropping systems 3. - Enhancing level and stability of yields Increasing yield stability through varieties and crops physiological plasticity • With livestock, temperate climate and cropping systems (conventional, organic and conservation), the first three challenges and goals of highest priority are: 1. - Improving resource use efficiency: energy Innovating for high energy balance of cropping systems 2. - Improving resource use efficiency: fertilizers Efficient use of manure in cropping systems 3. - Maintaining an efficient crop protection on long term facing evolutions of pests & pathogen populations Understanding and forecasting crops enemies biology, attacks and wastes • Without livestock, continental climate and cropping systems (conventional, organic and conservation), the first three challenges and goals of highest priority are: 1.- Improving crops physiological plasticity to face climate diversity Anticipating / forecasting the changes of climatic conditions and their effects on crops 2.- Costs optimization economic competitiveness by innovating cropping systems Optimizing cropping systems with reduced soil cultivation 3.- Developing innovating sustainable cropping systems Design innovative and sustainable production systems which take into account of the diversity of evaluation criteria concerning sustainability • Without livestock, Mediterranean climate and cropping systems (conventional, organic and conservation), the first three challenges and goals of highest priority are: 1.- Improved resource use efficiency: water Improving crops (species) water USE efficiency 2.- Enhancing level and stability of yields: Increasing yield stability through varieties and crops physiological plasticity 3.- Costs optimization economic competitiveness by innovating cropping systems Optimizing cropping systems with reduced soil cultivation • Without livestock, temperate climate and cropping systems (conventional, organic and conservation), the first three challenges and goals of highest priority are: 1.- Improving resource use efficiency: energy Innovating for high energy balance of cropping systems 2.- Developing innovating sustainable cropping systems Design innovative and sustainable production systems which take into account of the diversity of evaluation criteria concerning sustainability 3.- Costs optimization economic competitiveness by innovating cropping systems Optimizing cropping systems with reduced soil cultivation

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 97 of 171

3.2. Farm economics The objective of WG 3.2 is to consider the research issues at the cropping system level and at the farming system levels from an economic point of view. Considering only a crop chain approach is not sufficient to assess arable crops competitiveness, since arable crops are inserted in production systems. The profitability of arable crops as a whole and of a single crop is interdependent with the profitability of the farming systems. A review of the past and ongoing research programmes of the European Commission (Framework Programmes 5-7) has shown that the economic evaluation of arable crop production systems has not been in the focus of the latest European research programmes. The economic aspects of arable cropping, evaluation of production systems and costs have only been touched upon as part of some integrated projects. Facing the expected changes on markets, political framework conditions and climatic conditions there is a gap of the current state of the art in farm economics and production cost analysis in Europe. According to the overall EUROCOP approach, several experts on farm economics from universities and consultancies from different European member states had been invited to join the WG 3.2 Workshop in Braunschweig/Germany, in order to present their perspectives on arable farming in Europe and to contribute to a common proposal for farm economic research topics. The WG 3.2 approach was structured according to the major factors most likely to affect and determine arable farming in the future: market developments (product and input prices), political framework conditions, developments in the bio-energy sector, climate change and environmental aspects. Against the background of these expected developments, and under consideration of the outcome and recommendations of the WP2 of the EUROCROP project, the WG 3.2 Workshop aimed at describing precise research topics. At first the experts defined a list of future research challenges derived from the challenges arable farmer all over Europe will face in the next years. The discussion between WG3.2 experts made clear that there are big differences between European regions in terms of the importance and relevance of the single challenges. It became obvious that especially the new member states (Bulgaria and Romania), and to some extent also the other Central European member states, will face problems which play only a minor role in the Western European countries. Experts from Central European countries (which are still in a transition process from a centrally planned economy to a free market economy with the corresponding changes in the political and institutional systems) considered research challenges on economics on farm size, land markets, market imperfections and changes in farm structures (subsistence farming) of higher importance than experts from Western European countries. Independent from their origin, farmers across Europe will face increasing volatility of commodity and input prices. In order to strengthen the competitiveness of arable farming in Europe, it will be necessary to properly adapt production systems and rotations to changing price and market conditions. Even more so if, besides the market developments, the consequences of climate change affect crop pattern, yield levels, distribution of pests and diseases or water availability. Hence the question of how to adapt crop rotations and production systems to market requirements, climatic conditions and increasing demand for bio-energy crops was seen as a major challenge to farmers and therefore the most important research challenge. The economic analysis of different strategies to adapt crop pattern and production systems to climatic changes is closely related to the question of how agriculture and arable farming contribute to climate change due to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Therefore a detailed study of the GHG balance of arable farming and the economic evaluation of GHG mitigation cost of certain crops, rotations and production systems is seen as a major challenge for research.

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 98 of 171

Some research has been done in the area of risk management in arable crop production. However, the importance of limiting income risk due to yield cuts or price volatility is still seen as a major challenge and has not been addressed sufficiently. Generating non-agricultural income, expanding traditional crop rotations by introducing for instance energy crops, options for using straw, offering environmental service are possible diversification strategies for arable farmers in the future which might also contribute to minimizing income risk. In order to recommend appropriate strategies to farmers in different regions, under various production circumstances and environmental requirements, it is necessary to evaluate the diversification options under different aspects: impact on the production systems and production costs, reasonable framework conditions (political, economic and environmental) for diversification and the consequences for agricultural income. The research challenges were ranked according to their possible contribution to meet future challenges for arable farmers and to improve the competitiveness of European arable farming. According to their experience and interests, the experts were asked to choose one research challenge for a more detailed description of a related research topic. As a recommendation for possible future research projects, nine topics were specified. (1) Impact of increasing commodity and input prices on production systems (2) Economics of farm size under changing market and political conditions (3) Analysis of land markets in the EU (4) Economics of adaptation to climate change (5) Greenhouse Gases from crop production – Economics of methods to reduce carbon release (6) Economics of straw as a feedstock for bio-energy (7) Economics of bio-energy crops (8) Risk management of arable farming under price volatility and climatic changes (9) Ease of economic and social stress due to structural change with special focus on the NMS The experts agreed that the contribution of the recommended research topics to the competitiveness of arable farming, and therefore the ranking of these topics, is highly dependent on the European region where the arable farming takes place. The same research topic was ranked to be of highest priority and of less relevance at the same time by different experts whether they came from the north or the south, from a fully developed political and economic system or a country under transformation. This lead the group to recommend that the ranking of the described research topics should be seen as a first classification, considering that all listed research challenges are relevant and important to improve and strengthen the competitiveness of European arable farming.

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 99 of 171

3.3. Outlets and markets In developed countries today, most agricultural products, including arable crops, are used by consumers after the intermediate steps of processing, packaging and distribution. While the general concern remains the satisfaction of consumer needs, most of the market opportunities for arable crops are driven by direct downstream relationships. The way in which these intermediate steps affect final consumption have been the focus of attention in recent years, particularly with respect to food quality and food safety issues. Yet, there is still a perception that insufficient global knowledge is available to understand the complex interconnections between human health, food technology, food production and land management. Whilst a good deal of existing arable crop research is already focused on downstream industries and on lifecycle thinking with respect to the use of biological resources, the aim of Eurocrop Working Group 3.3 (Outlets and Markets) is specifically to anticipate the needs of the processing industry and foresee ways of adapting the arable crop system accordingly. Furthermore, the ‘Outlets and Markets’ Working Group considered EU arable crop competitiveness in the context of the relationship between products and systems in a globalised economy. The activities of the WG were based on two expert meetings held in Paris, France and Bologna, Italy, involving 20 experts from across Europe. The experts’ discussions were organized into three main sub-themes, namely: Food, Feed and Nonfood/non-feed uses. Most agricultural production is still intended for food uses. Accordingly, Food is clearly the most traditional and well-developed sector and has consequently attracted a significant amount of research attention. Nonetheless, in the view of the experts, the food sector continues to merit attention on issues related to quality, safety, as well as on concerns related to the on-going world food crisis. Feed, on the other hand, has received less attention, yet covers a very important share of economic value in the market for arable crops, and is key to the competitiveness of the livestock sector. Finally, Non-Food/Non-Feed is an area characterised by significant innovation. In this particular field, the experts’ attention was focused mainly on energy production, but a number of other outlets were proposed for further development. The Working Group sought to underscore the fact that major issues for the future arise from the interactions between these sub-themes ( food, feed, NonFood/NonFeed); in particular, major innovations related to the use of by-products. Furthermore, the main issues addressed focused on the overarching need for competitiveness in outlets and markets, and addressed, among others, the following considerations: -

new market development of downstream products and by-products technological options related to quality, safety, reliability, flexibility etc. specific regional options for outlets and markets cascading and valuation of by-products biorefinery and residue processing

The first WG3.3 meeting was held in Paris and involved a preliminary analysis and systems description of ‘outlets and markets’ for arable crops. In particular, the experts sought to identify the principal problems areas, drivers and factors of change. The three sub-themes mentioned above EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 100 of 171

(Food, Feed, Non-Food/Non-Feed) were identified as being the key broad areas of research for arable crop markets with an horizon of 2015. The group then identified relevant competitiveness drivers, which were divided into three categories: economics (competition and profit), technical (efficiency and quality properties of products) and ‘policy and markets’ (role of breeder companies and financial markets). The experts discussed the competitiveness drivers and the general research themes falling thereunder. In particular under the ‘technical’ and ‘policy/market’ drivers, the priorities raised touched upon supply chain improvements and genetic developments allowing for increased crop yield. With respect to ‘policy and markets’ the development of data management for market forecasting and consumer information were identified as potential priorities. The experts agreed that arable crop markets are unlikely to undergo significant growth prior to 2015, but that agro-energy markets could be expected to increase in coming years. Accordingly, it was felt that efforts need to be made to lower energy input in the arable crop sector. Other priorities raised include: nutritional value of raw materials, allergenicity, development of species with modified genes (GMO), new crops for agro-fuels (miscanthus, jatropha), second generation biofuels, biorefinery, and the development of new products using vegetal raw material.

The second Eurocrop WG 3.3 meeting, held in Bologna, focused specifically on the three main themes identified in the first meeting: Food, Feed, Non-Food/Non-Feed and had as its mandate the development of specific research topics falling under these headings. The experts were divided into three subgroups, and sought to further develop the ideas introduced in the first meeting, and to identify additional themes to be refined and written up as research topics. The Food Subgroup identified five broad themes which the experts felt were the most relevant for arable crop outlet and market needs: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

New drivers for product development Health modulating components Carbon footprint Consumer education/re-education Whole crop utilisation Safety

The Feed subgroup session began with a presentation entitled “Stakes of the Feed Market: collaboration between arable crops and animal production areas. It focused on the relationship between raw materials and animal nutrients, and emphasised the important role played by genetics, crops practices and technology in the improvement of nutrient accessibility in raw materials and digestive efficiency in animals. The presentation also addressed improved feeding systems, quality control for agro-fuel by-products, the evaluation of new raw materials for biorefinery development, and the importance of addressing consumer perceptions of animal products in food. The Feed subgroup identified the following five priority themes: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Raw materials for feed Feed Animal products and consumers Animal production, breeding and the environment Risk along the chain

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 101 of 171

The Non-Food/Non-Feed (NF/NF) subgroup emphasised the importance of distinguishing between NF/NF products, such as energy and biorefinery, on the one hand, and NF/NF services, such as ecosystem services and public goods created by arable crops, on the other. The group agreed on the importance of striving towards truly unique research recommendations – and hence developing a broader vision than those of Crop Chains and the European Technology Platforms (ETP). The experts also focused on the need to reconsider existing crops, and their potential for providing multiple outlets (i.e. sugar, energy, other by-products) over the long-term. A re-optimisation of the combination food/feed/NF/NF, and an optimisation of genetic, technological and processing was put forward as key to future arable crop research. The experts agreed that first generation biofuels constitute a transition period activity and are not ideal with respect to sustainability and global valorisation of agro-resources. It was argued that it is more worthwhile for oil crops to produce chemical building blocks, rather than energy. Given the limited future for first generation biofuels, the NF/NF experts argued that assistance should be provided to the first generation biofuel investors to convert their industries, and to be in a position to move toward second generation biofuels, or green chemistry.

The NF/NF subgroup discussion resulted in the identification of the following eight broad research themes: 1. Services/public goods: it was emphasised that AC are an important sources of non-food services including, among others, water protection, improving carbon sequestration, soil protection, tourism/recreation etc. 2. Products: such as industrial products, products of the fine chemical industry, natural dyes etc. 3. Ways to optimise between NF/NF and Food/Feed at different levels: two approaches were discussed: (i) spatial scale – optimisation of (limited) land use: and (ii) the best use of crops (main products vs. by-products) 4. Biorefinery: integration of by-products into main products, or secondary products, and the integration of energy and mass flows. 5. Optimisation of resources: the emerging issue of ‘intercropping’ 6. How to design cropping systems to be more resistant or resilient to climate changes?: already considered in WG 3.5 (Environmental Impacts) 7. Databases for genetic resources 8. From the point of view of processing: the issue was raised, but time was not allocated to it for further discussion. Further discussion allowed the experts to develop six draft research topics: 1. Water protection: AC systems for producing clean water 2. Understanding industrial needs and involving industry in exploiting crops’ potential for biobased products 3. Ways to optimise between NF/NF and Food and Feed at different levels 4. Spatial scale: land use optimisation for NF/NF, Food and Feed and synergies between products and services 5. Whole crop use optimisation for NF/NF and Food and Feed and synergies between different outlets 6. Integration of energy and mass flows: land use and Agro-industrial parks – closed cycles integrating products, energy and mass flows. After consideration of the draft research topics identified in each subgroup, the WG 3.3 (Outlets and Markets) experts retained and defined a total of eleven (11) research topics. Five of these fall under EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 102 of 171

the heading of Food, and 3 were attributed to the Feed and Non-Food/Non-Feed themes respectively. In keeping with the overall objective of the Eurocrop project, the topics selected have in common that they aim to address the improvement of European arable crop competitiveness, with a horizon of year 2015. Innovation is at the heart of the research priorities identified by the experts, as is a desire to see disciplines and sectors come together to address issues related to improved sustainability and the development of outlets and markets. Indeed, numerous topics address ways of ensuring that research and development in the fields of Food, Feed and NF/NF is not conducted in isolation, and that synergies between the three be emphasized to obtain cutting-edge results. The topics selected place a particular emphasis on increasing and diversifying arable crop productivity, in order to render arable crops more sustainable and to address, and indeed create, new market opportunities. Specific topics address the potential for ‘sustainable whole crop usage’ (greater emphasis on biomass and co-product usage) in the fields of Food, Feed and NF/NF as a means of obtaining a wider market range and achieving synergies between different outlets. Others take up the challenge of optimising nutrients from arable crops, utilising arable crop by-products for non-food applications, as well as the optimisation of land use for Food, Feed and NF/NF in light of growing demand for raw materials in Europe. Finally, the experts also sought to consider the research potential of synergies between agricultural products and related public services and goods, potential synergies between agricultural and industrial production, increased use of nutrients, bioenergy, biorefinery and ways of addressing consumer demand for healthy and function foods through health modulating compounds, breeding, genetics and other agronomic techniques. The full list of WG 3.3 topics is presented in table 39:

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 103 of 171

Table 39 : WG 3.3. (Outlets and Markets) Topics Number Sub-group Title Challenges 1 Food Optimising AC for new healthy Adapting species to new products needs: breeding and genetics 2 Food Optimising AC for optimal utilisation To meet demands of of nutrients in human and animal consumer with respect to nutrition and/or utilisation of food and to make AC components of AC or by products of attractive for non-food food processing for non-food uses. applications. 3 Food Comparative analysis and Value Chain and identification of the innovation Networking opportunities to increase efficiency in the arable crops chain and networks 4 Food Preventing safety risks in AC To ensure food safety 5

Food

6

Feed

7

Feed

8

Feed

9

Non-Food/NonFeed

10

Non-Food/NonFeed

11

Non-Food/NonFeed

Whole crop utilisation

New Drivers for product development Strategies to enhance nutritional Setting new processes for quality and processability of crop new products products and by-products from food industry, bio-energy or bio-refinery to secure supply to the European feed Improvement of competitiveness of Increasing logistics crop production on the global feed and efficiency related markets: strategies for competitive EU feed production Science-based integration of feed To meet demands of crops and related animal products in consumer with respect to consumers’ health concerns. animal products. Land use optimisation for Food, Feed Developing Non-Food/ and Non-Food/Non-feed, and Non-Feed uses synergies between production and services/ how to optimize land use and synergies at different scales Whole crop utilization for Non feed / Increased non food, food and feed, and synergies competitiveness of EU between different outlets agriculture through an optimal uses of agricultural land Land use in agro-industrial parks: closed cycles integrating products, energy and mass flows

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 104 of 171

3.4. Quality One of the problems in identifying research needs for ‘quality aspects’ is not knowing what quality demands might be placed on arable crop products in the future. There are a number of possible scenarios that may arise for European agriculture in the future including; • A largely price driven market • A price driven market with environmental concerns • A socio-economic low-input dependent market, designed to keep land in production. These different drivers will put different pressures on delivery of quality demands, over and above the basic demands to ensure food safety. In trying to address the research issues associated with delivering quality arable products, the initial questions that need to be considered include: • What can Europe viably grow? • Do we fully understand the parameters affecting quality in these crops? • Do we fully understand how all aspects of agronomy affect end quality? • Do we clearly know what we are trying to achieve in terms of end product quality? (Is there adequate communication in the supply and production chain?) Answers to some of the above points will include attention to structural and supply chain development needs as well as the need for focussed research. There are different levels of quality demand: 1. A legislative framework that is set in place to ensure basic food safety and in some cases integrity in terms of origin and composition (consumer protection) 2. A consumer or market driven demand for goods of a certain specification or type Research in support of the first is a priority and represents a significant amount of ongoing research related to development of methods and detection procedures to improve the reliability and speed of detection. In discussions, challenges related to this area, in many cases, did not feature highly in terms of requirements for determining research needs, given that they would continue to be driven forward by the market itself and by regulating authorities. Similarly the development of tools and aids to help speed up detection of problems (pesticide residues or presence of GM etc) and increase efficiency in the supply chain also were not ranked as high priorities for research to improve competitiveness. This was because it was thought that such small-scale technological increments would be quickly taken up by competitors, reducing the small advantage gained. The second area represents a more diffuse range of parameters, leading to different quality specifications across Europe. However, this was the area where more basic research was seen to be required and where the higher priorities for future research predominantly lay. In the main, the highest priorities related to attaining better matching of production to consumer demands, while improving the efficiency of EU agriculture in delivering the required quality traits. This included better understanding of the agronomic and genetic traits driving quality and the interaction of processing methods with end quality. The issues of mycotoxins, carbon foot printing and dealing with co-existence of GM produce as current and up and coming issues in the area of crop quality not surprisingly featured as issues requiring research, given that they receive significant press coverage and public comment. Carbon foot printing potentially offers a means to develop additional market share where transport or energy use can be shown to be reduced compared to nonEU competitors, while the issue of GM contamination is a market measure that could offer a EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 105 of 171

premium to EU non-GM growers to improve competitiveness within the EU. There is still clearly a demand for better communication, both in terms of transferring technical information to growers to optimise, but also in ensuring consumer concerns are fed back to ensure appropriate dialogue occurs to overcome mis-conceptions. In answer to the questions raised as bullet points above, clearly the response gained from this exercise is that there is still more research to be done before we can confidently answer yes to the questions posed. Approach Through a process of review and expert consultation, the challenges affecting delivery of quality of agricultural products were identified. Research goals and gaps were identified as a prelude to defining and prioritising more detailed research topics. The objectives of the analysis were to: - Draft an initial set of thematic challenges and stakes, related to crop quality issues, identified in earlier work within individual crop chain work packages and from other sources of research. - To identify additional challenges during expert consultation in a workshop. - To prioritise the key issues of importance, using experts - For the issues of highest priority, and with the support of expert consultation, identify priority research topics Relevant outputs from WP2 meetings, amended to include relevant topics from other EU Technology Platforms, were circulated to expert participants prior to the workshop meeting to help focus and promote discussions. In the workshop, free flowing discussion was developed, building on the issues identified by the crop chain work groups, to identify further new areas for consideration. A collated list of challenges, research needs (goals and gaps) was produced and used for ranking of priorities by experts (Table 40). The discussion of issues related to development of new markets was left to a parallel work group covering the issues of outlets and markets (WG3.3). For the top 10 ranked issues more detailed research topics were drawn out to identify the challenges that were being addressed, the general background to the issue, the objective of the research, the approach and anticipated deliverables/outputs. Potential sources of funding were also identified. Initial proposals were drafted up by CSL as group lead and sent to the participating experts for comment and amendment where necessary. This allowed experts to comment on the final research topics and provided additional information on objectives, output/ deliverables, impacts and other remarks. The final analysis was sent to further experts in Europe to ensure that it covered all the appropriate aspects from a wider European viewpoint.

