|
|
17 January 1992
Doc. 6544
1403-14/1/92-1-E
O P I N I O N
on agriculture's contribution to enhancing energy security
and saving the global environment1
(Rapporteur: Mrs VERSPAGET, Netherlands, Socialist)
I. Introduction
1. Most of us believe that agriculture's sole function is to feed people. We tend to forget that it has a long tradition of, and a considerable potential for, producing other things as well (apart, of course, from its providing employment and serving as an important source of income in rural regions).
2. Industrial development has brought about an almost complete reliance on fossil fuels, nuclear power and hydro-energy. As a consequence, the role of agriculture and forestry as energy-suppliers became insignificant (whereas before they were the main source of energy for society, by feeding horses and oxen, and by supplying wood for heating purposes).
3. Agriculture's growing orientation towards food production exclusively was encouraged by large subsidies that farmers started receiving as from the 1950s and 1960s. "Linear" price guarantees led to considerable overproduction, and to the appearance of the famous (or infamous) "mountains" of this and "lakes" of the other commodity. Farmers tried to enhance their production by all means, not least the massive use of fertilisers and pesticides.
4. Overproduction of food is costly, implying as it does not only production subsidies but also storage costs and export support. The case for using part of the arable land available for alternative purposes is therefore strong.
5. The report by the Committee on Agriculture, presented by
Mr Scheer (Doc. 6536), is far-sighted and bold in its central message: that Europe can overcome an important part of its strong dependency on imported energy during the next century by relying more on biomass produced by agriculture and forestry.
II. Uncertainty of traditional energy supplies
6. Since the mid-1950s, oil has been Europe's primary source of energy, preferred because of its low price and the comparative ease (in relation to coal) with which it could be transported. The 1956 Suez crisis, but more importantly the 1973 and 1979 oil crises, made the industrialised countries realise that this source was not only becoming expensive but also insecure. They therefore tried to reduce their consumption of oil and develop alternative sources of energy.
7. However, this is easier said than done; any further expansion of the role of nuclear power is controversial, especially after Chernobyl. Eolian, tidal and solar power, however welcome, cannot be expected to make more than a marginal contribution to the total energy supply. Finally, fusion energy is not likely to be available on a large scale until the middle of the next century at the earliest. Europe is therefore left in a vulnerable situation, especially in the event of further turmoil in the Middle East or in the former Soviet Union, still the world's largest oil producer. Hence the need to consider agriculture's potential in reducing this vulnerability.
III. An economic case for biomass, provided the right price of oil
8. The production of biomass for energy purposes is normally not profitable when the price of oil is low, say in the $ 18 - $ 25 per barrel range. In addition, the energy needed to transport the biomass from the field to processing stations, and from there to consumers, is high, apart from the fact that its energy output (ie relative to its mass) is lower than that of oil. However, were the price of oil to rise to, say, over $ 40 per barrel - which is not impossible in the event of future emergencies of the kinds mentioned - then the story would be different.
9. We should, therefore, be prepared to develop the production of biomass, so that we stand ready to give it a larger role when higher energy prices make this feasible. Indeed, even if biomass were only to cover the energy needs of agriculture proper, then this would be no mean contribution. Doing so would not only help the environment, by reducing carbon dioxide emissions (while CO2 is produced by the burning of biomass, it is also absorbed by growing crops). In addition, it would create employment in rural areas and stimulate research into new crop with greater energy coefficients. This could, as Mr Scheer points out in the report of the Committee on Agriculture, be of great help also to developing countries and nations in Central and Eastern Europe as they try to overcome their energy scarcity.
10. The question then becomes, should we subsidise agricultural energy production to "get it going"? The majority opinion of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development seems to be that this would not be a good idea. Subsidies to European agriculture have brought many problems, it was felt, without there being a need to add to them by artificially supporting yet another activity. Market forces should prevail, which of course does not preclude the research and development recommended above.
IV. Agriculture, forestry and the environment
11. More generally, our Assembly needs to focus more on the environmental impact, for better or for worse, of modern agriculture and forestry, in particular as regards "global warming". For instance, methane in manure contributes to the warming process, and excess manure production is becoming a major problem in such countries as the Netherlands and Denmark.
12. Reforestation, in Europe and all over the world, could help
reduce excessive CO2 in the atmosphere and thereby counteract "global warming". Land no longer needed in agriculture could be reforested and thereby help reduce our continent's shortage of wood. Your Rapporteur indeed sees a relationship between that shortage and Europe's large imports of tropical wood. The latter, of course, contribute to the disappearance of precious forests in many developing countries. The world needs an overall view, and management, of its forestry resources, and an international treaty should be concluded on the matter. It should include such things as:
- a plan for afforestation and reforestation, including funding;
- a means for assessing the impact of forests on the climate;
- greater emphasis on what some call "social forestry" in the Third World, that is to say its contribution to the long-term development of local communities;
- the encouragement of trade based on sound and sustainable management of forestry resources.
V. Concluding remarks
13. The Assembly's Recommendation 1092 (1989) on European agriculture as a supplier of raw materials and energy to industry inter alia called on Council of Europe member states to "promote infrastructure investments needed for the collection, transport and processing of agriculturally produced raw materials and energy" and to "replace the many laws and regulations which at present serve to hamper development of renewable energy and raw materials by flexible, non-discriminatory ones, or even, where necessary, to enact laws that discriminate in their favour, for the purpose of saving agriculture and the environment".
14. Biomass for energy could bring about, not the solution to the energy problem, but one solution among others. Europe will have to rely on a variety of energy sources if it wants to reduce its vulnerability. To count out agriculture would be short-sighted and counterproductive.
15. Finally, who says "agriculture" also says "environment". Whether we talk about biomass, manure or forestry resources, they also have an environmental impact that must be taken into consideration. Wood is the most important source of energy in large parts of the Third World, and energy security can only be secured through proper forestry management. The industrialised world must contribute, through its own policies and through international agreements, to such a state of affairs.
Reporting committee: Committee on Agriculture.
Committee for opinion: Committee on Economic Affairs and Development.
Reference to committee: Doc. 6340 and Reference No. 1710 of 28 January 1991.
Opinion: Unanimously approved by the committee on 12 December 1991.