Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Strategic autonomy and food security and sustainability’

(own-initiative opinion)

(2022/C 105/09)

Rapporteur:

Klaas Johan OSINGA

Plenary Assembly decision	25.3.2021
Legal basis	Rule 32(2) of the Rules of Procedure
	Own-initiative opinion
Section responsible	Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment
Adopted in section	4.10.2021
Adopted at plenary	20.10.2021
Plenary session No	564
Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)	128/0/1

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

1.1.

The EESC proposes a definition of open strategic autonomy applied to food systems based on food production, workforce and fair trade, with the overarching aim of ensuring food security and sustainability for all EU citizens through a fair, healthy, sustainable and resilient food supply.

1.2.

In particular, EU food systems should be more diversified; the agricultural workforce should be strengthened especially by attracting young people and ensuring decent working conditions and remuneration; trade policies should be aligned with EU food sustainability standards and competitiveness (1).

1.3.

Open strategic autonomy and the sustainability of food systems are best guaranteed by developing a tool box that includes risk management measures to help food supply chains to deal with extreme situations and national and EU authorities to take immediate actions.

1.4.

Recent events caused by COVID-19, extreme weather due to climate disruption and cyber attacks demonstrate the need to improve the resilience and sustainability of food systems. Within the Farm to Fork (F2F) strategy, the European Commission (EC) is developing an EU contingency plan for food supply and food security and an associated EU food crisis response mechanism (2). This should help increase the awareness of risks and include the identification, assessment, mapping and monitoring of key risks through the stress-testing of critical systems at EU and Member State level and help to implement measures which will solve the faced problems.

1.5.

The EU needs a system to prevent events like power and network failures or cyber attacks cascading out of control due to dependencies. For example: a city that needs to be under lockdown for several weeks, a power failure that lasts for several days, a food company or retailer being cyber-attacked.

1.6.

In order to improve the coping mechanisms, there is a need to develop existing food systems and at the same time diversify food systems, including business models for farm shops, urban farming, vertical farming and the ‘local-for-local’ approach in general. This requires a wider application of research and innovation by farmers and growers and should help minimise the risks of ‘food deserts’ and production specialisation (3). At the same time, the advantages of the efficient distribution system from farms to processing and markets should be strengthened.

1.7.

To ensure the long-term production of sufficient and healthy food and viable livelihoods it is important that natural resources are used in a sustainable way, preserving soil and water resources, combating climate change and biodiversity losses and protecting animal welfare. The EU should also strengthen local and regional production to combine well-balanced food production and food processing with low carbon foot print.

1.8.

The CAP plays a vital economic, social and environmental role. It should stabilise markets during crises while providing a safety net for farmers and processors protecting the environment, the climate, workforce and animal welfare. The CAP plays a role in maintaining the strategic production capacity, food safety and security.

1.9.

Farms, fertile agricultural land and water are strategic assets and must be protected up to a certain level across the EU: they constitute the backbone of our open strategic food autonomy.

1.10.

The EESC reiterates its recommendation to explore the option of a multi-stakeholder and multi-level European Food Policy Council (4). In the context of open strategic autonomy, such a Council could play, inter alia, a monitoring role and help evaluate and anticipate the risks in the food supply chain.

1.11.

The EU needs to ensure that borders are kept safely open and that workforce together with logistics are kept going for food production and distribution (‘green lanes’) both within the EU and towards third countries. This requires a strong mechanism of coordination between the Member States, the EC and third countries.

2.   Introduction

2.1.

This own-initiative opinion aims to explore the concept of ‘open strategic autonomy’ for Europe in relation to future food security and sustainability, and provide forward-looking views and policy recommendations from civil society. In particular, the opinion offers ‘food for thought’ on issues arising from recent events like COVID-19, extreme weather, cyber attacks and political/social tensions.

2.2.

‘Open strategic autonomy’ should be seen as an opportunity for the EU to ensure the security of its food supply and set high sustainability standards, particularly in the context of the European Green Deal and the UN SDGs. The European challenge of food sustainability needs to be addressed both internally and externally, and this opinion will also look at possible ways to protect and improve availability of sustainable food for all EU citizens, especially in times of crises.