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 106 of 171

Better understanding of the genetic determinants of quality traits to help develop better cultivars capable of delivering required quality in the face of abiotic stress Better understanding of the interaction between processing methods and nutritional quality of produce – to optimise bio-availability Better understanding of the interaction between crop quality characters and processing – to identify areas for improvement and development Develop and improve carbon footprints for EU produce and develop agreed standard methods for their determination across Europe Development of co-existence strategies for EU arable crops with GM and nonfood crops. Development of information transfer programme to increase production and use of EU-derived plant proteins Better understanding of public concerns associated with GM technologies to help shape communication strategies Development of pest and disease control measures to protect/enhance product quality Control of mycotoxins in cereals - Identify key routes of contamination, develop predictors of infection risk, develop more resistant cultivars and better control measures Optimise the digestibility of plant proteins fed in animal diets Development of early warning systems to predict incidence of specific disease problems that may have an influence on crop quality Increased nitrogen use efficiency in delivering grain protein for milling wheat (through breeding and/or management) Inclusion of low dormancy characteristics in oilseeds with modified oil profiles to reduce future contamination risks Technology transfer programme, aimed at producers and users, to encourage greater use of EU legumes Better understanding of factors affecting protein composition of legumes and oil-meal residues Development of cheap, rapid testing methods and risk assessment tools to identify problems with 1. Rogue cultivars 2. Pesticide residues 3. GM contamination Map and characterise individual market quality specifications to identify potential synergies across Europe

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Standar d Deviatio n

Research goal

Mean

Table 40. Summary of research goals and gaps identified in discussions and mean ranking score achieved by expert scoring of priorities (1-7 scale, where 7 = highest priority)

6.1

2.268

6.0

1.155

5.3

0.756

5.3

2.215

5.3

1.704

5.1

2.268

5.0

2.236

4.7

1.380

4.5

1.643

4.5

2.345

4.4

1.813

4.2

2.229

4.0

2.000

3.8

2.317

3.3

2.338

3.0

1.633

2.9

2.289

Page 107 of 171

Table 41. Summary of objectives and proposed approaches for prioritised research topics

Research topic objective

Proposed approach

Develop programmes to better understand the genetic parameters underpinning key quality traits in arable crops and the genomic and associated markers to help identify targets for breeding efforts.

Identify the key priority quality traits of interest (i.e premium-led) or where delivery of consistent quali is a regular problem. Develop variety trait mapping populations and identify the genetic traits associated with such populations Work with industry and food scientists to examine the impacts of processing on common arable commodities Review and assessment of range of variability in current processed crops and linkage of this to fundamental crop analysis to help determine key parameters affecting end use Development of agreed methods, boundaries for analysis, and accounting tools to ensure appropriate analysis Risk analysis work is required to identify the scale of risk involved in the specific supply chains involved. Alongside this, appropriate detection methods are required to ensure appropriate levels of sampling are carried out to ensure adequate purity without increasing handling times significantly Development of technology transfer activities to promote growing of legumes in EU and promote good management practices to optimise benefits for the rotation Engagement and consultation through market surveys and meetings to ascertain views and assertions. To rationalise this into a list of key concerns and provide balanced information notes in response Co-ordination of EU R&D activities in the sector to develop an analysis of key sector needs and priorities and develop cross-border monitoring schemes Co-ordination of research activities to build on risk assessment procedures to help develop tools to improve predictions of risk to enable appropriate agronomic and storage management.

To better understand the impacts of processing on the bio-availability of compounds of nutritional or health benefit To improve efficiency of processing, reduce waste and create added value opportunities for EU growers

Development of a common agreed methodology for carbon accounting of food products Develop risk assessment and detection tools to help maintain the integrity of non-GM supply chains

To increase uptake of pulse legumes by growers, by providing information on value of pulse crops to growers To better understand the EU general public’s concerns over GM issues

Develop key forecasting tools and strategies for the most problematic pest and disease problems affecting crop quality parameters Mycotoxins - identify key routes of contamination, develop predictors of infection risk, and develop more resistant cultivars and better control measures.

To increase digestibility of UK plant protein sources fed in animal diets

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Development of cultivars and control treatments to improve control and management of the causal parent fungus Development of breeding work to reduce undesirable protein binding traits and increase digestibility of protein constituents

Page 108 of 171

3.5. Environmental impacts Arable crops occupy about 40% of the agricultural area in the EU and have significant impacts on the environment. The working group 3.5 on Environmental impacts considered two important interaction pathways between arable crops and the environment: Impact of the cropping system (or the farmer) on the environment. The farmer is the main driver of this impact by using resources or by emissions to the environment. This impact should be reduced in order to achieve an environmentally sustainable cropping system and a production acceptable to the society. Impact of the environment on the cropping system, by changes in production conditions or resources. The farmer is affected by the impacts caused by the whole society. Seven external experts and three collaborators of the responsible institution Agroscope ReckenholzTänikon Research Station ART participated in the two workshops of WG3.5. The work was organised in three steps: 1. Analysis of the environmental stakes and challenges related to arable crops 2. Prioritisation of research goals 3. Selection and description of 13 research topics. Environmental stakes and challenges related to arable crops The environmental stakes and challenges to arable crops were systematically analysed and discussed during the first workshop, based on a literature review and expert knowledge. The nature of each stake and challenge was analysed, its severity now and in future was assessed, and the affected areas (regional differences) and measures to mitigate the problems were evaluated. The working group considered the following stakes: • Impact of arable crops on the environment: resource use • Impact of arable crops on the environment: environmental quality • Impact of arable crops on the environment: human health. The protection of good human health was also included in the considerations, but treated only marginally as the topic is analysed by WG3.4 on product quality. • Impact of the environment on arable crops. Eight environmental challenges grouped in three major fields were judged to have a high importance: • Resources: o Depletion of fossil energy resources: arable crops rely heavily on fossil energy resources, mainly through the use of machinery and of mineral fertilisers, in particular nitrogen. o Depletion of water resources: agriculture uses about one third of the extracted water in Europe, but in Southern regions, the majority of water is used in agriculture. As a consequence of climate change, the need for irrigation of arable crops will increase. o Biodiversity: due to the intensification of agricultural practices, biodiversity has declined in the past and further decline or a stabilisation is projected for the next decades, depending on the agricultural practices. o Landscape ecology: the increased pressure on land use (food and feed production, biofuels, recreational use) has consequences for the ecological functions of the landscape. • Environmental quality:

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 109 of 171

o Soil quality: the cultivation of arable crops has serious impacts on physical, chemical and biological soil properties. Soil cultivation techniques are particularly disturbing for the soil system. • Impact of the environment on agriculture: o Climate change: the impact of changed climate on arable crops was ranked highest. The experts expected serious consequences on arable crops cultivation. o Depletion of water resources: see above o Soil degradation: erosion, pollution, compaction, loss of biological activity, desertification, acidification, salinisation and sealing may lead to a loss or degradation of the production capacity of the soil. Research goals related to environmental issues The research goals were defined on a collection of research ideas, needs and gaps stemming from different sources: • EUROCROP-WP2 (crop chain analysis) • Relevant research goals from the ETP's "Food for Life", "Plants for the Future", "Water Supply and Sanitation" • Ideas collected during the workshop and between the workshops • Proposals contained in the expert’s presentations. In contrast to the environmental stakes and challenges, the research goals are no more restricted to environmental impacts only. Following the logics of the Driving force – Pressure – State – Impact – Response – model, research needs arise at all levels and do not concern uniquely the environmental impacts. The different proposals were structured according to a hierarchy with three levels. On the first (highest) level, five groups were defined: 1. Reduce cropping system impacts on environment 2. Improve efficiency of abiotic resource use 3. Enhance diversity in biotic resources 4. Maintain/improve plant productivity and quality in future/diverse conditions 5. Understand the sustainability of food production and supply in Europe. On the third level, 42 research goals have been defined and subsequently prioritised, resulting in 14 research goals with a high importance (listed in descending priority): - Improve/optimise cropping systems - Understand N-cycles in an integrated way - Improve low-input cropping systems - Improve water use efficiency of arable cropping systems - Maintain/improve effective crop protection strategies - Integrated soil protection - Minimize nitrate leaching - Deal with new and evolving plant pathogen problems - Efficient biodiversity enhancement - Scaling issues: find sustainable solutions on different scales: crops, farm, region, country, EU - Nitrogen: Minimize N2O emissions - Carbon: C-sequestration and CH4 - Minimize long term impact of agrochemicals - Evaluate most effective (environmental) measures. Although a hierarchical structure of research goals was created, the classification remains arbitrary to a certain degree, since a goal could also be placed in another position of the hierarchical tree with good arguments, since it may contribute to several challenges.

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 110 of 171

Research topics proposed The next step consisted in defining concrete research proposals. The experts worked in three subgroups, each defining four or five research topics, covering the research goals considered of highest priority by the experts. Following proposals were made (only title and objectives are given, the full description can be found in the WG3.5 report): • Environmental and economic optimisation of (low-input) cropping systems: To define environmentally and economically optimal strategies for cropping system management, to provide tools for decision makers in order to increase eco-efficiency. • Use of new technologies/methods to increase the efficiency of crop management: To develop, adapt and improve technologies for use in agriculture in order to reduce input use and emissions (system optimisation in crop management). • Integration of arable and livestock farming: Quantify the production and beneficial environmental effects of a higher integration of arable and livestock farming at farm and regional level. Assess the effects of increasing fossil fuel prices (higher prices for fertilizers, pesticides, transports). Propose innovative solutions. • Integrated soil protection (physical, chemical and biological aspects): Assess the impacts of different cropping systems and management practices (reduced tillage, fertilization, use of machinery, pesticides) on soil quality properties and nutrient and pesticide losses. Optimisation of cropping systems with the goal to improve soil properties. • Designing and testing water efficient cropping systems in a multi-scale approach: Designing efficient cropping systems adapted to reduced water availability. • Global assessment of N emissions of cropping systems: Gain more knowledge on the interactions between the different N emissions sources. • Integrated assessment of management strategies for different climatic scenarios: Assess the consequences on yield and environmental impacts, of different levels of management adaptation and timing for uncertain climate change projections. • Integrated assessment of the exchange of organic fertilisers from region with high livestock densities to arable region: Assessment of impact and benefit of the exchange of organic fertilisers from regions with high livestock densities to arable regions for different scenarios of exchange levels. • Efficient biodiversity enhancement: To assess how biodiversity within the crop and within the landscape contributes to the sustainability of the crop. Which strategy should be applied to achieve a suitable level of biodiversity at crop and landscape levels (intensive production combined with nature compensation areas versus extensive production/low input)? To what extent do regional characteristics (landscapes) influence the interaction between biodiversity and sustainability? • Effective crop protection strategies: To improve communication and research between different research specialities and thereby develop more fully integrated approaches. To investigate novel approaches to crop rotations, breeding programmes, intercropping, application systems, biocontrol and bio molecules. • Deal with new and emerging pathogens (pests, diseases, weeds): Develop forecasting technologies to identify possible threatening pathogens. Adapt current crop protection strategies to the new pathogens. Be able to respond quickly to new pathogens before they become too widely established. Understand impact of climate change on natural control. • Scaling issues - finding sustainable solutions on different scales: To determine how scale will influence any potential changes in crop management. To determine how crop management solutions will fit among different scales. Demonstrate how crop management solutions can be implemented taking scale into account. Inform how different affected stakeholders can work in an integrated manner. Determine how sustainability is affected by scale. • Evaluate best region for crop production: Develop production patterns of crops that are based upon all aspects of sustainability and to identify how climate change will affect production patterns across Europe. EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 111 of 171

Conclusions As arable crops cover a large area of Europe, they play an important role for many environmental issues. Furthermore, their contribution to the environmental impact of livestock production is high, through the delivery of concentrate feed. For the competitiveness of arable crops in Europe, environmental impacts of crop production and processing need to be reduced. Environmental competitiveness is also largely dependent on the acceptance by the society. Here the environmental consciousness of society and its effects on consumers’ behaviour are important. In this perspective, food chain aspects should not be neglected. In the context of competitiveness, environmental issues should not only be regarded as limits or restrictions; they can also offer a chance for European agriculture. Multifunctional agriculture is not merely delivering food to the consumers and income to the farmers, it contributes to the conservation of the landscape and of natural resources as well. Agriculture with a high environmental process quality can offer a competitive advantage. The conclusion drawn within the working group 3.5 is that there is not one single research gap with a very high priority, but a whole set of topics with high priority, i.e. no topic was completely neglected so far and joint efforts in several disciplines are needed to achieve further progress. Although a lot of research has already been done, there are many fields were knowledge is missing. However, in some areas it is more a question of the implementation of existing knowledge, thus more work is needed on political, economic, and social aspects, or the trade-offs between these and environmental aspects. Consequently, in many areas we need research to better understand the environmental problems, to find new solutions and to evaluate existing measures. Cropping systems have so far been mainly optimised for economic return, but not for best environmental performance. Finding long-term sustainable solutions is partly in conflict with the relatively short time horizon of EUROCROP of 2015. Sustainability aspects need to be analysed with a long-term view, as it is crucial to target problems early or, ideally, detect possible problems before they emerge. In the working group 3.5 on environmental impacts, the main focus was on arable crops, but closely related issues, like manure management of livestock farming or processing of arable crops, including transport over long distances, were also considered. For finding sustainable ways of arable farming, thinking needs to change from single crop level to a broader view. About half of the research proposals target on improvements on cropping system or farm level, and about half of them target on a more regional to supranational level. Furthermore, the regional and national differences in research needs have to be considered.

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 112 of 171

3.6. Socio-economic issues Introduction Common Agricultural Policy is a crucial policy area for European countries’ agricultural systems. CAP and the whole European structural funds programming system is currently defined under common principles which refer to the Lisbon strategy as a fundamental instrument for strategic thinking and planning. In the future, vertical and especially horizontal coordination among the various programming levels will be more and more important, yet main policy frameworks and much of the analysis on rural economies is still sectoral and centralized – driven in large part by the CAP. This approach is now only partially compatible with agriculture, as it’s widely accepted that the primary sector is no longer the main economic driver in rural economies. Jointly with the traditional analytical framework that saw rural areas through an agricultural perspective, is out of date. The changing urban-rural relations The enlarged and intensified rural–urban relationship that can be defined in terms of structural as well as functional relations, influences the continuously altered spatial configuration of European regions. The degree of human intervention, with the relative share of artificial surfaces of the total land cover, indicates a high share of discontinuous urban land, which means urban sprawl. At the same time, the role of leisure time of some rural areas is of increasing significance and is becoming an important aspect in the perspective of urban-rural relations. The various demands for land in and around cities due to unplanned incremental urban development, characterised by a low density mix of land uses on the urban fringe, that have brought to a urban sprawl, affect far beyond the boundaries of agglomerations. A full range of impacts are observed to scarce resources (energy, water, land), natural and protected areas, biodiversity and ecosystem networks, quality of life and citizen health. The socio-economics key elements of change in rural areas The objective of the WG 3.6 was to identify an integrated policy framework and a coherent multilevel governance in increasing AC competitiveness taking into consideration the cross-cutting nature of socio-economics issues and the high number of actors involved in policy making and implementation. Within this framework, WG 3.6 focused on a number of transversal socio-economic issues which might have an important influence on the competitiveness of arable crops. These are the issues, which are analysed singularly in the following pages: -

Demography Rural enterprise and Employment Non-farm Income and Employment Rural/Urban relationship Consumer and citizen demand

One of the key elements of change in rural areas is demography, with ageing concerns in several regions jointly with processes of out-migration, that affects more younger people and women. Infrastructural and public service provisions (i.e. ICT) are key-strategic issues, because of the evidence of a decline in quality and availability of these, mainly in the less accessible rural areas. The provision of public and social services needs to be accompanied by viable private initiatives in manufacturing activities and services alongside agricultural production (i.e. new micro-enterprises, environmental services, tourism and recreational initiatives, social services, renewable energies, etc.). As stated by the Council Decision of 20 February 2006 on Community strategic guidelines for rural development (programming period 2007 to 2013), a series of measures targeted to human EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 113 of 171

resources are necessary. In particular, training, information and entrepreneurship, towards women, young people and older workers should be considered. The use of advisory services and support to meet Community standards will contribute to the integration process in the agro-food chain. In some hilly and mountainous areas, due to land abandonment, degradation of rural landscapes emerges with unpredictable environmental outcomes and with negative externalities towards territory and scarce resources, mainly evident in the lowlands. Small scale farming in these regions, that makes better stewards of natural resources and better safe guarding of landscape, needs to be sustained with wider income opportunities. At the same time, processes of counterurbanisation are taking place. Rural out-migration, in opposition to in-migration, is not everywhere a dominant rule. The analysis shows citizens from urban move to the countryside attracted by the high quality environment and the way of life. Future perspective for urban-rural relationships include options for mutual exchange, where cities provide services, cultural activities, infrastructures and major access to the labour market, while rural areas, apart from producing agricultural products, provide leisure potential and green spaces (ESPON 1.1.2, 2005, Urban-rural relations in Europe) The rural policy objective, set by the European Commission, leads to a number of challenges which involve different sectors of the economy and an innovative cultural and economic approach to business by farmers. Value chain and networks are concepts that have assumed particular importance in the recent rural policy analysis. They are aimed at encouraging the implementation of integrated, high-quality strategies linked to a sustainable development of European regions, where territorial cooperation can create added value. The transparency and the communication within a wider network, the identification of reliable expectations among the actors on a long term perspective, the economic risk and profit sharing, contribute to mitigate the perception of the threat that the operators have joining a network. They result in trustful relationships and a good working climate among the different actors, helping to gain and to keep up consumers’ trust and competitiveness in the final markets. Consumers and public opinion could have an important role in the approval and implementation of policy strategies with impact on arable crops competitiveness, as European citizens attribute increasing importance to the safety and quality of their food, to the welfare of farm animals, and to the preservation and enhancement of the rural environment. Methodology In order to identify major challenges and research topics 2 workgroups were organised. To define the research needs, WG3.6 group used the Nominal Group Technique (NGT) to generate new ideas through a guided discussion regarding a specific topic (see WG3.6 report / D3.3F Annexe 3), The object of the second meeting has been to describe the main research axes ranked by the expert. After some discussion, the team of experts together have decided to rearrange the structure of challenges and research axes. The research topics The main research topics, developed by expert groups during workgroups, in response to the following five challenges are listed below: Adopting consistent policies to strengthen the competitiveness of arable crops • Institutional support services in order to increase competitiveness of arable crops farms • Coherent policy framework for arable crops competitiveness Gaining a proactive role in supporting rural sustainability. • Deprivation in the quality of rural life: provision of public and social services • Connection between land consolidation and arable crops EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 114 of 171

Innovation in land use • Structure and interaction between arable crops and urban planning • Open innovation Improving and fomenting entrepreneurship and competitiveness. • Farmer awareness of market trends and identification of knowledge gaps • Factors of entrepreneurship Value chain and networking • Opportunities and barriers to increase efficiency in the arable crops chain and networks • Trust along the network • Analyze value chain and market power To conclude it is possible to list a number of interesting elements emerged from WG 3.6 experience: -

the outputs of WG socio-economic allowed the definition of a limited number of research axis, clearly defined, with limited overlapping areas, with an European and at times international perspective;

-

the main challenge faced by this WG was the clear definition of the areas of interest and interaction between arable crops competitiveness and socio-economic issues;

-

given the high number of issues and therefore variety of experts’ areas of research, the methodology adopted had to be flexible so to collect the different views and opinions, but also to be restrictive and leading to a progressively common and agreed list of research areas.

-

the wide spectrum of areas of analysis of this WG brought to manage the issues by inviting a number of experts who were adequately representing the different areas of study.

Finally, WG 3.6 recommended to consider with adequate attention the transversal nature that socioeconomic challenges might pose to arable crops competitiveness. Competitiveness is a concept which does include institutional, social and economic dimensions to successful performances of agriculture. All research axis, if and once financed, could bring results useful to improve arable crops sector competitiveness.

