News: European parliment votes against the 0.9% GM threshold in organic food, opting instead for 0.1%, i.e. the detection rate. This doesn't mean that that's the end of the story, just that the debate goes on and the parliment have sent a strong signal to the Commission that...

A: the GM threshold should be as low as possible
B: the parliment want's more power in legislating on organic farming and food in the EU (beyond consultative)

See the parliment's press release and some background

full article in the Irish Examiner thursday 12th on the issue

organic country profile: austria (from 2006)

If anywhere in Europe could be considered a model for organic farming, then its Austria. There are lessons to be learned for all stakeholders in the Irish situation.

Austria has Europe�s largest percentage of land farmed organically, at 14.1%, and the largest proportion of its farms certified organic, at 15%%. That works out at about 20,310 farmers.

Along with this, a very large number of Austrian farmers are signed up to a 32 part REPS-like scheme, called OPUL, though it is far stricter and much closer to organic than the standard (as opposed to supplemental measure 6) REPS.

The world�s first �card carrying� organic (indeed biodynamic) farm was established there in 1927. More recently, the anti-freeze wine scandal of the 1980s, and the more general Europe-wide food scares (in particular BSE) were rightly seen as hugely damaging to conventional agriculture.

Many stakeholders in Austrian agriculture support organics, including their current agriculture minister Josef Pr�ll, who recently stated that by supporting organic farming they �have chosen the right way�.

As a corollary, Austria is seen as being amongst the most anti GM of EU countries. It has, for example, banned GM crops from Monsanto and Bayer for a variety of reasons, including what they claimed was improper planning, the effects on non-target plants, insects and regions, and the risk of transfer of anti-biotic resistance to humans and animals. It currently holds the EU presidency, and consistently votes against GM at EU level.

In the late 1980s and early1990s farmers in regions where it was considered easy or beneficial to convert to organic were encouraged to convert. For example, Austria essentially recognised that further intensification in its grassland Alpine regions was difficult, so they actively encouraged the organic option.

State support has been early, strong and steady. The first socio-environmental scheme was introduced in1987; this scheme encouraged farm pluriactivity (ie having a number of enterprises on the one premises, including non-farming e.g. organic guesthouses). Six more similar schemes have followed; one, in 1995, caused 5,200 conversions in a single year. They have also introduced three organic action plans, and a label to denote produce that is both organic and at least 70% of domestic origin. The current subsidies, introduced in 2000, are far higher than those in Ireland. Per hectare, the figures are: for arable land, � 327, grassland: �250, market gardens: �508 and finally vineyards, fruit, vegetables, tree nurseries and hops: �800.

Various other tipping points towards organic include the arrival of a well organised diary co-op into the sector and an intensive advertising campaign run by large retailers and processors in the mid 1990s.

Recently numerous cereal and vegetable producers have also converted, as the economic climate suits them to.

Another key factor is that they have a non-state generic agriculture lobby group, who do not support one type of farming over another, but who represent all aspects. Likewise, there is an umbrella group, called Bio Austria, who represent the common interests of organic agriculture. This umbrella group has, amongst others, advisory, quality management, product management, research and innovation, consumer information and marketing dimensions. Crucially, they do not have to spend any time carrying out inspections or certifications, which are done by standalone certification organisations. This allows them to fully concentrate on these other functions.

A promising new development for the sector today seems to be the development of eco-regions, whereby various businesses operate in an integrated fashion, to develop whole areas as both attractive to visitors and to create a green image for the region, so organic products from the eco-region are seen as superior to even standalone organic produce.

Despite all of this, the situation is not all rosy for organics in Austria. Recent advertising campaigns stating organic was GM free were pulled because of complaints from the conventional farming lobby, and indeed opposition by key organic lobbyists afraid of rocking the boat. Danish-style fertilizer and pesticide taxes haven�t been introduced. Some are cynical of the unity Bio-Austria represents, and feel that the organic farmers� associations need to reassert themselves. Also, many organic farmers feel that the entire agriculture sector is, because of the amount of organic land and the comprehensiveness of OPUL, creating the impression that all of Austrian agriculture is almost organic anyway.