2.3.

The opinion builds on a number of proposals and concrete ideas already put forward by the EESC in its previous work (5). These proposals can be summarised as follows: — foster a comprehensive food policy in the EU, with the aim of nurturing healthy diets from sustainable food systems, linking agriculture to nutrition and ecosystem services, and ensuring supply chains that safeguard public health for all sections of European society. Such a policy, now reflected in the Commission’s F2F strategy, should improve consistency across food-related policy areas, restore the value of food and promote a long-term shift from food productivism and consumerism to food citizenship, — enhance the potential of short food supply chains, agroecology and product quality schemes, — ensure fair prices and ban unfair trading practices, — incorporate the Green Deal’s F2F and Biodiversity strategies as global sustainability standards in all future EU trade deals, — ensure the structured involvement and participation of civil society and of all stakeholders across the food supply chain, including through a European Food Policy Council.

2.4.

Finally, the own-initiative opinion aims to provide valuable insights for the ongoing work on the Green Deal’s F2F strategy, CAP, Trade Policy Review and Strategic Foresight Agenda, bringing EU food security and sustainability to the heart of the analysis.

2.5.

In September 2021, the UN held a Food Systems Summit (FSS), aimed at helping countries to achieve the 17 SDGs, in particular SDG2 — Zero Hunger. The EESC provided a contribution to the debate (6).

3.   Open strategic autonomy, the key elements for the food system

3.1.

According to the EC, ‘open strategic autonomy’ is the EU’s ability to make its own choices and shape the world around it through leadership and engagement, reflecting its strategic interests and values. It enables the EU to be stronger, both economically and geopolitically, by being (7): — open to trade and investment that helps the EU economy to recover from crises and remain competitive and connected to the world; — sustainable and responsible, taking the lead internationally to shape a greener and fairer world, reinforcing existing alliances and engaging with many partners; — assertive against unfair and coercive practices and ready to enforce its rights, while always favouring international cooperation to solve global problems.

3.2.

‘Open strategic autonomy’ needs to be better defined when it comes to food systems. The EESC wants to contribute to the thinking on how the EU can be better prepared for future crises. This should be part of the EU Recovery Plan, for example through the use of the Next Generation EU funds.

3.3.

The EESC suggests a definition of open strategic autonomy based on of food production, workforce and fair trade, with the overarching aim of ensuring food security and sustainability for EU citizens through a fair, sustainable and resilient food supply.

3.4.   Food production

3.4.1.

Food security should be approached from international, national and local perspectives. 55 % of the world’s population lives in towns, where little fresh food is produced — so-called food deserts. The UN expects an increase to 68 % by 2050. Projections show that urbanisation combined with the overall growth of the world’s population could add another 2,5 billion people to urban areas by 2050 (8). Europe’s level of urbanisation is expected to increase to approximately 83,7 % in 2050 (9).

3.4.2.

Within the internal market of the European Union, food is transported daily mostly from rural areas and processing industries to supermarkets in urban areas. However, local, farm and e-shops enjoyed increased popularity among consumers during the lockdowns of 2020/2021.

3.4.3.

The development of short supply chains contributes to Europe’s resilience. Local channels should be consistent with the needs of the populations and the specificities of the territories and climates. Processing capacities should be more developed at the local level.

3.4.4.

The diversification of production will also help to increase the EU’s resilience. An increase in the agricultural land dedicated to organic farming is foreseen in the F2F strategy, and allotments, urban and vertical farming (10) are valid options saving food miles and becoming more and more popular. These initiatives should be linked to other local and regional food production and processing to build a safety net.

3.4.5.

Mapping of vulnerabilities should be at the top of the EU agenda. The Member States and the EC should cooperate in exposing gaps, reducing food waste, developing scenarios and coordinating targeted training and communication.

3.4.6.

Intelligent food stock management should be part of the EU’s open strategic autonomy in food. This should include regular rotation of strategic stocks while avoiding trader speculation, including buying commodities and food under the cost price (11), and strong market reactions by ensuring market transparency.