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 115 of 171

3.7. Synthesis of horizontal issues (WP3) The work yielded the structured identification of about 140 research goals and 73 topics. About one third of these were related to technical aspects at farm level. WG31 (Technical aspects at farm level) provided the longest list of topics compared with those developed by the other WGs. This reflects the variety of agronomic and climatic conditions, as well as the different technologies involved in the process of production at the farm level highlighted in the preliminary analysis. The issues raised already extensively incorporate environmental concerns. The emphasis is on genetics and breeding as tools to produce suitable plants, and rotations and techniques as means to combine such plants in efficient systems. Two main concerns dominate: a) management and sustainability of plant protection; and b) efficient use of resources (land, water, fertilisers). WG3.2 Farm economics and production costs included 9 topics that mostly concern the economic aspects of the nearest context related to farm level operations. Most of the topics concern mechanisms of adaptation to external drivers, such as climate change and market prices. An important focus that also attracted attention in WG3.1 and 3.6 is the issue of risk management in a context characterised by increased price volatility and uncertain environmental (climate) conditions. The 10 topics identified in WG3.3 Outlets and markets were originally devised to cover separately the three main areas of food, feed and non-food/non feed, but in the end optimisation and systemic improvements dominate these topics. This is partially due to the interpretation of the role of the WG (downstream connections of arable crops and not the processing industry per se), and partly due to the understanding that the opportunity for major improvements already exists in the system through an improved combination of existing processes and technologies. WG3.4 Quality of agricultural products identified 9 topics. They focus on a range of issues that connect quality with aspects of other WGs (such as agronomic or consumer research). Genetics again play a major role here, including the explicit consideration of the issue of GM crops. WG3.5 Environmental impacts identified 12 topics. The number of topics, slightly higher than for other WGs reflects the variety of environmental concerns related to agriculture and AC in particular. Some of these show close connections with agronomic priorities for research, emphasising the aspects connected to agriculture. Some of these focus on the environmental benefits arising from the appropriate management of arable crops, such as contributions to soil protection and biodiversity. WG3.6 Socio-economic issues produced 11 topics. Most of these topics complement the topics of WG3.2, whilst focusing on the wider context. Adaptation and innovation processes, and the ability to respond to quality of life issues are the dominant themes. Different topics emphasise the fact that AC producing agents are part of a wider system, and human actions (as well as, or even more than, crop life) require an understanding and appropriate feed-backs within such a system. Evaluation of topics as research proposals The topics identified seem of interest for most of the crop chains identified. A survey of ongoing and past research projects reveals that a large amount of research done exists in close fields of research. However most of the topics do not overlap with ongoing research and this supports the idea that most of these topics produced by the project would be suitable for new research funding. A number of inter-linkages and of potential different categorisations of the problems were identified hence reinforcing the idea that the issue of competitiveness requires a trans-crop chain consideration, and an understanding of context factors even beyond the arable crop system. However, a large portion of the research areas relevant to arable crops have already been explored in the recent years. Accordingly specific very high priorities on one or a few research gaps cannot be identified. In addition, a number of research areas, while not new, have not yet exhausted their potential and require further research. In some areas, competitiveness is more a question of the EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 116 of 171

implementation of existing knowledge, thus more about political, economic, and social aspects, or the trade-offs between these, than the production of new knowledge. In light of the objective to increase competitiveness of the system, the previous points call upon the need to focus greater attention to coordinated actions of research, innovation and technology transfer and consistent packages of interdisciplinary (technical, socio-economic) and multilevel research. While the outcome of this project is primarily aimed at providing a contribution to competitiveness through a contribution to the ideas available for funding agencies at different levels (EU as a priority), the complexity of the system encourages also to focus attention on the ability of AC agents/stakeholders to develop practical project actions on funding lines open from the point of view of the issues addressed. Discussion and conclusions In terms of the two aspects of competitiveness addressed in the project, competitiveness on markets and compliance with social and environmental concerns, the topics identified already show a broad awareness of both. However, while the need for economic competitiveness is clearly recognised, the steps to achieve such competitiveness appear to be distributed over several actions. A common denominator, however, is the need to recover attention to technological innovation as a major contributor to private and social objectives in a competitive environment. In terms of environmental and social concerns, while attention to limiting the negative effects of AC is already well developed, research priorities emphasise the need to develop a wider understanding of the efficient use of resources and of the positive contributions of AC to environmental and social concerns. Dominant issues are improving efficiency (both technical and economic, unit and system) and the ability to adapt to different environmental conditions and rapid change in either the market or the environment. In order to meet such objectives, two major components that need to be reinforced are the role of research as scientific support to society decision making and the role of entrepreneurship in promoting adaptation and innovation processes. These components are partly incorporated in the main result of the project, namely the detailed description of research topics as consistent proposals for research, and, in some cases, dissemination and technology transfer, intended to answer the main challenges for AC emerged during the course of the project. Three main points require attention in the context of AC: a) basic research; b) consumer/citizen preferences and acceptance; and c) consistent policies. The vision behind the project outcomes is that of a rapidly changing, and often unpredictable, context rather than to the reality of a specific scenario. This is also corroborated by the context changes which arose during the life of the project, such as the development of the bioenergy issue, the dramatic increase in the volatility of food prices and the new risks of an international food crisis. These points strengthen the perception that the work done is never finished and that it may require regular revision by way of updates and adaptation in the future, particularly in order to adapt to evolving scenarios. In the background, the project emphasises the need to reinforce the coordination between the different actors involved (consumers in particular) through stronger dialogue supported by scientifically underpinned information.

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 117 of 171

4. Consolidated vision of stakes, challenges and goals Examining the full information issued from WP2 (crops chains approach) and WP3 (horizontal approaches), the EUROCROP core group agreed on a consolidated structure as stakes, challenges, research goals and needs, during a synthesis meeting in April 2008 in Paris. This structure has been proposed to the validation of the PADCO during its last session in June 2008 in Brussels, with the final version of the scenarios as well. At last, a list of 5 major stakes or dimensions for AC competitiveness has been kept: 1. TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY OF ARABLE CROP SYSTEMS 2. MEETING DEMANDS ALONG THE VALUE CHAINS 3. NEW OUTLETS AND MARKETS 4. SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION and ENVIRONMENT ASPECTS 5. SOCIETAL SUSTAINABILITY The first three stakes are mostly related to the economic competitiveness (C1): The economic efficiency and the capacity of EU actors to produce standard goods at markets prices, for delivery in Europe or abroad is fundamental in a global open market. It requires the technical and economical efficacy and efficiency of the crop chains at all steps, from the production of the raw products, to the different phases of transformation in agro-industries. The competition on markets plays for the same goods produced in different competitor countries or for goods equivalent for their use, i.e. substitution products. The strengths and weaknesses of the AC chains have been considered by the expert groups, which identified a list of challenges for the different crop chains (see annex 3). It permitted to propose a first list of 31 challenges. This list has been completed by the horizontal expert groups and refined by the project team to reach a consensus list of 36 challenges for the AC sector (see table 43). TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY OF ARABLE CROP FARMING SYSTEMS Improving the level and stability of yields is a major challenge of competitiveness at the primary production scale: at crop level, in many situations, the actual crop yields are still far from the genetic potential of the species and of the agronomical potentials of the fields, and their regularity from a year to another is a major subject of uncertainty. Progress at crop stage is still possible through genetic improvement and breeding and at a lesser extent through crop management practices. A major field of progress and capacity of adaptation lies in the innovation in management practices and organization at cropping system and farming systems scales, which is still a promising field for research in agronomy, organization and economy. At the scale of farms, collectors and production basins, logistics are a source of progress in competitiveness, particularly regarding energy expenses and raw product quality management. Managing the risks for farmers (markets prices and yields variations) has also to be considered as a source of competitiveness on medium term and of stability of the EU production. Main beneficiaries: all crop chains actors, then consumers

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 118 of 171

Table 43: List of Stakes and related challenges for the Arable Crop sector Tab 1 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6

STAKES / CHALLENGES FOR ARABLE CROPS TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY OF ARABLE CROP SYSTEMS Increase level and stability of yields Technical and economic optimisation by innovating sustainable Cropping Systems Adaptation of production systems and crop rotations according to changes in farming framework conditions Managing risks for EU farmers Increasing logistics efficiency MEETING DEMANDS ALONG THE VALUE CHAINS Increase efficiency of transformation processes Characterization of quality and standardization Ensuring food safety Meeting food and industrial quality standards Maintain quality of products during storage Increasing nutritional value Addressing consumer demand in nutrition and dietetics Understanding and addressing purchaser demand Brand and quality standard protection / To ensure consumer confidence Increasing producer share of any added value NEW OUTLETS AND MARKETS Developing New food uses Developing New feed uses Developing Non food/ non feed uses SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION and ENVIRONMENT ASPECTS Improving resource use efficiency: nutrients Improving resource use efficiency: energy Improving resource use efficiency: water Maintaining diversity in genetic resources of crops Enhancing biodiversity in agro-ecosystems Ensure an effective crop protection in the long term (integrated crop protection) Minimize greenhouse gas emissions per unit of product Maintain and improve soil quality Reduce water pollution Developping strategies to face climate diversity and climate change Integrating different sustainability concerns in the design and implementation of innovative cropping systems Developing common sustainability assessment methods SOCIETAL SUSTAINABILITY Improve efficiency in value chain and networking Reinforcing entrepreneurship and innovation capacity of AC systems Developing income with indirect relations to AC production: income from other activities Improving the integration of arable crops into rural territories and economies Promote a consistent regulatory and governance system to strengthen the competitiveness of AC Achieving a positive public perception of arable crops systems

MEETING DEMANDS ALONG THE VALUE CHAINS On existing markets, the global competitiveness of a crop chain includes its capacity of "vertical development", i.e. to maximize the added value between the resources and the final product, and also share added value and risks. EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 119 of 171

Meeting demand is the basis of any future development of EU crops chains. This stake recovers the continuous adaptation to the consumers’ needs and demands, including innovation on current markets, accompaniment of consumers’ preferences and way of life evolutions, products quality, health (dietetics, nutritional value) and sanitary aspects. The final indicator is the preference of the consumer to buy a European product, and, in the best cases, his acceptation to pay a quality premium. The related global benefits for the European society lay in a positive commercial balance on agri-products, a convenient part of self sufficiency for food, a significant employment in agriculture and agro-industries, the disposal of quality and nutritional value products. Main beneficiaries: consumers NEW OUTLETS AND MARKETS In a competing market, innovation offers a strategic advantage. The horizontal expansion of crop chains depends on both new products and new markets. Opening new outlets for the arable crop products (through the identification of new needs or more suitable ways to answer old needs, and through innovative research) is a way to develop the demand of arable crops products and so sustain prices, and to develop economic activity in EU. Main beneficiaries: consumers and social actors, crop chains actors SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION and ENVIRONMENT ASPECTS Sustainable production is both a question of long term survival and societal acceptance. This stake covers the necessity for the crop chains to limit the negative impacts on environment and to prevent the degradation of the renewable resources status (quality and quantity) and of biodiversity. On the long run, arable crop chains have also to seek for a decreasing dependency on limited resources (nutrients, energy, water, genetic resources, soils…), i.e. to offer a "zero" balance regarding these non-renewable resources (or even positive regarding energy aspects, due to the harnessing of solar energy). Reaching sustainable production is a field of progress in technical efficiency, taking into account long term considerations and compatibility with economy. Sustainable production issues have to be considered under three main aspects: - The dependency of AC on vital resources and capacities, of which the availability is not secured on the long term: energy, water, fertilizers, crop protection agents facing the crops enemies’ evolutions. The matter is here to decrease this dependency. This aspect is a basis for “competitiveness” on markets in the long term. - The impacts of the AC on environment and on public resources and common heritage. This aspect is directly connected to societal acceptance: harmonious relations of AC to environment. - The impacts of environmental evolutions, notably climate change, on the crops and cropping systems. One integrative major challenge is the development of recognized sustainability assessment methods. Main beneficiaries: farmers and citizens SOCIETAL SUSTAINABILITY The transformation of agriculture on one side and the growing urbanization of the populations in a context of abundance in economically developed countries led to chaotic and sometimes conflictive relations between agriculture and society. Societal acceptance became a real stake for agriculture in general and arable crops in particular. To renew the social acceptance bases, and the confidence of social actors, crops chains must not only answer the societal concern about environment, but also renew the insertion of agriculture in the territories and its role in rural development Securing a significant part of their supply chain with local sources, required quality and services is a key advantage for agro industries, which lays on the activity of skilled farmers. Keeping the production sector attractive for professional farmers need to ensure farmers a favourable environment which includes networks, training and actions to reinforce entrepreneurship and EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 120 of 171

innovation capacity, and also incomes ensuring common standards of living to the farmers. This stake recovers aspects related to economics, social, crop chains actors’ dynamics, policies and their consequences. Main beneficiaries: crops chains actors and citizens. Challenges and research goals Focussing to research, the experts groups had to translate their analysis of challenges into questions for research. The exchanges between the EUROCROP WP and WG leaders permitted to organise a synthetic list of 105 related research goals, which is given in table 44. This list constitutes the basis of the Strategic Research Agenda. This hierarchical approach is suitable to ensure the consistency of the proposed goals with the strategic orientations, but poorly adapted to present research proposals, since a single research action may contribute, and often do, to several challenges. A matrix approach, showing these cross contributions is then needed. The elaboration of consistent research topics is a specific task of EUROCROP whose first results are given in the last chapter “The EUROCROP research proposals”).

Table 44 1.0 1.1 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.3 1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.2.4 1.2.5 1.2.6 1.2.7 1.3 1.3.1 1.3.2 1.4 1.4.1 1.5 1.5.1 1.5.2 1.5.3 2.0 2.1 2.1.1 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3

STAKES/ CHALLENGES/ Research GOALS FOR ARABLE CROPS TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY OF ARABLE CROP SYSTEMS Increase level and stability of yields increasing yield potential of varieties by breeding increasing yield potential of varieties by management practices increasing yield stability through varieties and crops physiological plasticity Technical and economic optimisation by innovating sustainable Cropping Systems measuring economic performance of cropping systems developing alternative crop management developing precision farming SYSTEMS optimising cropping systems with reduced or no tillage optimising investments and work organization optimization and management of crop rotations developing more effective support for farmers: extension and services Adaptation of production systems and crop rotations according to changes in farming framework conditions setting up of tools and strategies to support adaptation to change analysis of specific regional actions to adapt to change Managing risks for EU farmers Find strategies to manage risks factors Increasing logistics efficiency predicting harvest and quantities improving storage efficacy improving batching and marketing MEETING DEMANDS ALONG THE VALUE CHAINS Increase efficiency of transformation processes Increasing efficiency of processing and opportunities for wider exploitation of crops products and by products.

Characterization of quality and standardization Harmonization of sampling and test methods to guarantee quality developing more efficient / rapid AC products characterization methods (analyses) promoting the elaboration of EU and international standards for AC products developing certifications for AC production methods/ Standardising assessments 2.2.4 between Member States. 2.2.5 developing information networks EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009 Page 121 of 171

2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.4

Ensuring food safety Preventing contamination monitoring and ensuring food safety along the crop chains Meeting food and industrial quality standards

2.4.1

understanding and managing the determinants of quality along the crop chain Delivering quality / Better matching of market demand and delivery by crops: master crop management impacts on quality efficiently Maintain confidence of consumers that any quality specification is effective (including GM free segregation method)

2.4.2 2.4.3 2.4.4 2.5 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.6 2.6.1 2.6.2 2.6.3 2.7 2.7.1 2.7.2 2.8 2.8.1 2.8.2 2.8.3 2.9 2.10 3.0 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 4.0 4.1 4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1.3 4.1.4

breeding for quality Maintain quality of products during storage Controlling ingress to grain/seed batches of different cultivars with different quality parameters/ Contamination with lower, or different quality seed/grain Prevent loss of quality and increased risk of deterioration in store as a result of reducing chemical armoury to control pest and disease/ Increasing nutritional value Characterizing and improving the nutritional properties of AC raw products Reduce unfavorable impacts of processing on nutrition Preserve and develop nutritional properties Addressing consumer demand in nutrition and dietetics developing the role of AC products in health troubles prevention: elaborating balanced diets enhancing the role of AC products for health: identifying essential elements and understanding their roles and benefits Understanding and addressing purchaser demand understanding the needs and procedures of industrial purchasers understanding the consumers' preferences and needs meeting consummers' expectations Brand and quality standard protection / To ensure consumer confidence Increasing producer share of any added value NEW OUTLETS AND MARKETS Developing New food uses identifying components of interest, properties and potential uses setting new processes for new products enabling benefits and risks assessments for new products adapting species to new needs: breeding and genetics Developing New feed uses identifying components of interest, properties and potential uses setting new processes for new products enabling benefits and risks assessments for new products adapting species to new needs: breeding and genetics Developing Non food/ non feed uses identifying components of interest, properties and potential uses setting new processes for new products enabling benefits and risks assessments for new products adapting species and crops to new needs: breeding, genetics, new crops management SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION and ENVIRONMENT ASPECTS Improving resource use efficiency: nutrients Understanding crop species nitrogen use physiology Improve nitrogen fertilization practices on crops Breeding for crops species with improved N uptake and nitrogen efficiency Developing N fixating organisms for non legume crops

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 122 of 171

Nitrogen optimization at cropping system scale / developing reduced nitrogen input and productive cropping systems/ Improving resource use efficiency: PK & other nutrients Efficient use of slurry and manure in cropping systems Integrate livestock and arable farming Improving resource use efficiency: energy Assessing energy use in crop chains and at farming level Innovating for high energy efficiency of cropping systems Innovating for high energy efficiency in transformation processes Improve energy efficiency of agricultural input production Efficient use of agricultural equipment Use of agro-fuels in the crop chains Develop competitive cropping systems for agro-fuels Improving resource use efficiency: water Breeding for high water use efficiency Improving water management in cropping practices Improving irrigation water at farm level Improving irrigation water at irrigated bassin level Maintaining diversity in genetic resources of crops More systematic use of wild relatives in crop breeding programs (disease and 4.4.1 drought tolerance) 4.4.2 Conserving genetic resources of cultivated crops (e.g. gene banks) 4.5 Enhancing biodiversity in agro-ecosystems 4.5.1 Understand biodiversity 4.5.2 Measure biodiversity: indicators 4.5.3 Efficient biodiversity enhancement 4.5.4 Assess risks of GM crops 4.6 Ensure an effective crop protection in the long term (integrated crop protection) 4.6.1 Understanding the genetics of resistances Understanding and forecasting crop antagonist interaction (biology, attacks and 4.6.2 wastes) 4.6.3 Innovating in plant protection products 4.6.4 Integrated crop protection at cropping system level 4.6.5 Deal with new and evolving plants pathogen problems Minimize greenhouse gas emissions per unit of product 4.7 4.7.1 Manage the carbon cycle 4.7.2 Minimize N2O emissions 4.8 Maintain and improve soil quality 4.8.1 Maintain and improve soil physical properties 4.8.2 Maintain and improve soil chemical properties 4.8.3 Maintain and improve soil biological properties 4.9 Reduce water pollution 4.9.1 Minimize runoff 4.9.2 Minimize nitrate leaching 4.9.3 Minimize phosphorus losses 4.9.4 Minimize leaching of agrochemicals 4.9.5 Minimize long term impact of agrochemicals 4.10 Developping strategies to face climate diversity and climate change 4.10.1 Improving crop plasticity to face climate diversity and global change Anticipating / forecasting the changes of climatic conditions and their effects on 4.10.2 crops 4.10.3 Developing climate change strategies in the agricultural sector Integrating different sustainability concerns in the design and implementation of innovative cropping systems 4.11 4.1.5 4.1.6 4.1.7 4.1.8 4.2 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.4 4.2.5 4.2.6 4.2.7 4.3 4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.3 4.3.4 4.4

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 123 of 171

Design innovative and sustainable production systems which take account of the 4.11.1 diversity of evaluation criteria concerning sustainability 4.12 Developing common sustainability assessment methods Developing sustainability assessment methods for arable cropping systems and 4.12.1 farms 4.12.2 Developing sustainability assessment methods for crop chains 4.12.3 Development of specific European experimentation networks 5.0 SOCIETAL SUSTAINABILITY 5.1 Improve efficiency in value chain and networking 5.1.1 Promote cooperation along the chain to facilitate joint strategies 5.1.2 Developing new tools to share information 5.2 Reinforcing entrepreneurship and innovation capacity of AC systems Promote awareness of market trends in AC chains (clearly identify arable crops 5.2.1 market trends) 5.2.2 Develop service and institution to stimulate enterpreneurship in AC chain Developing income with indirect relations to AC production: income from other 5.3 activities 5.3.1 Managing multifunctional and pluriactivity farming 5.4 Improving the integration of arable crops into rural territories and economies Defining contribution of AC to societal needs (Gaining a proactive role in supporting 5.4.1 rural sustainability)

5.4.2 5.5 5.5.1 5.6 5.6.1 5.6.2

New approaches to improve integration of AC in rural economy (Innovation in land use/ Support and manage the process of adoption of innovation to improve the competitiveness of AC systems) Promote a consistent regulatory and governance system to strengthen the competitiveness of AC Identifying coherent policy framework for AC system Achieving a positive public perception of arable crops systems developing a positive image of arable crops chains and crops products developing a positive image of AC production systems

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 124 of 171

5. The EUROCROP scenarios for 2015 and priority challenges 5.1. Introduction Proposing Strategic Research Agenda and research priorities for arable crops competitiveness in 2015 requires a clear vision of the challenges the AC sector will have to face in the coming years. Dealing with future may be attempted through forecasts, generally based on the continuation of tendencies, but this approach reveals insufficient in most cases, since it is unable to take into account unexpected events or ruptures. Building a strategy needs a sufficient understanding of the context, of the functioning of the sector (the AC system) and of the interactions between the sector and its context. This functioning and interactions are complex. Important factors for the future of AC may be numerous and making hypotheses on the future behaviour of individual factors soon leads to consider high number of combinations. The scenario approach, which consists in choosing sets of hypotheses which are coherent, relevant for the AC, and plausible, hence becomes a necessity. The aims of a scenarios approach for EUROCROP are: – To build a common vision of future(s), with options more or less different from the main tendency – To help the project team in identifying challenges – To help the project team in evaluating the robustness of research strategies – To help the project team in making priorities in research areas Scenarios are not intended to forecast the future, but to provide a framework for strategic thinking. In a second step, the challenges for arable crops have been scored and ranked in the context of each scenario. The challenges and attached research goals have been considered under two aspects: - their fitness: good adaptation or not to each scenario - the robustness of their relevance facing many different scenarios. Some elements about methodology are given in the EUROCROP scenarios report and in the D1.1/D1.3 EUROCROP report methodological definition.

