The unprecedented challenges of rolling out a global vaccination programme amidst a pandemic must be recognised.

But the chaotic scenes that we have witnessed within the EU over vaccine production and supply should not go unnoticed. It has exposed serious failings in the European Commission’s approach to global trade – particularly its failure to acknowledge how the moral imperative of a country to protect their own people first will always supersede the legal framework on which the EU places so much faith.

The vaccine fiasco is of particular relevance to how the EU approaches food production and food security within the context of global trade.

It once again reinforces why food and health cannot be viewed in the same way as the manufacturing of aeroplanes when it comes to globalisation.

The vaccine trade wars and the defensive actions taken by large global trading partners exposes just how fragile global supply chains would be in the event of a major shock to food production. As in the case of COVID-19 vaccines, in the event of failure, the response of food exporting countries would not be guided by the legal text of an international trade agreement but by their moral imperative to feed their citizens first.

Food security

Given the extent to which global agriculture has always kept pace with demand, having doubled food production over the past 50 years, most believe global food shortages are sentenced to history – largely reflecting the extent to which food security is now taken for granted among modern society. But as COVID-19 has taught us, things that we once took for granted can quickly be taken away.

At the turn of the millennium, world food reserves were at a level that would feed the world for three months. Within a decade this had halved to just six to seven weeks and has continued to fall since. Looking ahead, population growth, according to the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), will drive food demand by a further 70% over the next three decades.

Despite the warm words, the EU has lost its commitment to protecting the livelihood of its farmers

When this increased demand for food and fibre is layered over a growing demand for feedstocks from the bio-energy sector, plus the challenges of developing more efficient, sustainable and climate-sensitive production models, the threat to global food security becomes clear. The risk of the threat becoming reality is further heightened by weather events, disease outbreaks or the type of logistical breakdowns witnessed in the Suez Canal over the past week.

Despite this, we see the European Commission continue to pursue an agenda that sacrifices EU food production only to expose EU consumers to increasingly fragile global food supply chains. Nowhere is this more evident than in the trade agenda. We see the Commission continue with a Mercosur trade deal that will undermine beef production within the EU while at the same time drive up the environmental footprint of global food production.

The same flaws are evident in relation to both the EU Farm to Fork strategy and the ongoing direction of CAP reform. An analysis by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has shown measures within the Farm to Fork strategy would reduce the productive capacity of EU agriculture by 12%, reduce farm incomes by 16% and increase reliance on food imports. Nevertheless, we see Commissioner for Agriculture Janusz Wojciechowski drive forward an organic agenda in the complete absence of any EU analysis assessing the impact on farm incomes and food security.

CAP reform

We see the same approach being taken in the ongoing CAP reform where the agenda is no longer driven by agriculture but by Commission Vice-President Frans Timmermans, who is leading the Green Deal, and Commissioner for Health and Food Safety Stella Kyriakides.

It is clear that the core objectives of CAP – to protect farm incomes and availability of food supplies – are being sacrificed by an environmental agenda. This is driven by the Commission’s desire to make Europe the world’s first climate-neutral continent by 2050 – regardless of the negative impact on EU farm incomes, food security and total emissions from global agriculture.

This time last year, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen took to Twitter to thank EU farmers for making sure food remained on the shelves as COVID-19 swept through Europe. She later described EU farmers as the symbol of resilience in the face of the pandemic. Despite the warm words, it’s clear that the EU has lost its commitment to safeguarding EU food production and protecting the livelihood of its farmers. It has been replaced by a vague environmental agenda without any scientific base or economic analysis driven by the perception that the world has already enough food for its population and has the capacity to feed the population forecast for 2050.

It is under this perception that we see agricultural policy being developed by those with limited knowledge of it and little regard to the EU’s role in achieving the goal of increasing food production while reducing global emissions.

This week's cartoon

\ Jim Cogan

COVID-19: thank you for your support

Twelve months ago in the face of COVID-19 and the unprecedented lockdown that followed, we made a commitment to our readers that we would work as a team to inform, support and entertain you in whatever way we could. I sincerely hope that you feel we have delivered on what we set out to achieve.

I know I speak for all of the team when I express a sincere thank you for your support over the past year. To see more and more readers turn to the Irish Farmers Journal during these difficult times has been incredibly humbling.

Farmers are not allowed around the ring at marts as restrictions continue. \ Odhran Ducie

Few could have expected that as we prepared in 2020 for an Easter in lockdown that we would find ourselves in a similar position in 2021.

Over this period, so many have suffered and to each of you that lost loved ones we offer our deepest sympathies.

As the rollout of the vaccine programme sees more and more people vaccinated in the weeks and months ahead, we will hopefully get back closer to normality in the summer and autumn. I know all of us in the Irish Farmers Journal are looking forward to once again being able to meet you in person at events in the near future.

In this regard, we wish Anna May McHugh and her team in the National Ploughing Championships the very best of luck as they plan ahead in these uncertain times.

Beef: new suckler programme

Are farmers best served if Teagasc is relying on funding from the industry?

Elsewhere this week, Adam Woods reports on a new suckler programme between Teagasc and Meat Industry Ireland – a positive development but one that further deepens the influence of the industry in knowledge transfer – across all sectors. Does this best serve farmers? Should an organisation receiving over €160m per annum in State funding be increasingly dependent on industry funding to provide farmer-facing services? Given the extent to which these programmes are prevalent in the industry, should Teagasc be required to publish all service level agreements and funding models for each of their joint programmes? In the beef sector, industry influence has seen Teagasc abandon any meaningful level of research on bull beef. The decision was taken with minimal economic analysis as to the impact on farm incomes. It has left farmers killing less efficient steers at prices lower than paid for bulls in our main export markets and up to €350 lower than UK steers.

Marts: following restrictions a must for trade

In the coming weeks, throughput at marts around the country will increase significantly. It is essential that all steps are taken to ensure they remain open and in a position to trade stock.

Restricting bidding to online platforms is causing difficulties for some but the solution is not to ignore the Government guidelines. Doing so will put the entire mart system at risk at a time of year when it plays a critical role in facilitating farmers to securely buy and sell stock.

Food prices: developing a retailer code of conduct

Also in this week's edition, Matt Dempsey explores the challenges farmers face due to imbalance of power in the supply chain. The ability to address this through legislation at national or EU level has proved largely ineffective. Is it time for EU farmers to use the power of the consumer by developing a farmer-owned retailer code of conduct and consumer-facing logo to which only retailers adhering to the code would have access. The development and communication of such a logo should be supported through EU funding.