3.5.   The workforce

3.5.1.

There are not enough young people that are trained and willing to farm. In 2016, for every EU farmer younger than 35 years, there were more than six farmers older than 65 years (12).

3.5.2.

In addition, farmers continue to absorb a disproportionate share of the damage and loss wrought by disasters. Their growing frequency and intensity, along with the systemic nature of risk, are upending people’s lives, devastating livelihoods and jeopardising our entire food system.

3.5.3.

It is essential to increase the agricultural workforce in Europe, protect farming and fertile agricultural land, and provide adequate agricultural knowledge and innovation systems (AKIS). Young people and women must be encouraged to enter farming and attract to stay working in the farms for years.

3.5.4.

Ensuring decent working conditions for EU and non-EU workers in agriculture and in the food sector at all levels of the supply chain is a prerequisite for implementing a sustainable and resilient food system. Adequate financing, fair and higher wages, fair prices, climate adaptation subsidies and seasonal worker rights should be granted.

3.5.5.

A comprehensive EU food policy should, according to the EESC, deliver: economic, environmental and socio-cultural sustainability. It is therefore imperative to ensure that the F2F strategy fundamentally reshapes supply chain dynamics and delivers durable improvements in farmers’ incomes and livelihoods (13). We question whether this necessary fundamental shift will come about if the right political and economic incentives are not put in place?

3.6.   Trade

3.6.1.

EU-27 agri-food exports in 2020 were valued at EUR 184,3 billion, a rise of 1,4 % compared to 2019, while imports, at EUR 122,2 billion, were 0,5 % higher than in the previous year. The agri-food trade surplus in 2020 was EUR 62 billion, up 3 % from 2019 (14). According to the JRC, EUR 1 billion of agri-food exports creates on average 20 000 jobs, of which 13 700 are in the primary sector. At the same time agriculture accounted for about 4,2 % of total employment in the EU in 2016 (15).

3.6.2.

The UK, US, China, Switzerland and Japan were the EU’s biggest agri-food markets, taking more than 52 % of all exports. The biggest sources of EU agri-food imports in 2020 included the UK, Brazil, US, Ukraine and China.

3.6.3.

The EU plays a major role in the global trade of agri-food products and it is essential that its trade policies are aligned with its sustainable objectives. In a previous opinion (16), the EESC proposed that all future EU trade deals incorporate the Green Deal’s F2F and Biodiversity strategies as global sustainability standards. It recognised the importance and value of rules-based trade operating on a level playing field and the major contribution this will make to economic recovery post COVID-19.

3.6.4.

To reduce the dependency on agricultural inputs the EU should support low-input practices, especially in terms of fossil fuels and pesticides and foster the production capacity of agricultural inputs in Europe.

3.6.5.

Innovative systems are needed to protect and enhance the natural resource base, while promoting efficient production (17). New technologies, robots and vaccines are important assets to be developed.

4.   Risk management and stress-testing scenario

4.1.

According to the FAO, humanity and our food security face a range of new and unprecedented threats, such as extreme weather due to climate disruption, diseases and pandemics. Agriculture faces an array of risks, interacting in a hyperconnected world (18).

4.2.

The FAO reports that, during 2020/21, food prices rose to the highest level since 2011 (19). It is often reported that price volatility is driven in part by speculation. The UN and OECD report that, in 2020, between 720 and 811 million people faced hunger. Nearly one out of three people in the world (2,37 billion) did not have access to adequate food in 2020, an increase of 320 million in 1 year (20).

4.3.

The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrates that food security is — even in Europe — not to be taken for granted. All players and activities throughout the food chain are hyper-connected. During the pandemic, countries introduced trade restrictions. Even within the EU, Member States took unilateral measures closing borders, threatening the transport of food and seasonal workers. Thanks to rapid adaptations by farmers and food chain partners, production, processing and distribution kept going. The Commission also took action to keep the internal market functioning. However, many entrepreneurs have been economically hit by the crisis as travel, tourism and food services closed down.

4.4.