5.2. Elaboration of the scenarios A technical and scientific thinking permitted to the EUROCROP group to propose a full list of stakes, challenges and research goals, but making priorities in this long list needs a consensus vision of future It may be attempted through forecasts, generally based on the continuation of tendencies, but this approach reveals insufficient in most cases, since it is unable to take into account unexpected events or ruptures. For this reason, building strategies on forecasts may be risky. Furthermore, important factors for the future of AC are numerous and making hypotheses on the future behaviour of individual factors soon lead to consider high number of combinations. It is the reason why the project team chose to elaborate scenarios, based on sets of hypotheses which are coherent, relevant for the AC, and plausible. The consensus description of the arable crops system elaborated during the first year of the project could be summarized in the next figure (see chapter 1):

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 125 of 171

Chart 17: landscape of factors Social and economics world level/ Markets and trade

Social and economics / EU outlets & demand

Currencies

World food / AC

World and EU non

Consumers demand

Image of agriculture

World AC products

Policies & regulations

World AC products EU agro industries

Price of markets

Distribution Biofuels

Animal productions Aquaculture outlet

Citizens demand

C2 PK availability

Soil Water supply

Environ ment Climate change

EU Arable crops competitiveness C1 In 2015

Yield level, progress in yield Innovation in AC production techniques

Quality of

EU enlargement

Transports costs

CAP Other policies & regulations

Land uses

Production costs/ inputs energy

Natural ressources

WTO

Transports

Farm

Kyoto Crop protection

Farmers demography

Public and private research issues, technologies

A Crops chains actors dynamics

Rural areas populations

Actors interests and behaviors

Crops chains Other factors ?

Agricultural near context / Rural socio economics

AC CROPS SYSTEM AND ITS ENVIRONMENT

This representation includes 5 external dimensions (Social and economics aspects IN EU, EU outlets and demand / World level markets and trade / Policies and regulations / Environment / Agriculture near context, rural socio economics) and 1 internal dimension (on farm production). These dimensions were used to identify challenges and elaborate scenarios. Elements from the recent relevant literature and similar approaches have been introduced. The next step has been carried out during Bologna meeting (May 31st / June 1st 2007), when small working groups examined the available information and tried to organise coherent scenarios for each dimension of the system, and to bring together these scenarios for 3 dimensions at the same time, and then to gather all dimension in coherent scenarios, giving the synopsis of 4 scenarios. This synopsis table was the basis of the elaboration of scenarios written as “stories”, this work allowing checking inconsistencies, and adding missing elements. A first examination of the detailed content of the table showed that some inconstancies were present and had to be solved. Writing scenarios needed to identify the main driver(s) of each scenario and to imagine a coherent story. To achieve this goal, some limited corrections have been made compared to the initial content of the table. Writing a scenario based on a single main driver allows generally getting clearer frameworks for thinking (we have to consider that these scenarios are – perhaps – not totally exclusive, at least for some of them). The EUROCROP scenarios for 2015 Using its AC system representation and the morphological analysis methodology, the EUROCROP team considered 5 main drivers (with no order of priority): EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 126 of 171

- the WTO negotiations success (or not) and world economic growth - the price of energy - the EU policies orientations - the Environment and health concern - the global warming threat and elaborated a set of 4 scenarios, making hypotheses on these 5 drivers. The synthetic description is given in the next table 45 • • • •

SC1: WTO agreement and expensive energy SC2: Europe of regions SC3: High environmental performance, green Europe SC4: challenge of global warming

Table 45 : Main characteristics of scenarios identified SC1

SC3 SC4 High environmental WTO agreement and performance, green Challenge of global TITLE expensive energy Europe of regions Europe warming A growing public WTO agreement is concern about health reached on basis WTO agreement is and environment in similar to EU not reached, lower opinion becomes a Global warming proposal and CAP is economic growth, major driver of public becomes acute and MAIN reduced, orientations energy prices policies. CAP is leads the policies. are maintained DRIVER CAP is reoriented constant reoriented CAP is reduced and decentralized to WTO agreement is not WTO agreement is lower reached on basis Sustained economic "regions" of Europe, reached, SECONDARY growth and high on growth, similar to EU increased economic DRIVER energy prices subsidiarity basis energy prices constant proposal

•

SC2

Then, the 4 scenarios have been described as written stories, including hypotheses on the secondary factors.

The scenarios may be used in two ways: - to imagine research strategies answering to each scenario: what is the proper strategy if the scenario happens ? But this option is rather theoretical, since the probability of a given scenario always remains quite low, even if the scenario is plausible. - to identify the research actions which appear to be necessary whatever the considered scenario, and may be considered as major priorities. This second option keeps the favour of the project. Using scoring methods, the EUROCROP group elaborated research priorities for each scenario:

5.3. Major hypotheses Some major hypotheses have been considered as constant whatever the scenario and at the timescale of EUROCROP (2015): At world level: • Climate change: the existence of the climate change is the object of a consensus, on the basis of the IPCC works, which become the reference. • World food demand will grow similarly to past decades, with a tendency to higher demand and consumption of meat at world level • Energy: the cost of energy is much higher than in the end of the 20th century, from “high” to “very high”. EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 127 of 171

• Water problem is more and more pregnant (quantity and quality) At EU level • EU ageing population influences consumers behaviours and rural dynamics • EU agro-industry: goes on performing in all scenarios, with a higher added value in agro and food exports from EU. Factories for EU market still located in EU • Reinforcement of environmental regulations (level depending on scenarios) Water supply: the costs of water increases, and payments for irrigation becomes the normal situation.

5.4. Scenarios briefs 5.3.1 SC1: WTO agreement and expensive energy Leading logic • Going on with the liberal world market logics, a WTO agreement is reached, consistent with the EU proposals. The world growth remains high (around 5-6% in Asia and stagnating around 2% in EU). The tension on the AC products markets is due to the growth of the economic activity and to higher demands (food for developing countries, meat, biofuels…) and results in high prices of food, energy, commodities in general. World agricultural production increases at a bit lower pace than in the previous decade, mainly due to progress in productivity. • On the climate side, global warming is a concern and a subject of negotiations, but the situation is not so alarming that the leader States, including China and India, accept to reach a global agreement on climate and trade. The subject is still a concern in international conferences but the policies of leader nations remain rather insubstantial at world scale. Impacts on the global economy and organization of societies do not reveal before 2015. The EU is obliged to combine its own policies to adapt to climate change with a necessity of competitiveness. • The necessities of the markets dominate, and the dominant agricultural model is clearly competitive, productive business agriculture. The CAP is maintained but supports become more and more limited. • The public opinion movements influence only partially, hardly progress and only maintain their positions on “old subjects”: GMO, regulations on inputs … In fact, the majority of the opinion is focussed to purchasing power aspects, as a result of high energy prices and menacing inflation. There is no major change in the system, whatever the territorial scale: the “non productive areas” remain relatively neglected, as well as the roles of agriculture in non commodities production aspects. • In rural areas, the positive demographic balances of some regions are due mainly to residential relocation, that is to say a phenomenon with no or few connection to agriculture and rural activity, at least in its initiation. Hit points • Sustainability criteria are not or poorly taken into account by governments and international institutions, and do not influence commercial exchanges • High or medium growth rate and expensive energy (around 180$/barel); the increase of transport costs has effects on raw products trade, agricultural international trade more and more deals with transformed products (notably after first transformation). • Due to the price of energy, Biofuels develop rapidly with 1st and 2nd generation technologies. The 2nd generation becomes significant in 2015 • The increased demand and the impact of energy in production costs lead to high crop and food prices. Markets are more tense and fluctuating. • The CAP subsists, but direct payments are gradually reduced, and completely decoupled from production. The production is mainly led by markets. The CAP budget is 60% of its EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 128 of 171

• •

• •

• • • • • • • •

2006 value, including supports linked to environmental sustainability (including climate change mitigation) and rural life. No adoption of GM technologies for cropping in Europe Europe of the crop chains: priority in agriculture to economic performance and production. Agriculture is strongly integrated in industrial food and bioenergies system, standards command the producers, production under contracts. Raise of crop protection problems, due to a growing intensification of crops and the enhancement of international exchanges. In animal husbandry, the industrial model is dominant. It is more independent from AC agricultural systems. Globally, “industrial” animal productions (pork, poultry, dairy cows) maintain or slightly decrease. Meat beef production decreases and imports increase. Rapid development of aquaculture to compensate sea fish resources depletion Global EU AC production slightly increasing due to progress in yield, moderate in Western Europe, high in Eastern Europe, Consumers are receptive to functional foods, pay low attention to social standards, production standards, fair trade, and more attention to origins, Organic products reach a ceiling below 10% of the market Rural areas: migration to rural areas is limited to residential relocation of urban people with generally higher income, Land abandonment of non cost effective lands (“limited” to 7%) Bigger farm structures, decreasing in number

Main lines for arable crops and research Thinking on the basis of this scenario could lead a priori to the following research and development orientations for arable crops chains: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Main challenge for agriculture and arable crops: economic competitiveness on global market Decreasing production costs, optimizing margins, Decreasing farm energy dependency Increasing yield: high prices, needs for food and biofuels What use for low productivity areas: land maintenance? Develop measures to manage arable crops markets fluctuations, and markets risks AC markets studies to give anticipation capacity to EU farmers Increasing added value on exported products (high transport costs) Crop protection : innovation in pesticides, alternative practices, economic assessment of alternative practices and integrated crop protection Standards, production under contracts: link between cropping practices and products quality Developing quality of AC products and by-products for animal feed, in intensive animal production systems (energy content, digestibility, micronutrients…) Studies on AC products uses for aquaculture production Attention to landscape quality / immigrant urban to rural areas Work and equipment optimisation for large size farms Climate change mitigation? Compliance??? …

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 129 of 171

Table 46: Priority challenges in Scenario 1

Priority challenges in Sc. 1: WTO agreement and expensive energy 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.9 3.3 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.6 5.1 5.2 5.5

Increase level and stability of yields Technical and economic optimisation by innovating sustainable Cropping Systems Adaptation of production systems and crop rotations according to changes in farming framework conditions Managing risks for EU farmers Increasing logistics efficiency Increase efficiency of transformation processes Characterization of quality and standardization Ensuring food safety Maintain quality of products during storage Brand and quality standard protection / To ensure consumer confidence Developing Non food/ non feed uses Improving resource use efficiency: nutrients Improving resource use efficiency: energy Improving resource use efficiency: water Ensure an effective crop protection in the long term (integrated crop protection) Improve efficiency in value chain and networking Reinforcing entrepreneurship and innovation capacity of AC systems Promote a consistent regulatory and governance system to strengthen the competitiveness of AC

Rank of priority (over 36 chal.) 1,0 8,0 16,0 18,0 5,0 6,0 13,0 7,0 15,0 10,0 12,0 4,0 2,0 3,0 17,0 10,0 8,0 14,0

Comments: in this scenario, the main challenge for agriculture and arable crops is obviously economic competitiveness on global market. Yield level and stability appear as the first priority in European conditions to answer growing needs (food, energy) in a competitive market. Production costs must be reduced (technical and economic optimisation of cropping systems). If markets are deregulated, economic studies giving a capacity of anticipation, and action to manage market risks for farmers are a necessity. Concerning processing, increasing the efficiency of transformation processes, especially concerning energy consumption, is the main priority. For quality aspects, the attention is focussed on standards, quality and safety of standardized production, and consumers’ confidence into commercial brands. Most of the challenges chosen as priority in chapter 4 (environment) present a common interest to environment and economic competitiveness on medium term. Crop protection remains a major factor of economic competitiveness (yields) in a context of enhanced exchanges, with a needed evolution to integrated protection and environmental compliance. In the field of social sciences, the priority is clearly to the development of added value through entrepreneurship, innovation capacity and networking. Subsidiary questions could be raised for this scenario: • How to increase added value on exported products (high transport costs)? • How to optimize and develop the quality of AC products and by-products for animal feed, in intensive animal production systems (energy content, digestibility, micronutrients…) and aquaculture? • What use for low productivity areas: land maintenance? • Attention to landscape quality: impact of urban immigrant to rural areas • Work and equipment optimisation for large size farms

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 130 of 171

5.3.2 SC2: Europe of regions Leading logic •

There is no WTO agreement, but the dominant logic remains a liberal one which reveals a double regionalisation, in bilateral agreements between countries and in an increased autonomy of EU regions in the implementation of EU policies, with a competition between EU regions and on internal EU market. • On the climate side, global warming is a concern and a subject of negotiations, but the situation is not so alarming that the leader States, including China and India, accept to reach a global agreement on climate and trade. The subject is still a concern in international conferences but the policies of leader nations remain rather insubstantial at world scale. Impacts on the global economy and organization of societies do not reveal significantly by 2015. • The economic growth remains moderate and so the price of energy (100-130$), also influenced by efforts on alternative energies. Prices of food are high due to higher demands (food for developing countries, meat, alternative energies…), and a stagnating world production (partially due to a decreasing EU production), maintained mainly due to progress in productivity in other regions of the world. • In EU the main logic is Subsidiarity: the CAP is maintained until 2013 as a transition period, with a budget of 60% of its 2006 value, reoriented towards regional development, and with supports totally decoupled from production. Then it turns to procedural frameworks: following the logic of Subsidiarity, the limited budget is mainly used as financial levers to support rural territories development through regional/territorial projects. The environmental regulations are not reinforced at EU level, but may be at regional or national level. Regulations on inputs are nevertheless managed and reinforced at EU level (authorization of active components). Environment and rural policies play through funding to regional projects. • After 2013, the agricultural policies are de facto in the hands of the regions which favour their local economy. Their policies are in direct relation to the local social interest of the agricultural and agro-industrial activity: employment, environmental quality, local economic growth... Not production for itself. • Many agricultural models emerge from territorial projects, and integrate more or less environmental considerations depending on the results of the negotiations between local stakeholders and actors. This principle leads to contrasted situations between regions: agricultural models led by environment, leisure and tourism, local agro-industries, energy production… coexist, with variations between two main models led by production for regional industries on one side and landscape and environment on the other side. • Consumers behaviours do not evolve significantly • In rural areas, the positive demographic balances of some regions are not due only to residential relocation, but also to new local activities, in many cases not directly related to agriculture. But the situations may be contrasting between regions. Hit points • Sustainability criteria are partially taken into account by OECD members governments and international institutions, limited to social aspects, but not really influence commercial exchanges • Alternative energies develop, mainly on local bases, notably with biogas. The 1st generation biofuels large industries stagnate or disappear. The 2nd generation is not significant before 2020. • High crop prices due to an increasing demand and to world production stagnation; more fluctuating markets • No adoption of GM technologies in Europe, specific markets for GMO free products. EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 131 of 171

• •

•

• • • • • •

In the regions keeping a production priority, crop protection problems occur, in a regulatory context leading to a limited innovation capacity, Major food industries secure their supply through diversifying their sources, including from imports. In some regions, small food industries also develop, and short marketing chains from farm to local market. In animal husbandry, the modes of production depend on the options of territorial projects, but most regional policies lead to a predominance of extensive models integrated in rural landscape and to a decrease of intensive pork and poultry productions: only the most competitive units survive when well integrated to local industries. No new units (regions generally consider they are prejudicial for their image). Extensive beef (pasture) is maintained with regional subsidies. Meat beef and dairy are maintained, but poultry and pork productions decrease, with increasing imports for white meats. Some exigent regional projects are implemented, leading to reinforce the links betweens AC and animal productions. Aquaculture knows a moderate development Global EU agricultural production decreasing by 15% Consumers are receptive to functional foods, but pay low attention to social standards, production standards and fair trade, and more attention to origins. Organic products reach a ceiling below 20% of the market Abandonment of low productivity lands (“limited” to 4%) Bigger farm structures: the diversity of regional policies and territorial projects lead to the co-existence of large industrial farms units with traditional small scale family farms as part time activity.

Main lines for arable crops and research Thinking on the basis of this scenario could lead a priori to the following research and development orientations for arable crops chains: • Main challenge for agriculture and arable crops: insertion in regions and local economy • Crop chains structuring and investments at regional level • Increase yield under increased environmental and social constraints • Develop added value at regional level: local market and/or local extension of crops chains (transformation) • Develop production under contracts to secure outlets and prices • Local production of energy (projects driven by regional policies) • Diversification of arable farming activity • Crop protection with constraints on pesticides use • Evolution of production systems towards a higher integration of animal and vegetal productions at regional scale • Studies to support arable crops in organic farming conditions • … Comments: in this scenario, the main challenge becomes the insertion of arable crops activity in the regional economy and in territories, which needs a strong mobilisation of social sciences. It means developing added value at regional level with local market and/or local extension of crops chains (transformation), crop chains structuring and investments at regional level, diversification of arable farming activity in relation to the local context. The public perception of AC sector, including at local stage, becomes determining for the regional orientations concerning agriculture, and the contents of the territorial projects. The importance given to integrated crop protection is justified, considering the public perception of pesticides uses and the possible supplementary regional constraints. EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 132 of 171

Increasing yield level and stability, and the performances of cropping systems as well, must be achieved under increased environmental and social constraints. Concerning quality, the ensuring/maintaining food safety grows in importance under the assumption that local and smaller scale food transformation industries grow in importance. Understanding the purchasers’ demand reveals more important with a more diversified demand. Subsidiary questions in this scenario: • Local production of energy (projects driven by regional policies) • Evolution of production systems towards a higher integration of animal and vegetal productions at regional scale • Studies to support arable crops in organic farming conditions Table 47: Priority challenges in Scenario 2

Priority challenges in Sc. 2: Europe of regions 1.1 Increase level and stability of yields Technical and economic optimisation by innovating sustainable Cropping 1.2 Systems Adaptation of production systems and crop rotations according to changes in 1.3 farming framework conditions 1.4 Managing risks for EU farmers 2.3 Ensuring food safety 2.7 Addressing consumer demand in nutrition and dietetics 2.8 Understanding and addressing purchaser demand 2.9 Brand and quality standard protection / To ensure consumer confidence

Rank of priority (over 36 chal.) 4,0 6,0 15,0 12,0 3,0 6,0 17,0 10,0

2.10 Increasing producer share of any added value 4.2 Improving resource use efficiency: energy 4.3 Improved resource use efficiency: water Ensure an effective crop protection in the long term (integrated crop 4.6 protection) 4.8 Maintain and improve soil quality Integrating different sustainability concerns in the design and implementation of 4.11 innovative cropping systems 5.2 Reinforcing entrepreneurship and innovation capacity of AC systems Developing income with indirect relations to AC production: income from 5.3 other activities Improving the integration of arable crops into rural territories and 5.4 economies Promote a consistent regulatory and governance system to strengthen the 5.5 competitiveness of AC 5.6 Achieving a positive public perception of arable crops systems

17,0 10,0 16,0 2,0 17,0 12,0 8,0 5,0 1,0 12,0 8,0

5.3.3 SC3: High environmental performance, green Europe Leading logic • In this scenario, the major driver is the pregnant concern of public opinion about health and environment as a result of successive and repeated crises on several aspects: pollutions scandals, health studies underlining the effects of agrochemical on cancer diseases on farmers populations, scientific comparative studies results on effects of intensive agriculture on wild fauna, and on the accumulation of organic molecules in food chains, effects on mammals fertility… economic studies on the external costs of agriculture... EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 133 of 171

•

Agriculture comes back to the centre of the political agenda and a public debate leads to new orientations to agriculture, environment and rural development policies. The revised objective of agriculture is to produce safe food and develop environmental quality. For a large majority of public opinion, the organic agriculture becomes the most advanced model of environmentally friendly agriculture. In this context, public debate leads to the emergence of the “Health and Environment Performing agriculture”. Environment and health become fundamental economic criteria and a priority, a compromise approach is not accepted anymore.

•

Consumers attitudes evolve

•

The failure of WTO negotiations offers to Europe a favourable context to a relative environmental protectionism and a self centred policy, fitting with the public opinion of the time.

•

The economic growth remains moderate and so, relatively, the price of energy (100-130$).

•

On the climate side, the situation is not so alarming that the leader States, including China and India, accept to reach a global agreement on climate and trade. Global warming is still a concern in international conferences but the policies of leader nations remain rather insubstantial at world scale. Impacts on the global economy and organization of societies do not reveal until 2015. In EU, the opinion is much aware of climate change, which is taken into account in policies, notably in agricultural policies. The EU takes a set of voluntary measures to decrease its CO2 emissions.

•

Agriculture being back at the centre of the political agenda in Europe, CAP budgets are maintained, and a new HEP CAP is implemented from 2014. The budget is reoriented to support the “Health & Environment Performing agriculture” (HEP) model (75%), and to rural development (25%). The HEP agriculture standard practices compel heavy restrictions on inputs, at first pesticides, and more generally environmental compliance. Supports are coupled again to a production activity but are totally linked to HEP production conditions and cross compliance (decreased production level prevents Europe to export de facto). Environmental regulations are reinforced.

•

Efforts on alternative energies

•

Prices of food are very high, specially in EU, due to higher demands (food for developing countries, meat… and decreasing EU production. The world agricultural production slightly decreases; the decrease of European production being partially compensated by new productions in South America (especially Brazil) and Eastern Europe (Ukraine), enhanced by the very high food prices.

