The ‘code of conduct’ for agribusiness operators is the European Commission’s latest ploy to green-light the Farm to Fork strategy, belied in fact by the gray Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform.
The project, launched on 26.1.21, theorizes responsible marketing and sustainable business practices and aspires to define an action plan that can engage all players ‘from fork to table.
European representations of individual sectors and branches of the supply chain are now being asked to compile their manuals of good intentions, which V. President of the European Commission Frans Timmermans will present at the already debated UN Food Summit 2021.
Paper resolutions
The European Commission suggests that supply chain operators adhere, on a voluntary basis, to an undefined model of responsible conduct that should consider four objectives:
1) Promote sustainable (as already proposed in the Green Consumption Pledge Initiative) and healthy consumption patterns,
2) Improve the environmental footprint of the food supply chain (processing, retail, food service and hospitality),
3) Improve (redistribution in) the value chain, with a focus on primary producers,
4) Adopt monitoring and evaluation systems.
Ambitious goals
The initiative is stated to be in line with the
Climate Target Plan 2030
, the strategies
Farm to Fork
e
Biodiversity 2030
. Although the European Commission itself-in the EU Agriculture Scenario Report 2021-2030, 11.1.21-had revised all expectations downward.
The Brussels executive also recalls the Sustanable Development Goals (SDGs), the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, and the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 anchored at the Rio Conference (2002). Ambitious goals, for a program developed in just a few months that affects the Old Continent’s first production chain.
Two-level guidelines
The guidelines-once approved and submitted to the oversight of the Brussels-based executive, proclaimed ‘guardian of the revolution’ Farm to Fork (f2f)-are expected to be on two levels:
– a ‘base’ level of measurement and monitoring that can be followed by all operators, regardless of their size,
– a ‘premium’ level reserved for companies that can give ‘proof of leadership‘ and aspire to more ambitious results.
The guests
‘The dialogue will involve “mid-chain” actors and associations, other economic actors along the general food chain and their representatives (e.g., farmers’ and fishermen’s associations), SME organizations, selected NGOs, experts and universities, consumer representatives, coordinators of national and industry initiatives, and member states’ (European Commission, December 2020).
The guests in Brussels, to be fair, are no more than those at King Arthur’s Round Table. The dozen or so invitees who attend the Commission’s weekly meetings from time to time represent large retailers (e.g., Carrefour, Metro, Tesco, through Eurocommerce), industrial agriculture, and the Big-4 agrochemicals (through COPA-COGECA. See footnote 2) and Big Food(Food Drink Europe).
Changing everything to change nothing
Improvisation of ‘best practices’ without social-environmental impact assessments and binding targets can only benefit greenwashing. With two aggravating factors:
– an external endorsement of self-referral expressed in guidelines for optional adoption and internal monitoring,
– deliberate disregard for the Guidelines for Responsible Land, Forest and Watershed Management(FAO – CFS, 2012) and the Guidelines for Responsible Investment in Agriculture (FAO-CFS 2012, OECD and FAO, 2016). (3)
Good intentions vs. cogent rules
Rather, the poor application of the criteria shared in theCommittee on World Food Security (CFS) and the difficulties that have emerged in the pilot projects activated to promote due diligence on the socio-environmental impact of activities in agri-food supply chains (4) should prompt another reflection.
Is it really possible to protect basic human rights and ecosystems through voluntarily enforceable standards? Instead, is it not necessary to establish cogent rules and shared responsibilities of downstream operators in the supply chain to overcome dirty business-as-usual, as proposed in the European Parliament’s resolution 22.10.20 against deforestation? (5)
Dario Dongo and Giulia Orsi
Notes
(1) Farm to Fork Strategy. Code of Conduct for Responsible Business and Marketing Practices.. European Commission website, https://ec.europa.eu/food/farm2fork/sustainable-food-processing-wholesale-retail-hospitality-and-food-services/code-conduct_en
(2) Dario Dongo, Marta Strinati. Post-2020 CAP, environment and health at risk. Appeal to the EU Parliament. GIFT (Great Italian Food Trade). 16.10.20 https://www.greatitalianfoodtrade.it/consum-attori/pac-post-2020-ambiente-e-salute-a-rischio-appello-al-parlamento-ue
(3) OECD/FAO (2016). OECD/FAO Guidance for Responsible Agricultural Supply Chains. OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264251052-en
(4) Between February 2018 and November 2019, OECD and FAO activated a pilot project on thirty enterprises of various sizes, backgrounds and positions in the value chain. Realizing how external pressures, heavy reliance on industries and gaps in monitoring are the biggest obstacles to the effective implementation of the guidelines mentioned in footnote 3. V. OECD/FAO (2019). OECD-FAO Pilot project on the implementation of the OECD-FAO Guidance for Responsible Agricultural Supply Chains: Final Report, OECD Paris.
(5) Dario Dongo, Susanna Cavallina. Unsustainable deforestation and commodity imports. Public consultation on the EU strategy. GIFT (Great Italian Food Trade). 4.4.21, https://www.greatitalianfoodtrade.it/progresso/deforestazioni-e-import-di-commodities-insostenibili-consultazione-pubblica-sulla-strategia-ue
Dario Dongo, lawyer and journalist, PhD in international food law, founder of WIISE (FARE - GIFT - Food Times) and Égalité.
Graduated in Law at the University of Bologna, now enrolled in the master of law of agri-food markets at the University of Turin. She is a practicing lawyer.