Cyber attacks such as ransomware attacks lead to real life crises because today so much is online (‘Internet of things’). The press agency AP reported that the average payment to cybercriminals increased by 311 % in 2020 to USD 310 000. On average, the victims only regained access to their data after 21 days (21).

4.5.

In April 2021, the biggest Dutch supermarket (Albert Heijn) ran out of certain cheese products for several days because of a cyber attack at a major distributor (22). Recently, the world’s biggest meatpacker JBS was attacked. This has intensified security concerns in the US over its national food supply (23). It appears that many cyber attacks go unreported by companies to avoid market reactions such as hoarding and prices sky-rocketing. Companies have also suffered significant impacts from cyber attacks even though they were not the direct target of the attack, such as the closure in July 2021 of several hundred stores in the Cooperative group in Sweden following the ransomware attack on the US Kaseya software supplier (24).

4.6.

Equally worrying was the blockage of the Suez canal by a 200 000 tonne container vessel in early April 2021. Such incidents show the vulnerability of global supply chains. If these chains are disrupted for a few days, it takes a long time to catch up again and this may cause price rises for consumers and companies.

4.7.

In September, the EC published its 2021 Strategic Foresight Report, focused on open strategic autonomy (25). The Commission considers ‘ensuring sustainable and resilient food systems’ as one of the key strategic areas to strengthen the EU’s global leadership. In this regard, the need to invest in innovation to safeguard resilient and sustainable food systems is mentioned (26).

4.8.

Additionally, a recent technical paper by the Joint Research Centre provides background for the resilience dashboards presented in the 2020 Strategic Foresight Report of the EC (27). This includes vulnerability indicators related to access to local services and food import dependence, and proves the geo-political importance of food. A dashboard helps to map vulnerability and to develop targeted stress-testing. However, this is a general approach as there is no one single indicator, and the resilience dashboards are currently under revision.

4.9.

There is a need for supply chains to move from ‘just in time’ to ‘just in case’. Dependence on monopoly suppliers for certain goods can be subject to interference by hostile governments. This is also an issue of supply of inputs to farmers and food processors. The EESC therefore calls for a security review of EU food availability. This should be done through scenario studies.

4.10.

Stress-testing should be used to expose vulnerabilities. For example: what are possible consequences of local/regional/national energy and telecom network failures lasting several days? This is widely understood to be one of the highest-demand risks to any nation’s critical infrastructure including food supply. Direct impacts to food supply include: loss of electricity, water and gas supply; loss of refrigeration and freezing capability; loss of cooking, baking and processing/manufacturing facilities; loss of heating and lighting; the inability to ensure basic food hygiene; and the inability to obtain fuel for distribution vehicles or other uses in the supply chain. However, indirect impacts due to impacts on other critical infrastructure could also have significant consequences. A prolonged absence of telecoms and data comms would present serious and immediate challenges to how companies communicate internally, and with government agencies, suppliers, customers and consumers to facilitate the dissemination of vital information and to operate reordering and payments including through banking link systems.

4.11.

The EESC recommends a further investigation of this scenario.

5.   Recommendations on the way forward

5.1.

Open strategic autonomy as a concept offers opportunities, but also poses risks. The prosperity of the EU depends also on world trade, and therefore on clear rules for trade and set measures.

5.2.

When food gets scarce, or appears to, panic-buying may occur, while the appetite of consumers for thinking about the climate, biodiversity or animal welfare may fall away. So Europe can only become greener if it also gets more resilient.

5.3.

COVID-19 has shown that when supply chains get disrupted for a longer period there are ripple effects throughout the whole economy. It may take several years to get back to normal.

5.4.

Open strategic autonomy in food cannot exist without an open and fair trade policy. The European Union cannot go back to protectionist policies because this would create new vulnerabilities and potentially cause great harm (28). For example: the EU supplies grain to North Africa and the Middle East. Often, international supply chains are more efficient and diversified and therefore more capable of rapid adaptation to new shocks than local ones.

5.5.

The EU should evaluate in which cases and for which products self-reliance is a valuable approach. Awareness about how supply chains operate should be increased among consumers and the general public.

5.6.