Hit points • Sustainability criteria are fully taken into account by Europe. The market in Europe in fact includes two kinds of products: high sustainability standard, with high price, and medium/low sustainability standard, cheaper but supporting taxation. Europe implements a taxation on imports of low sustainability products, which allows supports to high sustainability products (notably food), and develops labels and certifications. European internal regulations make obligatory to give indications on sustainability status of commercialised products. • Limited increase of transport costs. • Rapid development of all alternative energies (including nuclear, solar, eolian, biofuels…) and important efforts in the reduction of energy consumption. • Alternative energies are developed on the basis of biogas and biomass with second generation technologies which will reach significant levels by 2020. The 1st generation biofuels dies in Europe, because of food needs, and too high prices of foodstuffs. The 1st EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 134 of 171

• • • • •

• •

•

• • • •

generation Biofuels knows a limited development at world level, kept under controle by the governments (food and social impacts). No adoption of GM technologies in Europe. The opinion pressure on GMO imports leads to the emergence of a specific GMO free food market Severe regulations on inputs: pesticides severely restricted, fertilizers under drastic quotas. Important crop protection problems with significant effects on production GMO come back in the debates on how to solve crop protection problems. The Major food industries secure their supply through diversifying their sources, including from imports. The animal husbandry sector knows a complete revolution to cope with the new standards on effluents, feed, limited numbers of heads per ha and animal welfare. All EU meats production are reduced by -30%. Late intensive production regions know restructuring problems. Moderate development of aquaculture The global EU production drop by 30% for meat and 25% for vegetal productions. Arable crops production is focussed to food. EU does not significantly export agricultural commodities anymore, but still exports high quality processed products in limited quantities. Consumers better accept innovation when benefits to quality, health and environment are apparent. They present a low receptiveness to functional foods, but pay attention to nature and production standards, and to ethical concern. A major point is a decrease in meat consumption by 20% Organic products are considered as a reference for health and environment and reach more than 30% of the market. Rural areas: HEP agriculture requires a higher working force in quantitative and qualitative terms: agriculture looks for labour. Some new farmers and farms employees join rural areas. Land abandonment is very limited because of the several needs: agriculture, animal husbandry and biomass + preservation areas Farm structures: the growth in size is limited.

Main lines for arable crops and research Thinking on the basis of this scenario could lead a priori to the following research and development orientations for arable crops chains: • Main challenge for agriculture and arable crops: environmental compliance and food safety • Increase yield with constraints on fertilizers and heavy restrictions on pesticides • Environmental impacts assessment of agricultural activity, environmental indicators, life cycle assessment of products • Methods for food safety monitoring; identification of contaminants • Improving CO2 balance of arable crops and farming activity. • Contribution of farms to C-sequestration in soils • Reduction of energy consumption, decrease farm’s dependency to imported energy • Production of renewable energy at farm or local scale • Integrated crops protection • Development of genetic resistances to crop species enemies. Use of biotechnologies for plant breeding. GMO?? • Higher integration of animal husbandry systems with vegetal productions systems • Development of added value in high quality transformed products • Development of vegetal proteins production and transformation • Nutritional studies • Teaching and extension of systemic agriculture. • Development of agro-materials for construction EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 135 of 171

Table 48: Priority challenges in Scenario 3

Priority challenges in Sc. 3: High environmental performance, green Europe 1.1 Increase level and stability of yields Technical and economic optimisation by innovating sustainable Cropping 1.2 Systems Adaptation of production systems and crop rotations according to changes in 1.3 farming framework conditions 2.3 Ensuring food safety 2.4 Meeting food and industrial quality standards 3.3 Developing Non food/ non feed uses 4.1 Improving resource use efficiency: nutrients 4.2 Improving resource use efficiency: energy 4.3 Improving resource use efficiency: water 4.4 Maintaining diversity in genetic resources of crops 4.5 Enhancing biodiversity in agro-ecosystems Ensure an effective crop protection in the long term (integrated crop 4.6 protection) 4.7 Minimize greenhouse gas emissions per unit of product 4.8 Maintain and improve soil quality 4.9 Reduce water pollution

Rank of priority (over 36 chal.) 18,0 11,0 17,0 5,0 18,0 14,0 2,0 2,0 4,0 13,0 10,0 1,0 9,0 6,0 7,0

4.10 Developing strategies to face climate diversity and climate change Integrating different sustainability concerns in the design and implementation of 4.11 innovative cropping systems

15,0

4.12 Developing common sustainability assessment methods 5.6 Achieving a positive public perception of arable crops systems

8,0 16,0

11,0

Comments: in this scenario, the main challenges for agriculture and arable crops are environmental compliance and food safety Regarding environmental compliance, which is imposed, the use of pesticides is strictly limited, and the development of a more efficient integrated crop protection becomes the major priority for arable crops sustainability. The attention is focused to the limitation of arable crop farming impacts on resource quantities (saving nutrients, energy and water through an enhanced efficiency of these resources) and quality (soil degradation and water pollution). Concerning quality aspect, the priority is given to food safety, based on the assumption of a more fragile situation of crop health (higher importance of fungal diseases and mycotoxins). The development of recognized sustainability assessment methods (environmental indicators, life cycle assessment of products) is a necessity for the efficient conception of coherent policies and actions. Subsidiary questions: • Improving CO2 balance of arable crops and farming activity? • Production of renewable energy at farm or local scale • Development of genetic resistances to crop species enemies. Use of biotechnologies for plant breeding. GMO? • Higher integration of animal husbandry systems with vegetal productions systems • Development of added value in high quality transformed products • Development of vegetal proteins production and transformation • Nutritional studies • Development of agro-materials for construction

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 136 of 171

5.3.4 SC4: challenge of global warming Leading logic • Global warming becomes sensible, but the climate perturbations remain moderate : no direct physiological effect of temperature on yields is observed yet, except in Southern regions, but: – Observed at regional level the pests and diseases pattern evolves. – Irregularity in water balances affect yields in non irrigated areas – Localisation of productions slowly evolving. – Extreme weather events seem to be more frequent. Severe drought events are more frequent, unpredictable and affect major producers competitors of EU too. • Global warming is now a major driver for policies and international negotiations. Many subjects are on the spot: assessment and reduction of CO2 emissions, exchanges of clean technologies, consideration of CO2 content of goods in international trade… • On the economic side, a WTO agreement has been reached in 2010 removing all trade disturbing supports by 2013 and giving a substantial market access to a limited number of products. Price of energy is high and arable crops products too. • The world agricultural production is hardly maintained due to erratic climate events (droughts, storms…) and water problems. New agricultural acreage is limited as international negotiations resulted in compensating governments efforts to avoid deforestation (Brazil). • European Union takes a set of voluntary measures to decrease its CO2 emissions, leading to reinforce common policies regarding agriculture, considered as a major actor for limiting and adapting to the climate change, through the enhancement of agro-resources and the management of nature. • The public opinion becomes more conscious of the real value of food (on quantity, quality and safety aspects) and energy, and the key role of agriculture to ensure security in these aspects is recognized, as the result of a debate on costs and benefits. Agriculture is again a public concern, as a contributor to public good. • Its missions are revised to meet the triple necessity to “feed the world”, produce energy and manage natural resources/ preserve environment. It leads to a model of dual agriculture with a politically driven environmental partition and separation between productive agriculture and agriculture generating positive environmental impacts but a limited amount of food. Agriculture is always double purpose (production and environmental benefits), but with a clear dominant priority depending on the agronomical potentialities of the milieu. • The CAP budget is maintained but reoriented to the meet the double “food and climate challenge”: supports remain partially coupled to production (25%), and linked to compliance with a multicriteria evaluation based on a farm activity efficiency and benefits for the public good: carbon balance, energy balance, food and energy production, local environment impacts. In a dynamic of progress, the new target of farmers is to find the best optimisation between these criteria in their farming conditions, and with their own benefits. • Consumers behaviours slowly progress Hit points • Sustainability criteria are taken into account in Europe: obligation of labels indicating CO2 content on commercialized products, taxes and tariffs on all products (EU origin or imports) proportional to their CO2 content (transportation costs included). • Medium growth rate and expensive energy: 180$ • Rapid development of all alternative energies (including nuclear, solar, eolian, biofuels…) and efforts in the reduction of energy consumption. Strong researches and development of 2nd generation biofuels (significant level before 2020). The 1st generation biofuels is maintained as market regulators and for the possibility it gives to shift from biofuels to food uses with very limited delays. • High crop and food prices EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 137 of 171

• •

• • •

• •

•

• • •

Some GM products approved for cropping in EU, for specific use and for their benefits to environmental issues Environmental regulations are reinforced. Heavier regulations on inputs: in environmental zones, pesticides and fertilizers are forbidden. In “productive zones” pesticides uses are controlled and nitrogen are limited to quotas per farms on the basis of best management practices. Evolution of pests and diseases patterns; insufficient innovation in pesticides in a regulatory context leading to a limited innovation capacity Food industries: to rely on quantities and qualities, evolution towards more integration with a growing part of the production under contract. Animal husbandry: the industrial model (pork, poultry and dairy) is dominant in productive regions, with more independence from AC agricultural systems. Globally, animal productions maintain. Beef meat production maintains only in low potential environmental regions (pasture), and beef meat becomes a luxury product. Rapid development of aquaculture to compensate the diminution of sea fish resources EU agricultural production is maintained. Yields hardly progress in Western Europe due to investments on efficiency (environment constraints and heavier constraints on farming conditions). Still consequent yield progress in Eastern EU. Agricultural efficiency progresses in all EU countries. Co-existence of intensive models in the best conditions and extensive models on less productive areas for crops. Higher integration of animal husbandry and vegetal productions at regional scale. Consumers show a better acceptability of innovation when benefits to quality, health and environment are proved, They are poorly receptive to functional foods, pay attention to production standards on production systems (integrated farming being the reference), and demand for guarantees, traceability, transparency. Organic products reach a ceiling at around 15% of the market. Land abandonment is very limited, due to the competitions between uses. Set aside has been cancelled. farm structures: in productive areas,. In agri-environmental zones, coexistence of a model of small farming as part time activity, and larger units devoted to “agri-environmental management” emerged with public subsidies. In the most productive areas, the number of farmers goes on reducing (larger units).

Main lines for arable crops and research Thinking on the basis of this scenario could lead a priori to the following research and development orientations for arable crops chains: •

• • • • • • • • •

Main challenge for agriculture and arable crops: Double challenge recognized by opinion and politics: production: food security and energy + environmental compliance Monitoring of newly emerging pest and diseases Increase yield stability in changing weather conditions Increase yield level and production efficiency (regarding energy, CO2, water, fertilizers…). Cost optimisation. Economic performance. Develop measures to manage arable crops markets fluctuations, and markets risks Crop’s tolerance to drought. Irrigation optimisation Energy consumption reduction. Improvement of energy balance of AC farming. Efficiency of biofuels productions: CO2 and energy balances Assessment of global warming potential (life cycle assessment of products) Development of multicriteria assessment and optimisation, models and decision support systems

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 138 of 171

• • • • • • • • • •

Environmental impacts assessment Environmentally friendly production in low agronomic potential areas Use of biomass and by-products Innovation in crop protection: enhanced integrated crop protection, innovation and optimisation of pesticides. Development of cultivars with improved characteristics regarding environmental impacts and use of resources: resistance to drought, nutrients use efficiency… Including GMO Standards, production under contracts: link between cropping practices and products quality Develop quality of AC products and by-products for animal feed, in intensive animal production systems (energy content, digestibility, micronutrients…) Develop synergies between animal and AC production systems at regional scale Studies on AC products uses for aquaculture production Development of agro-materials for construction

Table 49: Priority challenges in Scenario 4

Priority challenges in Sc.4: challenge of global warming 1.1 Increase level and stability of yields Technical and economic optimisation by innovating sustainable Cropping 1.2 Systems Adaptation of production systems and crop rotations according to changes in 1.3 farming framework conditions 1.4 Managing risks for EU farmers 2.3 Ensuring food safety 3.3 Developing Non food/ non feed uses 4.1 Improving resource use efficiency: nutrients 4.2 Improving resource use efficiency: energy 4.3 Improving resource use efficiency: water 4.4 Maintaining diversity in genetic resources of crops Ensure an effective crop protection in the long term (integrated crop 4.6 protection) 4.7 Minimize greenhouse gas emissions per unit of product 4.8 Maintain and improve soil quality 4.9 Reduce water pollution

Rank of priority (over 36 chal.) 11,0 6,0 14,0 15,0 12,0 13,0 8,0 4,0 3,0 16,0 5,0 2,0 10,0 16,0 1,0

4.10 Developing strategies to face climate diversity and climate change Integrating different sustainability concerns in the design and 4.11 implementation of innovative cropping systems

9,0 6,0 18,0

4.12 Developing common sustainability assessment methods 5.6 Achieving a positive public perception of arable crops systems

Comments: in this scenario, the double challenge for AC is recognized by opinion and politics: production: food security and energy + environmental compliance. Developing strategies to face climate change is the first – integrating – challenge. Then the key idea lies in innovating cropping and farming systems with an enhanced efficiency regarding energy, water, fertilizers and reduced emissions of greenhouse gases. Yield remains a priority, but the integrating challenge is to minimize the greenhouse gas emissions per unit of product. We need to develop (multicriteria) sustainability assessment methods, assessment of global warming potential (life cycle assessment of products), models and decision support systems… The implementation of a flexible integrated crop protection, including innovation and optimisation of pesticides, is a priority to face the evolutions of crop enemies in a climate changing context. The valorisation of by-products and unexploited biomass grows in importance in this scenario. EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 139 of 171

Subsidiary issues: • Monitoring of new emerging pest and diseases • Crop’s tolerance to drought. Irrigation optimisation • Environmentally friendly production in low agronomic potential areas • Development of cultivars with improved characteristics regarding environment impacts and use of resources: resistance to drought, nutrients use efficiency… Including GMO • Standards, production under contracts: link between cropping practices and products quality • Develop quality of AC products and by-products for animal feed, in intensive animal production systems (energy content, digestibility, micronutrients…) • Develop synergies between animal (including aquaculture) and AC production systems at regional scale • Development of agro-materials for construction

5.5. Towards research strategies: the priorities common to all scenarios Using the set of 4 contrasted scenarios to test the robustness of strategic options, we consider that a challenge which is a priority in several scenarios correspond to a main strategic priority. We know that none of these scenarios will occur, but probably some intermediate story. We distinguish 3 levels to characterize the importance of the challenges (see table 7): - level 1 (red colour): the challenge scored in the top 25% of ranking scores in 3 of the 4 scenarios, and in the top 50% of ranking scores for all scenarios examined - level 2 (dark purple colour): the challenge scored in the top 25% of ranking scores in 3 of the 4 scenarios, or scored in the top 50% for the 4 scenarios - level 3 (light purple colour): ): the challenge scored in the top 25% of ranking scores in 2 of the 4 scenarios, or scored in the top 50% for 3 of the 4 scenarios - specific concerns (“wild cards’”, bright blue): the challenge scored in 1st, 2nd or 3rd position in one of the scenarios (i.e. not considering this challenge could be a fatal mistake if the considered scenario occurs) Proceeding in this way, we make the assumption that our set of 4 scenarios covers the possibilities for future in a satisfying manner. In fact, a quick test with a supplementary scenario did not make different priorities appear. The results emerging from the project activities are summarized in table 7 and include the 50% higher priority challenges (18 over 36 challenges) 4 challenges appear as first level priorities for the sustainability of AC system competitiveness: - food safety, which is a basic need of populations - the maintenance of an efficient crop protection, as a major guarantee for food security - the improvement of resource use efficiency: energy and water, of both short term economic interest and a fundamental issue for long term sustainability. The 2nd level includes 4 supplementary challenges where economic competitiveness is predominant, dealing with yield level and stability improvement, optimisation of cropping systems and adaptation of production systems, and nutrient use efficiency (long term sustainability issue) Then 3rd level priorities could be considered as secondary levers of competitiveness: - managing risks for farmers (risks related to markets, climate variations…) - developing non-food non-feed uses - developing entrepreneurship and innovation capacity - developing a positive public perception of AC Developing sustainability assessment methods is a basic need for both the ex-ante and ex-post evaluation of actions on AC systems. EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 140 of 171

At last, the issue of soil quality, often neglected when dealing with competitiveness, is a growing preoccupation. Specific jokers concern: - the integration of arable crops in rural territories, which are essential in the context of scenario 2. It appears as a clear priority in scenario 2, where competitiveness is determined at regional level, but it should be considered that meeting this challenge could contribute to other political objectives, rural development being the first one. - The 2 other joker challenges are key issues for scenario 4, related to climate change: to mitigate its effects and minimize a further degradation of the situation (minimize GHG emissions per unit of product) Table 50: Common challenges in all scenarios

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.3 3.3 4.1 4.2 4.3

CHALLENGES FOR ARABLE CROPS Increase level and stability of yields Technical and economic optimisation by innovating sustainable Cropping Systems Adaptation of production systems and crop rotations according to changes in farming framework conditions Managing risks for EU farmers Ensuring food safety Developing Non food/ non feed uses Improving resource use efficiency: nutrients Improving resource use efficiency: energy Improved resource use efficiency: water

Ensure an effective crop protection in the long term (integrated crop protection) Minimize greenhouse gas emissions per unit of product Maintain and improve soil quality Developing strategies to face climate diversity and climate 4.10 change Integrating different sustainability concerns in the design 4.11 and implementation of innovative cropping systems 4.6 4.7 4.8

4.12 Developing common sustainability assessment methods Reinforcing entrepreneurship and innovation capacity of 5.2 AC systems Improving the integration of arable crops into rural 5.4 territories and economies Achieving a positive public perception of arable crops 5.6 systems

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

SC. 1 SC. 2 SC. 3 SC. 4 COMMON Rank of priority (over 36 chal.) 1,0 4,0 18,0 11,0 8,0

6,0

11,0

6,0

16,0 18,0 7,0 12,0 4,0 2,0 3,0

15,0 12,0 3,0 23,0 25,0 10,0 16,0

17,0 29,0 5,0 14,0 2,0 2,0 4,0

14,0 15,0 12,0 13,0 8,0 4,0 3,0

17,0 33,0 29,0

2,0 33,0 17,0

1,0 9,0 6,0

5,0 2,0 10,0

36,0

35,0

15,0

1,0

28,0

12,0

11,0

9,0

35,0

24,0

8,0

6,0

8,0

8,0

29,0

22,0

19,0

1,0

21,0

33,0

23,0

8,0

16,0

18,0

Page 141 of 171

6. Regional aspects and specificities Regional specificities are rarely indicated in detail. In addition, the consideration of regional differences may play a very different role in the different WGs. Differentiation of issues between regions is a key issue for different topics of WG3.5 and WG3.1, due to different environmental contexts. WG3.1 also used regional characteristics as a basis for a differentiated ranking. Among the environmental related regional issues, water has a prominent role as a key component for both environmental protection and agricultural production. A noteworthy issue is that, due to climate change, regionalisation of water problems is changing and moving to central Europe. WG3.2 and WG3.6 paid attention to the specific social and structural issues in Eastern Europe, as well as the characteristics of disadvantaged regions. Hot topics in this case are economics of size and land markets in Eastern European countries. Allocation of activities to different regions due to specialisation (cost-related) is considered in different economic topics (e.g. specialisation in bioenergy production). WG.3.6 also emphasised the connections and relationships between arable crop systems, rural areas and non–rural areas. Quality issues can entail different regional issues (marketing strategies, typicity, etc.), but were not particularly emphasised in the report. In the field of farm economics, discussions between WG3.2 experts made clear that there are big differences between European regions in terms of the importance and relevance of the single challenges. It became obvious that especially the new member states (Bulgaria and Romania), and to some extent also the other Central European member states, will face problems which play only a minor role in the Western European countries. Experts from Central European countries (which are still in a transition process from a centrally planned economy to a free market economy with the corresponding changes in the political and institutional systems) considered research challenges on economics of farm size, land markets, market imperfections and changes in farm structures (subsistence farming) of higher importance than experts from Western European countries. Concerning environmental aspects, a whole set of issues was scored with a high priority by the experts, but none got an overall score of very high priority. It was observed that the problems vary between regions, with different abiotic factors (climatic conditions, soil properties, water availability) and biotic factors (pests, beneficial organisms, biodiversity) and different history (resulting in different kind and scale of arable farming, e.g. large field sizes in former socialist countries, or intensive arable farming practices in Northern Germany). With experts coming from different European countries, having a special knowledge of their region, it was considered that no regionally very important issue was neglected. By implementing measures, the regional differences need to be accounted for.

