Is Europe prepared to shut out the developing world, right when it’s most in need of trade and economic exchange? Some in the global south have good reason to fear so. Last week, the EU quietly announced its Farm to Fork (F2F) strategy, which is meant to create environmentally sustainable food production systems. Unfortunately, unrealistic expectations embedded therein effectively slam the door on the global south.
That includes nations like Malaysia, which are making real progress toward the very outcomes F2F is supposedly aimed at.
F2F aims to set “the global standard for sustainability,” creating an EU benchmark for sustainable farming (as part of the Green Deal). Given the EU is the world’s largest market, this is neither a surprising nor unwelcome aspiration.
But there are grounds for criticism.
Europe’s own farming organizations have criticized the EU for setting highly ambitious and “unrealistic targets,” which will put food security at risk. European farmers fear they will be left to shoulder the majority of the cost of further environmental and climate protection. This will be especially burdensome to small-holder farmers.
The EU’s strategy has also come under attack from environmental NGO’s, who criticized the EU’s unwillingness to focus on industrial-scale animal farming as part of its sustainable food-produce strategy. This is a curious omission, given that the majority of agricultural CO2 emissions are caused by cattle-farming.
Indeed, industrial farming is the main driver of global deforestation. What then explains the omission? Perhaps this: The EU is the world’s third-largest beef producer, responsible for 13 percent of global supply. That, however, is not the only instance of environmental outcomes sacrificed to the priorities of domestic industry. In at least one other respect, the F2F strategy sets out “unrealistic targets” — which will perversely accomplish precisely the opposite of what is intended.
That’s because F2F also aims outward: The EU Commission has proposed incorporating F2F standards and priorities as conditions for trade with third countries, beginning in 2021 and enforceable by 2027. That is to say, nations in the Global South — for example, the Middle East and North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia — will have to make seismic changes to their economies in under a decade. In some cases, EU priorities will require a near transformation of the agricultural systems of comparatively less developed countries.
Expecting these nations to meet EU standards within years of the biggest global downturn in living memory is not just unreasonable, it’s outright dangerous. Many globally southern countries are reeling from the consequences of the coronavirus pandemic, and unable to inject their economies with the kind of financial support wealthier countries have access to. It is a policy that will especially hurt nations like Egypt, Morocco, and Turkey, all significant exporters of agricultural produce to the EU.
Expecting these countries to meet radically new standards within years of a massive global downturn is also self-defeating. The overall outcome of the EU’s policy will be to force globally southern nations to diversify agricultural exports to reach new trading partners (instead of the EU), which will include countries and regions that hold lower environmental standards, thereby undermining the very trade-incentive the EU has long used to encourage more sustainable practices worldwide. Take the instance of my country, Malaysia, and one of our major exports: Palm oil.
Not only has Malaysia made significant progress in sustainable palm oil production (declaring a moratorium on palm oil expansion to protect forest cover at 50 percent and making sustainable palm oil certification obligatory for producers), it has also supported small-scale farmers in transitioning to these standards and accessing international markets. Instead of acknowledging that progress and working to resolve any concerns, the EU has mind-bogglingly called for a ban on palm oil imports. Such an abrupt ban might simply encourage exports to countries whose environmental standards are lower.
That would be worse for the environment, worse for EU consumers, and worse for Malaysians.
In place of unreasonable timelines and blanket bans, the EU should find ways to work with Malaysia to help learn best practices and take advantage of the technology and experience Europe has to offer. By opening up to palm oil imports, the EU can work with producers like Malaysia to make sustainable production more competitive — and cleaner. This partnership may mean giving Malaysia more time to meet EU standards. A timeline both parties can agree to.
That is an ideal option for both parties. European farming is a hugely complex enterprise and is highly dependent on exports. Given this dependence on exports — the EU consumes only a small percentage of the food it produces — European farmers require access to overseas markets. If protectionist tactics continue, and trade wars escalate, small-holder farmers within and without the Union will be adversely affected. Green goals will not be met.
A wise approach would see the EU engage globally southern nations in dialogue, creating a more realistic timeframe that meets each side’s concerns. Without endangering the economic stability that countless millions depend on for their livelihood, the EU can more effectively offer incentives to encourage more sustainable agricultural processes. That would be better for the environment, better for EU consumers, and better for the many parts of the world that depend on agricultural exports — be it the MENA region, or my own nation, Malaysia.
• Nik Nazmi bin Nik Ahmad is a Malaysian member of parliament from the People’s Justice Party. He was appointed Chair of the Defense and Home Affairs Select Committee in December 2019.