The EU, with the UN and its trade partners, needs to address the root causes of food insecurity and contribute to a much needed food system transformation making agriculture more resilient to shocks. Governments have a role to play in supporting supply chains becoming more sustainable, robust and secure.

5.7.

In a recent joint non-paper, France and the Netherlands have called for tougher EU trade conditions, including an EU Responsible Business Conduct (RBC) plan. This should ensure a coherent and harmonised policy while maintaining a level playing field for the EU internal market. An EU RBC action plan should be the overarching strategy for the EU’s approach to fostering fair trade and responsible production and the management of supply chains.

5.8.

Spain and the Netherlands recently produced a joint non-paper on pursuing strategic autonomy while preserving an open economy. One of the points made in that paper was that ‘open strategic autonomy’ should be one of the issues debated at the Conference on the Future of Europe.

5.9.

The EU discussion on due diligence (29) and the F2F code of conduct (30) are also relevant in this context. In this regard, companies and organisations in the agri-food sector have now the opportunity to sign the code of conduct on responsible business and marketing practices launched by the EC as part of the F2F strategy (31).

---

(1)  In order for a comprehensive European food policy to be truly relevant for European consumers, it is essential that the food produced sustainably in the EU is competitive. This means that the European agri-food sector is able to deliver food for the consumers at prices that include extra costs for criteria such as sustainability, animal welfare, food safety and nutrition but also a fair return to the farmers, and at the same time maintains its position as the preferred choice for the vast majority of consumers (OJ C 129, 11.4.2018, p. 18; OJ C 429, 11.12.2020, p. 268).

(2)  Contingency plan, EC.

(3)  COVID-19 and the food phenomena, FAO.

(4)  OJ C 129, 11.4.2018, p. 18 and OJ C 429, 11.12.2020, p. 268.

(5)  Among others: OJ C 129, 11.4.2018, p. 18, OJ C 190, 5.6.2019, p. 9, OJ C 429, 11.12.2020, p. 268, OJ C 429, 11.12.2020, p 66, OJ C 440, 6.12.2018, p. 165, EESC opinion on Towards a Fair Food Supply Chain, NAT/823 (OJ C 517, 22.12.2021, p. 38).

(6)  Contribution to the UN Food Systems Summit 2021, EESC.

(7)  Trade Policy Review, EC.

(8)  68% of the world population projected to live in urban areas by 2050, UN.

(9)  Urbanisation in Europe, EC; UN World Urbanisation Prospects 2018.

(10)  Vertical farming, WUR.

(11)  EESC opinion on Towards a Fair Food Supply Chain, NAT/823 (OJ C 517, 22.12.2021, p. 38).

(12)  CAP — Structural change and generational renewal, EC.

(13)  OJ C 429, 11.12.2020, p. 268.

(14)  2020 a year of stability for EU agri-food trade, EC.

(15)  Farmers and the agricultural labour force — statistics, Eurostat.

(16)  OJ C 429, 11.12.2020, p. 66.

(17)  The future of food and agriculture, FAO.

(18)  The impact of disasters and crises on agriculture and food security: 2021, FAO.

(19)  FAO Food Price Index, FAO.

(20)  2021 State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World, WFP.

(21)  Cyberattack on US pipeline is linked to criminal gang, AP News.

(22)  Kaasschaarste bij Albert Heijn na hack leverancier, de Volkskrant.

(23)  Hacking American beef: the relentless rise of ransomware, Financial Times.

(24)  NCSC statement on Kaseya incident, NCSC.

(25)  2021 Strategic Foresight Report, EC.

(26)  Shaping and securing the EU's Open Strategic Autonomy by 2040 and beyond, JRC.

(27)  Resilience Dashboards, EC.

(28)  All future EU trade deals should also incorporate the Green Deal’s F2F and Biodiversity strategies as global sustainability standards. (OJ C 429, 11.12.2020, p. 66).

(29)  Towards a mandatory EU system of due diligence for supply chains, Euractiv.

(30)  Code of Conduct for Responsible Business and Marketing Practices, EC.

(31)  EESC opinion on Aligning food business strategies and operations with the SDGs for a sustainable post-COVID-19 recovery (not yet published in the OJ).