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 142 of 171

7. The EUROCROP topics to meet the challenges 7.1. Eurocrop proposals as research topics Altogether, 73 research topics were described. The detailed description of the 73 research topics is given in Annex 7, in relation to the consensus list of challenges and goals. The first digit of topics numbers correspond to the WG which identified and described the topic. WG3.1 identified 22 topics: 1.01 Increasing yield potential of varieties by breeding for tolerance to abiotic and biotic stresses 1.02 Improving control on Weeds/Pests/Diseases through better crop rotations, alternative crops and cropping systems 1.03 Increasing yield stability through genetic resistances to crops enemies (weeds, pests and diseases) based on breeding 1.04 Production of varieties tolerant to drought, N deficiency, weeds, pests and diseases through understanding crops reactions to stress and tools for breeding 1.05 Avoiding compaction and reduce soil erosion 1.06 Develop crop and farming systems capable of improving soil chemical properties (organic matter, salinisation) 1.07 Improve soil biological properties: increasing soil biodiversity by adequate cropping systems 1.08 Improving water use efficiency of crops: varietal evaluation and breeding 1.09 Water efficient cropping systems through improved crop mix and irrigation management 1.10 Sustainable irrigation in relation to water and soil (drainage, salinisation) 1.11 Reducing greenhouse gas emissions of cropping systems 1.12 Evaluation of different farm types concerning the sustainability of their cropping systems 1.13 Forecasting of pests and diseases taking into account cropping and management system and crop canopy sensibility 1.14 Preserving the durability of crop protection means 1.16 Optimizing crop rotations in reduced or no tillage conditions 1.17 Management of crop rotations aimed to prevent and control weed infestation, disease and pest infection 1.18 Anticipating/forecasting the changes of climatic conditions and their effects on crops 1.19 Innovating for improved energy efficiency of cropping systems 1.20 Understanding and calculating energy costs in crop chains and at farm level through new methods and references for energy balance of cropping systems 1.21 Breeding for crop species with improved N uptake and nitrogen efficiency 1.22 Developing reduced nitrogen input and productive cropping systems: nitrogen optimization at cropping system scale 1.23 Better use of manures: treatment, application, timing This group of topics is the longest compared with those developed by the other WGs. This reflects the variety of agronomic and climatic conditions, as well as the different technologies involved in the process of production at the farm level highlighted in the preliminary analysis. The issues raised already extensively incorporate environmental concerns. The emphasis is on genetics and breeding as tools to produce suitable plants, and rotations and techniques as means to combine such plants in efficient systems. Two main concerns dominate: a) management and sustainability of plant protection; and b) efficient use of resources (land, soil water, fertilisers) EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 143 of 171

WG3.2 identified 9 topics: 2.01 Production systems and rotations: impact of increasing commodity and inputs prices on production systems 2.02 Economics of farm size: economies of farm size under changing market and policy conditions with focus on new member states 2.03 Adopting consistent policies: designing improved contractual options to allow flexible access to land for farming in the new Member States (MS) 2.04 Economics of adaptation to climate change 2.05 Establishment of a common methodology for the quantification of the carbon footprint to compare production systems in selected regions of Europe 2.06 Economics of straw removal: identify different local conditions for straw removal in Europe and analyse their impact on supply costs 2.07 Establish competitive crop rotations for bioenergy: analyse the contribution of different crops and crop rotations to bioenergy yields and their economic and ecological impacts in selected regions of Europe 2.08 & 1.15 Risk management and adaptation of arable farming under price volatility and climate change 2.09 Researching new activities and possibilities for farmers in the new market situations and new tools for rural development. This group includes about 1/8 of the topics identified and most of them concern the economic aspects of the nearest context related to farm level operations. Most of the topics concern mechanisms of adaptation to external drivers, such as climate change and market prices. An important focus that also attracted attention in WG3.1 and 3.6 is the issue of risk management in a context characterised by increased price volatility and uncertain environmental (climate) conditions. WG3.3 identified 10 topics: 3.01 Optimising AC for the development of new healthy products 3.02 Optimising AC for optimal utilisation of nutrients in human and animal nutrition and/or utilisation of components of AC or by-products of food processing for non-food applications 3.03 Preventing safety risks in arable crops 3.04 Whole crop utilisation 3.05 Strategies to enhance nutritional quality and processability of crop products and byproducts from food industry, bioenergy or biorefinery to secure supply to the European feed sector 3.06 Improvement of competitiveness of crop production on the global feed and related markets: strategies for competitive EU feed production 3.07 Science-based integration of feed crops and related animal products in consumer health concerns 3.09 Land use optimisation for Non-food/Non-feed, Food and Feed, and synergies between production and services in the EU, regional and farm scales 3.10 Sustainable whole crop use optimisation for non-food/non-feed, food and feed, and synergies between different outlets 3.11 Agro-industrial parks and land use: closing the regional mass and energy cycles integrating agricultural production, processing, mass flow and logistics and providing balanced services to society Although the topics were originally devised to cover separately the three main areas of food, feed and non-food/non feed, in the end optimisation and systemic improvements dominate these topics. This is partially due to the interpretation of the role of the WG (downstream connections of arable crops and not the processing industry per se), and partly due to the understanding that the opportunity for major improvements already exists in the system through an improved combination of existing processes and technologies. EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 144 of 171

WG3.4 identified 9 topics: 4.01 Better understanding of the genetic determinants of quality traits to help develop better cultivars capable of delivering required quality in the face of abiotic stress 4.02 Better understanding of the interaction between processing methods and nutritional quality of produce in order to optimise bio-availability 4.03 Development of co-existence strategies for EU arable crops with GM and non-food crops 4.04 Better understanding of the interaction between crop quality characters and processing, to identify areas for improvement and development 4.05 Development of pest and disease control measures to protect and enhance product quality 4.06 Develop and improve carbon footprints for EU produce and develop agreed standard methods for their determination across Europe 4.07 Better understanding of public concerns associated with GM technologies to help shape communication strategies 4.08 Development of information transfer programmes to increase production and use of EU-derived plant proteins 4.10 Optimise the digestibility of plant proteins in animal diets The topics focus on a range of issues that connect quality with aspects of other WGs (such as agronomic or consumer research). Genetics again play a major role here, including the explicit consideration of the issue of GM crops. WG3.5 identified 12 topics: 5-1.1 Environmental and economic optimization of (low-input) cropping systems 5-1.2 Use of new technologies/methods to increase the efficiency of crop management 5-1.3 Linking arable crop production to livestock farming 5-1.4 Physical, chemical and biological aspects of integrated soil protection 5-2.1 Designing and testing water efficient cropping systems in a multi-scale approach 5-2.2 Global assessment of N emissions of cropping systems 5-2.3 Integrated assessment of management strategies for different climatic scenarios 5-3.1 Efficient biodiversity enhancement 5-3.2 Integrated and novel approaches for effective crop protection strategies 5-3.3 Deal with new and emerging pathogens (pests, diseases, weeds) 5-3.4 Scaling issues: find sustainable solutions on different scales 5-3.5 Evaluate the best regions for crop production The number of topics, slightly higher than for other WGs, reflects the variety of environmental concerns related to agriculture and AC in particular. Some of these show close connections with agronomic priorities for research, emphasising the aspects connected to agriculture. Some of these focus on the environmental benefits arising from the appropriate management of arable crops, such as contributions to soil protection and biodiversity. WG3.6 identified 11 topics: 6.01 Definition of services for improving farmers’ orientation, sensitiveness and adaptability to the market 6.02 Designing EU policy for improving arable crop competitiveness in consideration of globalization and the main uses of crops: food, feed, energy, biomaterials. 6.03 Deprivation and quality of life in rural areas: provision of public and social goods and services 6.04 Connection between land consolidation and arable crops 6.05 Comparative analysis and identification of the innovation opportunities and barriers to increasing efficiency in the arable crop chains and networks EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 145 of 171

6.06 Structure and interaction between arable crops and urban planning 6.07 Open innovation 6.08 Analysis of farmer awareness of market trends and identification of knowledge gaps 6.09 Analyze factors serving to promote entrepreneurship at EU level 6.10 Analyze trust throughout value chains and networks related to arable crops 6.11 Value chains and networking: analyze value chains and market power Some of these topics complement the topics of WG3.2, whilst focusing on the wider context. Adaptation and innovation processes, and the ability to respond to quality of life issues are the dominant themes. Different topics emphasise the fact that AC producing agents are part of a wider system, and human actions (as well as, or even more than, crop life) require an understanding and appropriate feed-backs within such a system. Applied research and knowledge/basic research Among these topics, - 35 are focussed on finding solutions, aiming at immediate applied needs, with applied results expected in the project duration. - 5 call for research aimed at achieving basic knowledge and focus on understanding specific aspects in order to identify future solutions (in the fields of genetics of plants and pathogens, human nutrition, and soil sciences (biological aspects)) - 35 call for “system explaining research”, focussed on understanding the functioning and behaviour of the system(s) in order to identify future solutions - 4 ask for coordination action targeting the coordination of current research and development activities, and the specification of new research activities. This result reflects a situation in which systemic knowledge, which implies multidisciplinary approaches, remains the main bottleneck to progress in the field of agronomic sciences and arable crops. The systemic approaches proposed in the topics cover many sub-systems of the AC system in relation with its context: - crops (plants) in relation with their biological environment (pathogens, pests and weeds, other crops, general biodiversity…) - crops (plants) in relation with their physical environment (soils – physical characteristics and fertility - climate…), with sub-systems related for example to carbon and to nitrogen cycles aspects (fertility and green house gas emissions) - arable crops in the territories (competition for land uses, including urban extension, natural resources management, relations with animal productions…) - arable crops in the socio-economic context (social benefits, acceptance…) - crop chains systems: relations between the crop chains actors (cooperation, sharing added value…) - agro-industrial system (crops quality and industrial processes) At last a specific topic deals with “scaling issues, find sustainable solutions at different scales”, which targets a coherent approach of interlocked sub-systems. The exceptions where basic/fundamental research is specially identified in the WG proposals are the fields of genetics (plants and pathogens), human nutrition, and to a certain extent to soil sciences (biological aspects). Almost half of the topics are focussed to immediate needs and applied results: this is a quite satisfying ratio to address sector competitiveness at relatively short term (2015). These topics reflect the fact that already a large amount of basic knowledge is available for action, but that applied research has still to be organised to make it efficient for the competitiveness of the sector. EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 146 of 171

Thematic aspects and links to AC challenges The chart18 shows the thematic connexions between the EUROCROP topics (identified by their numbers). These thematic connections allow for the clustering of topics or meta-topics for the AC competitiveness: - innovating cropping systems and assessment (6 topics) - genetics and breeding (3) - quality, process and genetics (3+1) - nutritional quality (6) - food safety (3) - soil aspects (4) - water use (4) - nitrogen (3) - sustainable crop protection (3+3) - energy optimisation (3) - green house gas emissions (3) - climate change (3) - sustainability assessment (2) - land use (2) - whole crop use (2) The remaining 19 topics are more or less independent from these clusters. The colour code on chart 18 corresponds to the priorities identified in the EUROCROP challenges (see chapter 5.5). The topics within a rectangular frame have been given a priority by the EUROCROP core group. This choice, which may be considered as more technically and scientifically oriented, includes topics which are not in direct relation with the priority challenges identified in chapter 5.5 on the basis of the scenarios. In spite of this, these topics interest AC competitiveness: It is specially the case of topics regarding aspects which could be considered as preoccupations “crop chain specific”: - quality, human and animal nutrition, GM crops. - dynamics of crop chains and actors Annex 3 provides the complete description of research topics as produced by the WGs and after discussion by the project partners.

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 147 of 171

Chart 18: thematic connexions between the EUROCROP topics Genetics & breeding

4.1 6.5

3.5

1.4 3.3 4.9

3.2

4.3

4.10

5-3.5

1.5 1.16

1.7

1.6

Soils 1.10

Water efficiency

5-2.2 5-2.1

4.6 Carbon footprint

1.22

1.20

2.9

1.19

5-3.2

2.7

6.11 6.8

6.1

CS energy optimization

farmers

rural

6.9 6.4

1.15-2.8

2.1 6.2

risk

2.2

3.11

1.13

1.2

1.14

2.6

3.4

Land use

5-3.3

Sustainable crops protection

1.17

2.3 3.9

2.5

1.21 nitrogen

Value chain

GHGE

1.11 1.9

1.8

1.23

Climate change

1.18

no till

5-2.4

Sustainability assessment

2.4

5-2.3

5-1.4

legumes

6.10

ecocertif

biodiversity

feed 5-1.3

3.12

1.2

5-1.1

5-3.1

3.7

6.6

Single scenario

5-3.4

GM

4.8

6.3

2nd priority

Innovating CS design and assessment

Nutritional quality

4.2

1.12

4.5

4.7

animal

3rd priority

6.7

5-1.2

3.8 Industrial needs

safety

3.1

3.6

1st priority 4.4

1.1

1.3

Eurocrop prefered

LEGEND

Quality/process/genetics

straw 3.10

Whole crop use

7.2. Comparison to SRA coming from ETP The relations of EUROCROP issues with existing European Technology Platform recommendations have been examined at the end of the project only, in order to allow the EUROCROP group to develop its original thinking. The table given in annex 4 gives an overview of the correspondences between the EUROCROP goals and topics and the issues raised by the main European Technology Platforms dealing with agriculture more or less deeply (Plants for the Future, Food for Life, Biofuels, Water Supply and Sanitation technology, Sustainable chemistry). The contents of EUROCROP stake 1 (Technical and economic efficiency of AC systems) show relations with Plants for the Future mainly on yield level and stability aspects. Relations with Biofuels issues are more diverse and include innovation on cropping practices and cropping systems levels. A common concern exists on logistics aspects too (EUROCROP goal, not developed as research topic). For Stake 2 (Meeting demands along the value chains), relations are observed with Plants for the Future on food safety and nutritional quality of plants products. Connexions with Food for Life are even wider on food safety issues, nutrition and dietetics, and concerns about consumers’ demand and behaviour. EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 148 of 171

Similar connexions with Plants for the Future and Food for Life are found on stake 3 (New outlets and markets), for food and feed aspects (plant breeding, food and feed components, improving processes). The non-food/non-feed aspects show specific connexions with Plants for the Future, Biofuels and Sustainable Chemistry, around biofuels production and biorefinery processes. The topic 3.9 (land use optimisation for food, feed and non-food/non-feed) meets similar concerns of Biofuels and SusChem. Stake 4 (Sustainable production and environment aspects) has relations with Plants for the Future goal 2 “reduce and optimise the environmental impacts of agriculture”, and also on biodiversity aspects. The only relations of EUROCROP with Water Supply and Sanitation Technology Platform concern stake 4, on a quite large number of topics: irrigation water and “water productivity”, nutrient management (notably on organic fertilizers management), soil aspects, low inputs crop protection, and impacts of climate on crops (drought and flood), The issue of climate change is also the place of a potential synergy with Sustainable chemistry on the limitation of GHG emissions (conversion of greenhouse gazes). Plants for the future and Biofuels ideas are more focussed to adaptation (of plants and production systems / land use) to climate change. Sustainability assessment is also a common preoccupation. Relations on Stake 5 (Social sustainability) are weaker: SusChem promotes the idea (at methodology level) of a social life-cycle assessment, not really raised by EUROCROP. Food for life (challenge 6, goals 5 and 2) shows quite similar ideas to those of EUROCROP goal 5.1 (improve efficiency in value chains and networking). At last, Plants for the Future 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 are related to Eurocrop 5.6 “achieving a positive public perception of AC systems” These numerous relations (we may estimate that about 40% of Eurocrop goals have relations with ETP issues) show that many goals are of common interest between AC crops sector and other sectors more or less related to agricultural activity (Plants breeding, food, biofuels / water, chemistry) exist, which could constitute collaborative research fields. On the other side, the complementary 60% goals show the specific needs to enhance the AC sector competitiveness: notably at the levels of crops and cropping systems management, presence in territories, social relations, etc. Furthermore, even common goals may generate specifically adapted research.

7.3. Positioning in relation to previous EC projects in the agriculture, food and environment sector A systematic comparison between the EUROCROP topics and ongoing projects is provided in WP3 report, annex 5. Only 27 out of 73 topics were found to show similarities or overlapping with already existing research projects from the 6th Framework Program, hence demonstrating that EUROCROP has been innovative and challenging to the status quo. It also emphasises the need for different EU research strategies for AC. A detailed comparison of the proposed research topics and the existing projects found out that only a minority does strongly overlap. In the majority of the cases the projects show similarities but seem to be complementary because of different focuses or differing specific research objectives. The topics presenting a high degree of overlapping with existing projects are: - 3.3: preventing safety risks in AC / in relation to project BIOTRACER - 2.4 Economics of adaptation to climate change, in relation to project ADAGIO EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 149 of 171

-

2.4 development of co-existence strategies for EU arable crops with GM and non food crops, in relations to projects Co-Extra, TRANSCONTAINER and SIGMEA 1.12 “Evaluation of different farm types concerning their sustainability”, in relation to project FOOTPRINT 6.9 Analyse of factors serving to promote entrepreneurship at EU level, in relation to project ESOF

Similarities on objectives do not necessarily lead to overlapping research activities, but often to complementarities. In the case of the existing projects showing similarities, the proposed research topics should elaborate further specific research objectives and contents, keeping the similar projects in mind. Doing so the suggested EUROCROP research topics could complement the already existing research projects in the case where there seems to be interference. A simplified table evaluating analogies with ongoing projects is given in Annex 5 (EUROCROP topics presenting potential overlapping or similarities with ongoing research projects).

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 150 of 171

8. EUROCROP conference issues The EUROCROP conference has been organised in collaboration with the European Economic and Social Committee, and was held in Brussels on 17th October, 2008. It gathered stakeholders of the AC crops sector and actors of the crop chains in a public debate around the outputs of the project. This chapter intends giving the key ideas emerging from the debates. The conference programme is given in annex 6 The questions and remarks after the presentation of the project results and the debates during the round table turned around several issues and are summarized hereunder. Our comments are given in italics characters. The food crisis and the future trends in world demand, prices volatility and production costs. The EUROCROP thinking process has been achieved before the 2008 food crisis really developed and prices rose up to exceptional levels before getting down again to rather low levels. The future trends in prices and prices volatility were examined during the conference. According to Mr Schumacher, from COCERAL, and Mr Rieu from FEDHIOL, the trade and industry sectors clearly expects a period of very high prices in the long term perspective, specially in grains markets, since the general trend in demand for food, feed and fuel is a continuous increase over the next 20 years, according to OECD and FAO. The supply and demand situation has been and will be the key driver on prices levels and volatility, speculation playing as an amplifier on short term only, when outside actors see opportunities to bargain too, but has no effect on long term tendencies. New elements will also increase price volatility, notably the heavy link between the agricultural commodities prices and the mineral oil prices, because of bioenergy demand. This link became very obvious with the higher objectives of biofuels incorporation in EU fuels . Furthermore, Mr Rieu recalled that prices variations could be stronger and more abrupt, in a context of low stocks, sensible to climate events. Nevertheless, the role of speculation, hedge funds and index funds, has to be examined and these funds should be submitted to the same rules that the classical economic actors have to follow. One of the instruments to limit volatility would be to give commodities exchanges back the role they had in the past and limit the influence of hedge funds (keeping in mind that speculation brings liquidity, which is needed) Another way would consist in developing stronger relationship among the different actors along the food and feed chains, through contracts, improved market knowledge along the chains and increased partnership. For Mr Beulin, risks management and crises management are key concerns for farmers. These elements globally agree on the EUROCROP scenarios hypotheses, which considered prices of food commodities to be high to very high in future, with increase volatility. The internal relations between the actors of the crop chains appear as a factor that could help in controlling prices volatility adverse effects (through more contracts between production and transformation. This idea, which could refer to EUROCROP challenge 5.1, was not really developed in the debates) About the role of Europe in the production of agricultural goods In the perspective of the growing international demand for agricultural products in the coming years (up to 60-70% more than the present situation), Mr Schumacher, speaking for the trade sector, warned the floor about the role Europe has to play in the production of agricultural goods: it would be a mistake if Europe just concentrate its activities and its way of thinking on the EU market, going on with self centred policies approaches. It is regrettable that Europe does not completely acknowledge the role that EU farming and EU agricultural sector would have to play as a major EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 151 of 171

supplier of commodities and food supplies to the world market. The policy issue is the role of EU in the worldwide food policy. For Mr Schumacher, it would be a mistake if research activities would concentrate on how to improve the perceived value and the perceived interest of European consumer only, and be based on perceived wishes of consumers on how farming and agriculture should look like. The research has a key role to play in increasing the efficiency of farming, and contribute to productivity and quality gains in a sustainable way, and not only in the EU but worldwide. Mrs Anamarija Slabe, speaking for Environmental organisations, noted that if there is raising demands of commodities on the world market, natural resources are limited and even scarcer, and induce severe limiting factors. On this basis, the EU production should feed primarily the European market in a self sufficiency perspective, and the priority should be given to the development of a sustainable model rather than to the world market. Mr Rieu, as representative of processing industries, underlined that the first priority for industries is to have at one’s disposal a local production quantity, with quality and safety, to meet the European consumers’ needs. The food safety is also a priority for industries, and consumers will certainly put pressure on pesticides residues in food. Mr Temple, as farmers’ representative, underlined the fact that, the supports being decoupled from the production, farmers have to live increasingly on the marketplace, but to maintain and increase their competitiveness, the regulation frameworks must remain coherent with this objective. A first example was taken of new pesticides regulations which could cause real problems to the European farmers’ competitiveness. The second example was the situation of GMO where Europe imports huge amounts of protein material, whose majority is GMO, consumers being poorly informed. These discussions make appear the difficulty in choosing between C1 economic competitiveness and C2 sustainability. In fact, all speakers accept the fact that economic competitiveness cannot be obtained at the expense of sustainability, and the real challenge lies in combining these objectives. On a second level, the identification of research priorities aiming to increase the efficiency of AC systems should consider also potential valorisations outside Europe and contribute to world food supply. Arable crops and society The case of GMOs As mentioned by Mr Haniotis, from DG Agri, in his introductory presentation, it seems that the specificity of the European market is being driven predominantly by demand when in the USA, the market is driven by the offer. In the vision of economic stakeholders, Europe needs to continue to have very efficient farming and agricultural systems, and to acknowledge that all available technologies are used and contribute to efficiency and productivity gains, provided that agricultural production is achieved in a sustainable way and that environment and quality are respected. Mrs Slabe pointed out it should be kept in mind that GMO technologies are only one of the fields of innovation, and that other possibilities exist with quick and cheap results. From the food industries point of view, innovation to improve the nutritional quality and safety of arable crops products is very important, and biotechnologies could contribute to this result. A new debate is needed on GMOs, and consumers must be informed and must be given advantages: when the consumer finds his direct interest, it will be possible again to develop research in biotechnologies. Mr Kuprys, from the consumers representative point of view, seen from Lituania situation and wider, more and more people in Europe do not believe that GMO is part of their future, and give their preference to “ecologically grown” crops, but would probably accept GMO as an alternative in case of crisis.