But compared to elsewhere, really, they have little to be complaining about.

Cuba: organic island

Occasionally in the Examiner (every thursday, farming supplement) I write about different countries to Ireland, where organics are at a more advanced stage. So far, that's been Austria, Denmark and Cuba. The cuba article is below:

In the world of political philosophy, there are different types of freedom. You can have freedom to do stuff, or freedom from various types of wants. Cuba is, by Central American and Caribbean standards, a good example of the latter and a bad example of the former. So, for example, they have good health and education standards, but no open press or proper elections.

They have another thing too: Cuba feeds its population on locally produced organic food. You may of course not see this reality if you go to a five star compound on a two week holiday in Cuba. When Dr. Dr. Micheline Sheehy-Skeffington, an NUI Galway Botanist, spoke of her experiences in Cuba at a conference last year, the odd attendee who had donethe compound holiday seemed incredulous.

But the story of organic agriculture in Cuba is fascinating. Cuban agriculture was intensive, monocultural and export-orientated up until 1989. They exported commodities like tobacco and sugar to the Soviet bloc. They also relied on the Soviet bloc for subsidized inputs, including both fertilizers and fuel. They had, for example, been using c.200 kg of imported subsidized nitrates per hectare in farming in this period.

Needless to say, Cuba found itself in a tricky situation when the Soviet Bloc collapsed. What it did then was to essentially reorganise the production, distribution, consumption and to some extent control of agriculture. And they chose the organic route.

Of course �chose� is perhaps too strong a word; there was also an embargo/blockade, which prevented these inputs from getting to the island. However, facing a serious decline in nutritional levels throughout the 1990s, the transformation of Cuban agriculture has been impressive. There have been changes in state policy, in research and education, in control of production and distribution and of course in practices

Here is a summary of the changes:

� Integrated Pest Management
� Organic fertilizers and biofertilizers
� Soil conservation and recuperation
� Animal traction and alternative energy
� Inter cropping and crop rotation
� Mixing crops and animal production
� Alternative mechanization
� Community participation
� Alternative Veterinary Medicine
Adjusting to local conditions
� Reversing rural migration to cities
� Increasing cooperative use of land
� Improving agrarian research
� Changing agrarian education

� Biopesticides

� worker-managed collectives

� quotas for farmers to insure adequate supply for the whole country;

� farmers' markets where excess food crops can be sold by farmers for profit.

During the 1990s the embargo/blockage was tightened, in 1992 and 1996. However, the nutritional levels of Cubans were, from the mid 1990s on, rising, not falling, a trend which continues to this day.

Urban agriculture has been central to this, especially in a context whereby little if any fuel was available to transport food around.

According to Dr. Nelso Campanioni Concepci�n, deputy director of the National Institute for Fundamental Research on Tropical Agriculture (INIFAT), "The goal of urban agriculture is to gain the most food from every square meter of available space. The secret to the success of urban agriculture in Cuba has been the introduction of new technologies and varieties and an increase in areas farmed."

In 2002, Cuba produced 3.2 million tons of fruit, vegetables and spices in urban farms and gardens on over 35,000 hectares of urban land. Another 2,800 vegetable gardens are expected to be established by the end on 2006.

This is a classic example of necessity breeding ingenuity, and adversity producing abundance. Cubans get fresh organic produce to eat each day, no worries about pesticide drift in built up areas, and no Co2 emissions created.

Dr. Lisa Reynolds has visited Cuba on fact finding missions many times. In her most recent report, she pointed to a number of positive changes. Despite insufficient rainfall and recurring drought in eastern areas, the �agroecological techniques� introduced have stabilised the countryside. Likewise, the introduction of privately-owned farms, co-operatives and a diversified market-based system has increased productivity.

If you want to see this Cuba:

The Cuban Organic Support Group (established in 1997 by members of the Henry Doubbelday Research Association - HDRA) arrange trips. (00 44 24 7667 3491 and http://www.cosg.org.uk/ )

Likewise, WowCuba also arrange agri-trips. See http://www.wowcuba.com/discovery/ag-intro.html