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 152 of 171

GMOs and biotechnologies (which have to be considered separately) could contribute to efficiency, productivity and quality gains. They constitute only a field of innovation among others, and their advantages and disadvantages have to be assessed (as for any innovation). Communication towards consumers could contribute to finding the conditions of a renewed debate on GMO on less impassioned bases. Consumers aspects Mr Kuprys said consumers will face several other challenges: - The traceability of crops products: it was observed that the information was very precise in the case of wine, and very poor in the case of arable crops products: the consumer must know the origin of the products he buys, the processing place, packaging place… - the moral aspects of choice between uses for food and feed versus biofuels: the many hesitations in communication and policies does not offer a clear perspective to allow consumers to choose “in the right way”, - the impacts of consumers choices: on economic situation of farmers, on products quality evolution, on land abandonment, on environment…with the specific aspect of the geographical distance between production and consumption places. Ultimately, consumers’ behaviour leads the other actors’ strategies. It is the case on quality and GMOs aspects. For Mr Rieu, consumers want quality, and price and traceability, but are not ready to pay for that. It will be necessary to find solutions to meet all these needs and reach again consumers’ confidence, which requires playing on quality, price and information. For Mrs Ribera, from COPA-COGECA, the positive perception of AC by public opinion is a key issue: it would need to explain to people why science and research are important for the agriculture in Europe, and try to rebuild the link with consumers. The same observation was made by Mr Temple: are farmers responsible for environmental impacts? The consumers’ behaviour and choices are determining on environmental impacts of agriculture too. It must be pointed out that all these aspects have relations with information towards the consumer about the products and crop chains: production, transformation and trade processes. In a certain way, information to consumers and “rebuilding the links with consimers” through a two ways interaction could appear as conditions of future sustainability. Several EUROCROP challenges relate to consumers’ perception and information. Science and knowledge dissemination and use Mr Chevalier, member of EUROCROP PADCO for consumers’ organisations, observed that the use of research results, and more generally the quality and existence of a dialogue with research depends on extension of knowledge, not only towards the crop chains but also towards the citizens and consumers. The ideological debate on GMO finds its origin in the lack of knowledge, of direct exchange and common debate between research, consumers and professionals of agriculture. Due to the absence of progress in this field, this kind of situation risks to develop again on new cases, for example applications of nano-technologies in packaging. The perception of research and technology by the public opinion is at present very negative. Mr Beulin observed that the fact to register patents on life (mostly by private companies) deeply modified the relation to research, and this dimension must be integrated in the reflection about science, agriculture and society. Mr Chevalier insisted on the need for extensive interactions between the professional world (upstream of industries) and consumers to develop exchanges on subjects which will become tomorrow matter of public debate. It should turn around maintaining the European quality and food safety and security which makes the rest of the world jealous. It seems fundamental to make EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 153 of 171

understand why science and technology are fundamental for the European agriculture, to develop a better perception of arable crops production systems. Mr Temple, representative of farmers, insisted on the disastrous effect of anti-science messages for European research and development capacity and future competitiveness, discouraging young people from entering into the field of science and coming into farming research. When the main need for remaining competitive is about being efficient and having precision farming, based on research and technologies. Farmers are very conscious of the role of research and development for a competitive agriculture and of the importance to open a debate on the role of science in farming, food production and maintenance of the environment. Funding research and driving research The message from Mr Kapuvari (EESC) recalled that agricultural research is a constant preoccupation of the European Economic and Social Committee, and reported several opinions about agriculture, the most recent one being on climate change and agriculture. He reported that beyond the need to develop the competitiveness of the Community agriculture, the research projects relating to food, agriculture, fisheries, farming and rural development taken together count for only around 3,5% of the budget of the Framework Programmes (3,8% for FP7) Mr Fons Werrij, representing research sector in the EUROCROP PADCO, said that 50 years ago, the agricultural production was considered as a public good and funding agricultural research for productivity was a priority. It is not the case presently and it will not be anymore. The question is “how to make the research institutions interested again in agricultural research. The AC sector, as any other industry has a role to play by itself and must take initiative. D. Viaggi observed that agriculture has its own specificities compared to “other industries”: notably the number of private farmers, which prevents the sector to behave like a firm. The collaboration between research and agriculture needs a better understanding, which is not easy due to the number of stakeholders: it could be a subject for research in itself, but this aspect was not in EUROCROP focus. Fons Werrij explained that the Agrimapping programme has shown that Europe has all the needed scientific expertise to answer the needs, but the problem apparently leads in the functioning of Research and development for at least two reasons: - insufficient funding, probably not the major reason, - there is no demand for this knowledge and no initiative. The demand for research is not sufficiently and clearly expressed The agricultural R&D system in Europe rests on two pillars: agricultural universities and faculties on one side, research institutes on the other side. The Universities are in good conditions, but looking for scientific excellence and innovation in scientific disciplines, and are not driven by the sector. The second pillar, the institutes, is fading out at EU level, with decreasing budgets, and not integrated into the agricultural sector anymore. The real problem being that the ministries and governments which used to finance them changed their policies from supporting farming community to developing and underpinning their policies: institutes are no longer helping farmers to produce, but explain the social, environmental and economic constraints they have. The matter now is: to who send the messages elaborated in EUROCROP? Paul Temple, as farmers’ representative, agreed that there is not such an effort on food production as for environmental aspects, and it should be a signal to send out. A challenge is to drag research back on areas that translate into applied uses. Henri Nallet observed that, Universities and research institutes having withdrawn to fundamental research, the present situation is difficult, and the matter is not to try to get back to the previous situation, but to invent new ways to associate research to the problems that agriculture is facing not only in Europe, but at world scale. Concerning the governance of science, it was considered that science is largely self-governing and that recovering a party of esteem for the scientists who deliver applied and “blue skies” research largely depends on the scientific community itself. EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 154 of 171

Davide Viaggi stressed on the fact that, having focussed to other policy driven issues for 20 years (such as public policies, environmental concerns, perception of consumers…), research teams virtually lack people specialized in production agriculture, and cannot expect to respond as a scientific community in one year to the lack of expertise missed in 20 years. These debates lead to identify a specific challenge for agricultural professional organisations and crops chains, which was not identified in EUROCROP works, which more focussed on scientific and technical issues. Furthermore, EUROCROP project itself was built to organise a dialogue between crop chains actors and researchers. But a specific challenge could be expressed as: “involving research in arable crops: building a new relationship with scientific institutions and research”, to associate research to the multiple stakes agriculture and arable crops are facing. The importance of human factor (availability of both skills and motivation) for the possibility to mobilize research would plead for a special involvement of higher education and research institutions. Research and transfer But a difficulty comes also from the disengagement in R&D facilities that can contribute to transfer: as mentioned by Mr Temple, many demonstrations farms in UK have been closed. It is important to send the signal to reverse this trend to allow information coming from research to be transferred into the farming area. Stable government facilities which are not risk averse are needed, to test innovations, such as GMO typically. New efforts on extension of research results, involving researchers and farmers, have to be undertaken too. Recent examples were very successful in UK, on the blue tongue disease case, and demonstrate the interest of such contacts to explain science and disseminate. These considerations are somehow out of the field of investigation of EUROCROP, in the sense they concern the organisation and the lack of facilities for applied research and transfer in agriculture in some countries. Many debates turned around the transfer process itself (motivating researchers, involving farmers, dissemination from farmers to farmers…), which is both a field of research and a field of action. This aspect, which is not specific to arable crops, was mentioned but not really treated in EUROCROP. Nevertheless, the actors are very conscious of its importance.

EUROCROP working process and results The time limit of EUROCROP, driven by the CAP reform timing has been considered to be rather short span (2015 / 7years) for setting up priorities for agricultural research. A similar idea has been expressed under a different angle, saying that on one hand EUROCROP identified the tremendous challenges lying ahead in research, but that on the other hand the attention has been captured into the agriculture funding policies: advice was given to get rid of those aspects and face the challenges EU has to face on a worldwide scale. Nevertheless, Mr Fons Werrij pointed out that the identified challenges do not really differ from those identified 15 years ago, even if new disciplines, such as genomics are now involved. This point is not an inconvenient but confirms a certain stability of research needs for agriculture. The fact to know (and confirm) these basic “back office” needs and priorities must be considered as a strength. Concerning the EUROCROP group, Mr Chevalier observed that representatives of supermarket distribution were missing in the EUROCROP stakeholders panel, whose interests differ from transformers’ and consumers’. EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 155 of 171

Considering the scenarios, several participants mentioned a preference or an interest to specific scenarios (notably 3 and 4), but all agree that the future will be a mixture of the ideas raised in these scenarios. This judgement fits very well the role given to the scenarios in EUROCROP thinking process (see chapter 5.1)

The representative of Environment pointed out the differences of EUROCROP thinking compared to the Organics Technology Platform (wider approach more strongly related to social issues and rural development, focus to complex agro-ecosystems including crops and animal productions… ), but nevertheless identified several fields of synergies between the recommendations of Organics and EUROCROP, especially: - subjects related to cycling of nutrients in agriculture - topics dealing with sustainability and environment - soil compaction and innovation in machinery - valorisation of organic agriculture experience for integrated crop protection - biodiversity, with the specific question of keeping the advantages of set-aside on biodiversity, in spite of the abandonment of set-aside. Mr Murphy insisted on the fact that progressing towards users demand led research is a challenge, and turning various demands into coherent research investments as well. The interest and the coherence of the EUROCROP results in this regard have been recognized, their strength being reinforced by its original methodology. Mr Timothy Hall, head of Directorate E, Biotechnologies, Agriculture and Food in DG Research mentioned that the very large consultation process which was used leads to a high added value to the reliability of the conclusion of EUROCROP, and that these issues would be another element to add to the priority setting process for the 4 coming years. He notice that these conclusions are very complementary to the SRA of technology platforms, which are primarily industry based. Mr Henri Nallet, former Minister of Agriculture in France, gave his analysis of the whole debate. He noticed that the assembly was able to build a kind of agreement on common points of view, in spite of different experiences and nationalities, better than politicians. Recalling the CAP historical phases, Mr Nallet observed that the first period, in the ‘60ies, was aiming at a single objective: increase all agricultural productions. The second phase in the ‘80ies was aiming to controle the offer of products because of a structural overproduction. The main objective of the 3rd phase in the ‘90ies was to deregulate the agriculture under the pressure of GATT and then WTO. In each period, there was one major constraint organizing everything. The things are much more complex now: the EUROCROP works and conference pointed out at least five constraints which must be considered simultaneously: - the European agriculture has to remain competitive, for its consumers and towards the outside - the European agriculture has to remain competitive with increasing quality standards - it has to ensure the food security. This point is a result of the recent food crisis. - the relation between agriculture and environment will be a key subject in the PAC negotiations - The amplitude of the volatility is a threat for agriculture, which needs stability and visibility to run and invest. At the difference of the previous periods, all these constraints are present simulatneously and must be answered simultaneously. It is not possible to partition: there is not, on one side, an agriculture devoted to commodities, which could be productive and competitive whatever the consequences, and at the opposite, an organic agriculture, with controlled origins and small markets. The whole EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 156 of 171

European agriculture must be concerned by this set of constraints, by quality, economic competitiveness, environment, stability… The original point of this conference is that the specialists of Arable Crops said that. It is the reason why, for the coming debates on CAP, a framework is needed to think the European agriculture, the question being not simply “what should be European agriculture,”, but “what should be European agriculture in relation to the rest of the world?” Europe is in good conditions to make converging its capacities, its knowledge and its agricultural power. These works and conference have shown that what is necessary to do is known, but it is necessary to focus again the choices: what are the major subjects where progress is needed? About the status of research in the society, the debate is probably not on private versus public research, but on the suspicion of the society regarding science. It is necessary to wonder how to get the interest of the civil society in debates on science advances in a less impassioned way. Concerning research and transfer aspects, the organisational model totally changed; better than saying that the State withdrawn, it is necessary to tell it what is needed - and the Commission has certainly a great role to play in helping to organise a common scientific basis, in organizing networks - and open this work that has been begun with EUROCROP. In a conclusion speech, Mr Timothy Hall said that the recognition of the extreme diversity of the agriculture and farming systems in Europe is extremely important: the more conventional approach, the other extreme going towards the low input and organic, with a broad range of ages of farmers and an enormous range of regional conditions, broader because Europe includes now 27 countries. Each of these has different research agendas. On top of that, the demand on agriculture is becoming much more multifunctional and the need to accommodate also on the longer term, alternative crops (other crops than traditional ones), has to be added. The development of crops to feed industries, raw materials for the chemical industries in particular, which is a very small part of the agricultural production at the moment, will increase the competitive use of land in the coming years quite substantially, especially as will supplies start to become scarcer. Then, climate change is a very important issue which more or less governs everything to adapt agriculture to various changes in conditions. Specific working groups have been initiated by the Member States and the Commission on these issues. Research has to respond all these needs and try to anticipate. Mr Hall recalled the diversity of the ERA mechanisms, and the thematic links of EUROCROP issues with other on going projects and platforms. He gave an optimistic touch to the end of the conference, remembering that a recent debate in the Agricultural Council on looking at research issues in the context of climate change. In a June Council of Ministers, there was in the Presidency conclusion the clear statement that research on increasing agricultural production should take place particularly in the context of energy prices and climate change. So it was clearly stated that there was an interest in increasing agricultural production. Again in July, Ministers met in an informal competitiveness council, and among the 4 topics which were debated in a round table configuration, agriculture and food, with water, was one of these 4 topics; the other were energy and health, and new technologies. Agriculture and related issues were dealt with at quite a high level in those meetings. But messages have still to be enforced concerning the rural debate and macro economic issues. Considering these debates: The relations between agriculture/Arable crops and society have been discussed under several angles (perception of science and technology in agriculture, traceability, ethical aspects of consumers’ choices…), which converge to reinforce the importance of the EUROCROP challenge 5.6 “Achieving a positive public perception of arable crops systems” and actions (research or other) aiming at developing interactions between professionals and consumers/citizens. This would need to develop a specific topic.

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 157 of 171

Many debates turned around risk management aspects, several speakers mentioning that higher priority should be given to this subject. It could be not only a matter of research but of policies and regulations too. The EUROCROP topic 1.15/2.8 “Risk management of arable farming under price volatility and climate change” would contribute at farm scale, but according to the conference contents, a wider approach could be developed in relation with challenge 5.1, at crop chains scale, with topics 6.10 and 6.11 on value chain and networking.

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 158 of 171

9. Discussion, recommendations, conclusions DISCUSSION The genetics aspects are present in EUROCROP preoccupations, but not fully treated (relying on the ETP Plants for the Future). Nevertheless, we have to keep in mind that genetic progress has been and will be a key factor of competitiveness. Genetic progress is a pregnant preoccupation of all crop chains, but it is clear that the idle research investment in genetic progress regarding yield and/or its transfer to yields in fields, has affected several crops already, notably “minor” cereals, fibre crops, grain legumes and to a minor extent oilcrops as sunflower. The lack of “genetic competitiveness”, coupled with market prices effects, has a direct effect on farmers’ choices on short term, and may be one of the reasons of imbalanced cropping systems, where the most competitive and profitable crops are grown more than reasonable from a perspective of integrated production. From this point of view, and if we consider that major species are quite efficiently covered by private investments, a public investment in research on minor species to increase their genetic yield potential would be worth for enhancing more balanced cropping systems in the medium and long term. The EUROCROP topics dealing with genetics concern yield stability targets and quality improvement. At the level of challenges, a higher priority has been given to the tolerance to abiotic stresses and plant’s efficiency regarding water (topics and nutrients 1.1 and 1.4), and biotic stresses (caused by diseases, pests and weeds – topics 1.1 and 1.3).This need for better tolerance to stresses concerns both major and minor crops and would be a key lever to improve the actual productivity in fields, to secure the production itself and decrease the inputs consumption. GMO and biotechnologies: The discussions that took place in the EUROCROP conference show that GMOs and biotechnologies (which have to be considered separately) could contribute to efficiency, productivity and quality gains. From a research point of view and genetic studies at least, biotechnologies are a major factor of progress and were not the object of opposition. Regarding GMO crops, they constitute a field of innovation and progress among others, and consequently should not be neglected, but their advantages and disadvantages have to be assessed (as it should be for any innovation). The EUROCROP group itself never settled the issue, each GMO case needing to be considered separately. The key role of grain legumes in balanced and less/low N synthetic fertilizer consuming cropping systems has been emphasized in the WG3.7 GL group and in several topics by WG3.1. It must be pointed out that, to be fully valorised in cropping systems efficiency, the (re-) introduction of legumes crops in CS must be accompanied by a set of agronomic evolutions, including the management of intercropping periods (to control N losses), since many legumes are summer crops. Soybean, which is both an oil and legume crop and has not been treated by the oilseeds crops WG, nor the grain legumes WG, also presents a good potential to contribute to balanced cropping systems in the southern and central Europe regions. The animal sector influences on AC competitiveness, and the potential synergies, were perhaps too poorly considered in EUROCROP, probably due to the partnership itself, which should have been enlarged to treat this aspect at scientific and technical level (in spite of the presence of animal feed sector among stakeholders). The high focus on AC systems may constitute a limit to deal with EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 159 of 171

AC competitiveness itself: considering animal sector as a market only (around half of the European AC products are consumed by the animal sector) does not allow developing synergies, whose importance increases considering issues related to land use, nutrients recycling, environmental impacts of both sectors, and the global efficiency and competitiveness of European agriculture. This kind of preoccupation appeared in the topics 5-1.3 “linking arable crops production to livestock farming”, and several topics related to outlets and markets, especially 3.6 “improvement of competitiveness of crop production on the global feed and related markets”. In a more global perspective, it would be advisable to develop a joint thinking process between AC sector and animal sector, through a new coordination action for example. The spatial scale issue: The previous point puts the focus on the spatial scale issues. Both the nature of challenges and the elaborated topics show that many issues related to agricultural production and practice, deal with scales larger than a single field of crop, but with larger scales, from the farm scale to production basins or small regions, especially when dealing with integrated crop protection or environmental aspects. The scaling issue itself is a subject for research, proposed in WG5 (topic 5-3.4) Quality aspects: apparent low priority The EUROCROP process generally gave a relatively low priority to products quality aspects in the different scenarios, except on food safety, which is classified among the four most important challenges. The only topic written on food safety is considered as strongly overlapping the current project BIOTRACER. 12 topics have been drafted concerning quality, 5 of them focus to nutritional quality, 3 on the production process (field and industry) and one on consumers concerns. Considering the expression of consumers’ challenges during the conference - traceability, ethics in choices and impacts of production processes and consumers choices (environmental and social) – this range of preoccupations should not be reduced to GMO concerns and carbon footprints, which are indicators of raising wider preoccupations, and certainly include more widely environmental and social impacts, which needs traceability and a number of indicators. As underlined by the WG3.5 group, “the environmental consciousness of society and its effects on consumers’ behaviour are important. (…) In the context of competitiveness, environmental issues should not only be regarded as limits or restrictions; they can also offer a chance for European agriculture”. This appreciation appears to be relevant to social issues too. The time scale – 2015 - of EUROCROP thinking process was determined by the context of the CAP health check and next reforms. This horizon, 6 to 8 years, is quite convenient to deal with economic competitiveness issues, but could be considered as very short for sustainability issues if we admit that research projects on these aspects would probably take more than 3 years and that development and transfer delays have to be added. Even if part of the challenges are not new, it must be considered that a continuous progress is needed on some issues and that the order in priorities certainly evolved (e.g. issues related to climate change or public perception of innovation in AC) and that this renewed vision contributes to a continuous reshaping process of the relations between research and agriculture and of research policies. Long term issues must be considered as a full part of AC competitiveness even in short term, in so far they guide public policies and influence consumers’ behaviour increasingly. It is the reason why research on terms longer than 2015 must be included in the field of EUROCROP recommendations. This situation leads also to give a special attention to the development and transfer aspects: this question has been addressed during the EUROCROP conference from the point of view of disaffection of research institutions for applied research and of the weakness of transfer systems. The fact is that many problems are quite well understood from research point of view and that knowledge is not limiting to implement solutions which would allow to progress. What is missing in many cases is the transfer of knowledge to farmers and its translation into technically, EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 160 of 171

economically and socially viable solutions in farming conditions, that is to say at farming system scale, or larger. This new complexity requires more and more specific solutions, which require on sites diagnostics, farmers’ training and engineering. It must be observed that the nature of transfer itself changed, and that the general dissemination of standard solutions is not adapted anymore in most cases, when the matter is systemic evolutions or mutations. The policy framework also plays on transfer efficiency: complex solutions are not easily adopted by farmers if they have no direct interest in doing it at farm scale. RECOMMENDATIONS At major challenges level As explained in chapter 5.5, 4 challenges appear as first level priorities for AC systems sustainable competitiveness: - the food safety, which is a basis need of populations - the maintenance of an efficient crop protection, as major guarantee for food security - the improvement of resource use efficiency: - energy - and water, of both short term economic interest and fundamental issue for long term sustainability. The 2nd level includes 4 supplementary challenges where economic competitiveness is predominant, dealing with yield level and stability improvement, optimisation of cropping systems and adaptation of production systems, nutrient use efficiency (long term sustainability issue) The conference debates showed the importance of 2 issues which were ranked in the 3rd priorities: - the relations between agriculture/Arable crops and society is related to challenge 5.6 “Achieving a positive public perception of arable crops systems” and actions (research or other) aiming at developing interactions between professionals and consumers/citizens. - The risk management aspects, which is related to the EUROCROP challenges 1.4 “managing risks for EU farmers” and 5.1 “improve efficiency in value chain and networking” Then 3 challenges specific to single scenarios were highlighted: - the integration of arable crops in rural territories, which are essential in the context of scenario 2. We must notice that meeting this challenge necessitates on one side taking into account regional specificities, and on the other side also relates to the relations between farms/ farmers and local societies. - The 2 other joker challenges are key issues for scenario 4, related to climate change: to mitigate its effects and minimize a further degradation of the situation (minimize GHG emissions per unit of product) At topics level EUROCROP group proposed a series of 73 topics, in relation with the AC challenges (see chapter 7.1 and chart 18). Proposals of priority topics should take into account the main stakes and priorities in challenges, the major outcomes of the final conference, and the different fields of competitiveness. It should also take into account the ongoing EU projects.

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 161 of 171

Table 51 MAIN OUTCOMES Stability (risks management, prices volatility)

Economic competitiveness Consumers demand: quality standards and safety Consumers and citizens: image of agriculture and status of innovation

C1 production level topic 1.15-2.8 / project "Income Stabilisation"

C2 Environment C2 Social

Efficiency: Nitrogen (topic 1.22), Water 'topic 1.9), crop protection (Topics 53.2 + 1.17) / Project ENDURE topic 3.3 / project BIOTRACER

Relation between agriculture and environment

topics 4.7 and 6.3

Climate change/ topics 5-2.2/ 1.11 + project NITROEUROPE

Topics titles: 1.15-2.8: Risk management and adaptation of arable farming under price volatility and climate change 1.22 Developing reduced nitrogen input and productive cropping systems: nitrogen optimisation at cropping system scale 1.9 Water efficient cropping systems through improved crop mix and irrigation management 5-3.2 Integrated and novel approaches for effective crop protection strategies / 1.17 Management of crop rotations aimed to prevent and control weed infestation, disease and pest infection 3.3 Preventing safety risks in arable crops 4.7 Better understanding of public concerns associated with GM technologies to help shape communication strategies/ 6.3 Deprivation and quality of life in rural areas: provision of public and social goods and services 5-2.2 Global assessment of N emissions of cropping systems/ 1.11 Reducing the greenhouse gas emissions of cropping systems

We may consider that the field of the EUROCROP topic 3.3 is covered by the BIOTRACER project, very similar on quality/food safety aspects. Crop Protection aspects are covered by ENDURE from the point of view of research coordination and that follow up actions will be certainly proposed. The overlapping between climate change aspects and NITROEUROPE is partial (concerns only N fluxes) and complementarities should be found in the knowledge applications to reduce AC cropping systems emissions. Concerning risk management, the proposed EUROCROP topic presents similarities with “Income Stabilisation “project, but this project is more oriented to risk management tools and the EUROCROP topic more focussed on adaptations at farm scale, hence they look complementary. All EUROCROP topics (see §7.1 and WP3 report) are valuable and may be used as a reservoir of ideas. But the different expressions of priorities by actors and stakeholders along the project duration, including its conference, lead us to recommend the initiation of new research projects on 4 main themes in priority, which appear to be of high common interest : EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 162 of 171

A: Risk management and adaptation of arable farming Risks in AC farming vary and are related to farm income (due to input/output price volatility), quantity and quality of production (due to weather variability and climatic change) and farm assets – real estates and human capital. The objectives are to find general solutions for arable farming and farms in order to minimize individual categories of risks by improving farm practices, diversification of production, investment, business orientation and devising innovative risk management tools. Such efforts should include the identification and classification of risks related to arable farming under new/expected conditions; the assessment of the significance of risks, their size and evaluation; the analysis of instruments for risk reduction, e.g. insurance; and decision support systems for a rapid adaptation to economic contexts and risk management. The management of risk in a chain and network perspective should be considered, taking into account connections of AC with rural households, upstream and downstream actors, as well as contract design issues.

B: Designing resource-efficient and sustainable cropping systems. Increased resource efficiency is certainly key for arable cropping system competitiveness. Partial solutions to the problems of efficiency are known for single factors (energy, water, nutrients, impacts on resources, pollution etc), but not always coherent for different objectives and aspects of global efficiency. Innovation must be developed at the cropping system scale. A major need and research question is the design and global optimization of new cropping systems. The action aims at designing innovative cropping systems which optimize the use of the limited resources energy, water and nutrients (N, P, K and other). The efficiency of resource use in terms of output units produced per resource unit used should be maximized. At the same time these resource efficient-cropping systems need to be sustainable in economic, environmental and social terms. These innovative cropping systems should be tested in different regional contexts of Europe (including pedo-climatic and socio-economic aspects) and the effectiveness of the progress regarding efficiency and sustainability must be assessed. Cropping system development should include long-term experiments (farming systems and poly-factorial experiments), on-farm research to test the practicability of the improved system and the acceptance by farmers. An interdisciplinary approach is recommended (agronomic and environmental sciences, economy, social sciences, innovation sciences, etc.)

C: Limiting the impact of AC cropping systems on greenhouse gas emissions (role in climate change) Agriculture, animal husbandry and forestry (including deforestation) are thought to cause around 20% of the world’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Arable crop systems are included due to the use of N fertilizers and soil tillage practices. The two major greenhouse gases emitted by European cropping systems are CO2 and N2O. N2O is characterized by a high global warming potential. In the past, a great deal of work was undertaken on the relationship between crop management and one specific channel of nitrogen loss (NO3, NH3 N2O, etc.). However, there are some trade-offs between the reduction of different kinds of N emissions: e.g. reducing NH3 emissions by increasing N in soil leading to higher NO3 leaching. An experimental dataset on those trade-offs is needed, especially on N2O. A global approach accounting for the multiple sources of greenhouse gases is necessary, because the ways of decreasing emissions from one source may increase the emissions from other sources. The action would aim to better understand the effect of cropping systems on greenhouse gas emissions in order to be able to optimize crop management and cropping systems with the objective of reducing these emissions, and to gain further knowledge on the interactions between the different N emission sources. It should include simulations of the effect of crop management practices on GHG emissions and the implementation of experimental databases necessary to validate the models. Experiments and network of pluri-annual experiments are needed..

D: Better understanding of public concerns regarding AC production and products and communication with global and local societies The fears of consumers and citizens with respect to science and technologies used in agriculture and food industries have been growing for more 15 years, and arguably increasing in intensity on the occasion of repeated crises. These fears and concerns deal with food safety, on one hand, and environmental and social impacts on the other. Such concerns are seen to be hampering the wider use of innovative technologies in Europe, and may place additional burdens on industry. They cause an increasingly dualistic vision of agriculture -intensive polluting agriculture versus environmental organic agriculture). On another level, the image of agriculture and Arable Crop production systems in the public opinion is key for the future legitimacy of public support to the sector. Consumers and citizens are more than ever faced by contradictory choices (including prices, social and environmental impacts of consumption etc). There is a need for AC agriculture to better understand the general public’s concerns, to provide informed, balanced advice and comments with an eye to developing a new relationship between the AC sector and society, and a need for consumers to obtain factual information for better informed choices. EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 163 of 171

The action aims to better understand the EU general public’s concerns over AC based food and AC production processes, to propose actions and contents for public information, to enhance relations between the sector and representative stakeholders.

These recommendations are proposed assuming that: - integrated crop protection, which is a key concern for AC competitiveness, will be covered in the continuity of ENDURE project, and that follow up actions will be proposed. Establishing links with EUROCROP topics and research goals would be advisable. - food quality/safety aspects are already covered by the project BIOTRACER - the contents of NITROEUROPE project only partially overlap with the recommendations of EUROCROP, which recommend strengthening an agronomical approach for greenhouse gas emissions. The full description of these 4 synthetic topics is proposed in annex 1, gathering key ideas of the original topics outcoming from the EUROCROP working groups.

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 164 of 171

ANNEX 1: 4 key research topics RESEARCH TOPIC

A: Risk management and adaptation of arable farming under price volatility and climate change CHALLENGE 1.4 Managing risks for EU farmers RESEARCH GOAL 1.4.1 Find strategies to manage risk factors WORKING GROUP WG 3.2 (2.8) & WG 3.1 (1.15) BACKGROUND Farming and arable crops are sectors with very high risks. Risks are related to farm income (due to input/output price volatility), to quantity and quality of production (due to weather variability and climatic change) and to farm assets – real estates and human capital (due to climatic change and other unexpected events). Price volatility can increase owing to expected WTO agreements (especially market access improvements) and possible changes of the Common agricultural policy (CAP) (e. g. reduction of direct payments). Climatic change is inevitable, contributing to more frequent catastrophic events (floods, droughts) and continuing basic changes in climatic and soil conditions. OBJECTIVE To find general solutions for arable farming and farms to minimize individual categories of risks by improving farm practices, diversification of the production, investment, business orientation and management tools. CONTENT The project includes: a) the identification and classification of risks related to arable farming under possible future conditions; b) the assessment of the significance of risks, their size and evaluation; c) the analysis of instruments for risk reduction, e.g. insurance; d) decision support systems for a rapid adaptation to economic context and risk management. OUTPUT / DELIVERABLES General instruments, measures and advice on how to minimize individual categories of risks for arable farming. Suggestions for policy makers regarding how to link agricultural policies with private activities in this field, considering risks related with functioning of insurance markets. Related decision support systems. IMPACT Better economic situation, less vulnerable farms and cropping systems and improved flexibility of farms producing arable crops. PARTNERSHIP Public research institutes; larger private insurance companies. FUNDING INSTITUTION/S EU OTHER REMARKS Connected to 2.1

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 165 of 171

B: Designing resource-efficient and sustainable cropping systems. CHALLENGE 4.11 Integrating different sustainability concerns in the design and implementation of innovative cropping systems 4.3 Improved resource use efficiency: nutrients, water, energy 1.2 Technical and economic optimization by innovating sustainable cropping systems RESEARCH GOAL WORKING GROUP WG 3.5 & WG3.1 BACKGROUND Intensive cropping systems developed after World War II rely heavily on the use of non-renewable or limited resources. This kind of farming is unsustainable and cannot be continued in the future. Only cropping systems with a high productivity and a minimal use of non-renewable resources can be competitive. To design sustainable cropping systems for the future, we need to develop cropping systems that save resources (energy, fossil fuels, P and K, water) by using inputs more efficiently and at the same time maintain a high productivity. Furthermore, these systems should prevent or reduce the pollution of soil and water by pesticides, P, or N, limit the emissions of greenhouse gases and have less harmful impacts on biodiversity. Furthermore, innovating cropping systems must be viable socially and economically as well, and maintain a satisfying level of efficiency regarding renewable but expensive production factors: capital, labour time, land use, etc. Many partial solutions to the problems of efficiency are known, but not always coherent for different objectives and aspects of the global efficiency. The challenge is to optimize resource use over a whole cropping system instead of individual crops. Saving energy is certainly one major point, common in all regions of Europe, since present cropping systems are highly dependent on non-renewable energy for fertilizer manufacturing (synthetic nitrogen), mechanization, irrigation, and production of most other inputs (extraction of P and K, production of pesticides…). The main possibilities for energy cost reduction are known: using coproduct of farm or organic residues as fertilizers, optimizing the crop rotations introducing grain legumes, improving fertilization methods (such as splitting fertilizers doses to better fit the crops needs in time), reducing soil tillage to limit consumption of fossil fuel, optimize the use of the machinery, and use of renewable energy sources. Water availability, in time and in quantity, is very variable depending on the different regions of Europe. For the southern regions the water problem is pregnant already. The water efficiency and water flexibility of cropping systems are key aspects of their global performance and competitiveness. Under conditions of drought, particular crop practices such as deficit irrigation or the planting of drought-tolerant crops should be implemented. The efficient use of the limited resources P and K needs to be fostered, through the improvement of fertilization techniques, optimization of nutrient doses, optimal use within a crop rotation and better nutrient recycling. A major need and research question is actually the design of globally optimized new cropping systems. There is a lack of long-term experiments on cropping systems that enable to study such questions under different pedo-climatic conditions. OBJECTIVE To design innovative cropping systems optimizing the use of the limited resources energy, water and nutrients (N, P, K and other). The efficiency of resource use in terms of output unit produced per resource unit used should be maximized. At the same time these resource efficient-cropping systems need to be sustainable in economic, environmental and social terms. To test the applications of these innovative cropping systems in different regional contexts of Europe (including pedo-climatic and socio-economic aspects) and measure the effectiveness of the progress regarding efficiency and sustainability CONTENT EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 166 of 171

Designing innovative resource-efficient cropping systems could use two complementary pathways: - Gathering scientific expertise for designing new cropping systems on the basis of existing knowledge and models - Identifying ongoing innovations and emerging improved consistent cropping systems in European farms, and involving “pioneer farmers” or groups of farmers in designing model systems. This second way requires direct contacts with farmers and advisers/transfer organizations. The cropping system development should be done by means of long-term experiments (farming system and polyfactorial experiments), on-farm research to test the practicability of the improved system and the acceptance by farmers. The project would be based principally on: a) data acquisition from different regions, farm types, cropping systems; b) long-term experiments of different cropping systems should be done, and c) modeling of resource use and productivity together with a sustainability assessment on the basis on existing indicators. An initial part of the work would consist in evaluating the possibilities to improve/calibrate existing models or needs to build new models. An interdisciplinary approach is required (agronomic and environmental sciences, economy, social sciences, innovation sciences…) Specific regional aspects should also be addressed (transition problems of Eastern European agriculture, water scarcity in Southern regions…) OUTPUT / DELIVERABLES Recommendations for policy makers and farmers, system models showing the resource use and environmental consequences of management strategies, more efficient use of agricultural inputs, knowledge transfer. Assessment of regional strategies, and references on innovative CS adapted to different regions of Europe, including cropping systems adapted to reduced water availability. Evaluation and quality records of N fertilizer, energy saving and GHG emission reduction by introducing grain legume in cropping systems. Models of cropping systems with favourable energy balance. Economic rating of the different systems including the effects of the integration of crops of agronomical interest but with low gross margin. A scale/framework to evaluate different cropping systems with regard to sustainability. Recommendations to farmers and stakeholders. IMPACTS Enhancement of the sustainability and environmental friendliness of agricultural production. Decreased dependence of European CS on non renewable or limited resources. Increased adaptability and flexibility of EU cropping systems. PARTNERSHIP FUNDING INSTITUTION/S EU + National agencies in joint programming framework OTHER REMARKS Need coordination network + research Includes elements of topics 5-1.1, 1.9, 1.22, 1.19, 1.16, 1.12, 1.17

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 167 of 171

RESEARCH TOPIC

C: Limiting the impact of AC systems on GHG emissions and climate change CHALLENGE 4.7 Minimise greenhouse gas emissions per unit of product / 4.1 Improving resource use efficiency: nutrients RESEARCH GOAL 4.7.2 Minimize N2O emissions/ 4.1.5 Nitrogen optimisation at cropping system scale WORKING GROUP WG3.5 and WG3.1 (Original EUROCROP topics: 5.22 and 1.11) BACKGROUND Agriculture, animal husbandry and forestry (including deforestation) are reputed to cause around 20% of the world anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Arable crops systems are concerned due to the use of N fertilizers and soil tillage practices. The two major greenhouse gases emitted by European cropping systems are CO2 and N2O. N2O being characterized by its high global warming potential. CO2 is emitted during combustion of fossil fuels which is necessary for the production of the inputs (fertilizers…), for transportations and for cultural operations. Long-term changes in soil C content also play an important role in the effect of cropping systems on climate change. Carbon may be released from or sequestered in the soil, depending on the management of the cropping system. For instance, conservation tillage has a potential for converting many soils from sources of atmospheric carbon to sinks for this element. The N2O emissions result from the use of mineral and organic N fertilizers, and from the N dynamics in soils, due to both denitrification and nitrification. Soil emissions of N2O are highly dependent on soil nitrate content, water content, temperature and on other soil properties. N2O attributed to the cropping systems is the difference between natural emissions and the actual emissions due to growing the crop. Both direct (from the arable soils directly) and indirect emissions (from other ecosystems induced by N volatilized from the arable soils and by leaching or runoff of N from these soils) must be taken into account. In the past, a great deal of work was performed on the relationship between management and one pathway of nitrogen loss (NO3, NH3, N2O etc.). However, there are some trade-offs between the reduction of different kinds of N emissions: e.g. reducing NH3 emissions by increasing N in soil leading to higher NO3 leaching. An experimental dataset on those trade-offs is needed, especially on N2O. Agricultural practices (conservation tillage or deep plowing, fertilizers or manures applications…) can significantly affect the balance of soil organic carbon and GHG emissions. A global approach accounting for the multiple sources of greenhouse gases is necessary, because the ways to decrease the emission from one source may increase the emissions from other sources. For instance, the replacement of deep tillage by shallow tillage decreases fuel consumption and tends to increase soil C content, but on the other hand it often results in increased direct N2O emission. Hence, trade-offs must be identified. OBJECTIVE To better understand the effect of cropping systems on greenhouse gas emissions in order to be able to optimize crop management and cropping systems in the objective of reducing these emissions. To gain more knowledge on the interactions between the different N emission sources. CONTENT Simulation of the effect of crop management on greenhouse gas emissions, N volatilization (NH3 and NOX) and of NO3- leaching using crop models is the best way to develop a global approach. The simulation of indirect N2O emission with a model at the landscape level would also be helpful. Such EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 168 of 171

models already exist, but they must be validated and probably improved in the European conditions. Experimental databases are necessary to validate the models. There is not enough experimental data, especially on the effect of crop management on direct N2O emissions. The main factors are N fertilizer management, tillage, irrigation, and the application of organic matter. The effect of the amount of N fertilizer has already been studied, but the results are highly variable. The main part of this variability probably results from environmental conditions. However, the timing of N application and the N form also play a role. This must be investigated. The variability of the effect of shallow tillage compared with deep tillage on N2O direct emissions must also be studied, as well as the effect of the timing and the amount of irrigation interacting with tillage and N fertilizer management. Little is known on the effect of organic matter, because of the diversity of forms of this product. A typological approach is necessary. The emission under legume crops must also be further investigated. The experimental data could also be used to derive emission factors, which can be used to optimize cropping systems instead of modeling. With this approach it would not be possible to investigate all combinations of factors, but on the other hand it should be more robust Field experiments comparing the different N emissions (N2O, NO3, NH3) of cropping systems designed to reduce N fertilizer use (introduction of legume, use of organic nitrogen), and N leaching (with intercrop practices such as catch crop ) in a dynamic way along the rotation in pluriannual experiments. Create a network of pluriannual experiments in different climatic, soil and management conditions (with or without irrigation, with classical soil cultivation versus conservation tillage, more and less intensive…). The experiments should be completed by an assessment of N emission for organic source of nitrogen. Energy and carbon balances could also be assessed. At last, knowledge should be integrated in proposals for improved cropping systems in different regions of Europe. OUTPUT / DELIVERABLES Knowledge about the trade-off i) for future work on optimization of cropping systems to reduce all source of greenhouse gas emission, ii) to improve N models. A set of data, emission factors, to calibrate/validate N-models and study the effect of cropping systems on greenhouse gas emissions Cropping systems with low greenhouse gas emissions Experimental databases on the effect of the main crop management factors on greenhouse gas emissions, especially direct N2O emissions IMPACT Better understanding of N cycling in arable crops, enabling to take targeted measures to reduce N losses and to increase N use efficiency Less greenhouse gas emitted by cropping systems, per land unit or per unit of output product. PARTNERSHIP Partnership: research organizations, networks between experimental and modeling researchers. FUNDING INSTITUTION/S EU, national agencies in joint programming OTHER REMARKS The project should build on the results of the integrated EU-Projects Nitro-Europe and CarboEurope.

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 169 of 171

RESEARCH TOPIC

D: Better understanding of public concern about Arable Crops production and products and communication with global and local societies. CHALLENGE 2.8 Understanding and addressing purchaser demand 5.6 Achieving a positive perception of AC systems RESEARCH GOAL 2.8.2 Understanding the consumers' preferences and needs WORKING GROUP WG 3.4 (4.7) BACKGROUND Consumer’s and citizen’s fears over science and technologies used in agriculture and food industries, the archetype being GM crops, have been a growing phenomenon for more than 15 years, increasing in intensity at the occasion of repeated crises. These fears and concerns deal with food safety aspects, on one side (“consumers” perception), and environmental and social impacts (“citizens” perception) on the other side. These fears are seen to be hampering the wider use of innovating technologies in Europe, and may place additional burdens on industry (e.g. in dealing with co-existence issues to ensure product purity, for current dominant non-GM markets). They cause a more and more dual vision of agriculture which could be caricatured as (bad) intensive polluting agriculture versus (good) environmental organic agriculture. At a different level, the image in the public opinion of agriculture and Arable Crops production systems is a key point for the future legitimacy of public supports to the sector. Consumers and citizens are more than ever faced by contradictory choices (including prices, social and environmental impacts of consumption…). There is a need for AC agriculture to better understand the general public’s areas of concern, to provide informed, balanced advice and comments and progress towards a new relationship between AC sector and society. And a need for the consumers to obtain factual elements to light up their choices. OBJECTIVE To better understand the EU general public’s concerns over AC based food and AC production processes. To propose actions and contents for public information. To enhance relations with representative stakeholders. CONTENT Engagement and consultation through surveys and meetings to ascertain views and assertions. To rationalize this into a list of key concerns and provide balanced information notes in response. OUTPUT / DELIVERABLES Wide publication of balanced view document addressing widely held concerns in the general public – including identifying areas of doubt. IMPACT Development of engagement in the debates on science and technologies in agriculture. Renewed dialogue with society and stakeholders. PARTNERSHIP FUNDING INSTITUTION/S EU

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 170 of 171

EUROCROP final report, V2.1, May 2009

Page 171 of 171