Innovations for Modern Farming
Arguments and Positions
The world population will grow to 10 billion by 2050. The demand for agricultural commodities is forecast to double, compared with the turn of the millennium. As arable land is naturally scarce, the only way to meet the demand for high-quality supplies to the constantly growing world population is for farmers to produce more on the same area of land. The keys for this include innovative plant protection products and mineral fertilisers.
Productive agriculture needs less land
Today, modern agricultural practices in Germany help produce double the yields in major crops (such as wheat or potatoes) compared to organic farming which refrains from using any chemicals. On the other side of the equation: In a total changeover to organic farming in Germany, farmland would have to double if production volumes were to be kept at today’s levels. Modern, productive agriculture needs less of the scarce resource farmland.
But the life science industry is faced with rising regulatory obstacles in its efforts to safeguard our food security for the future: by way of developing innovative solutions.
Inefficient regulatory processes
The EU has the strictest rules worldwide for approval and authorisation of active substances and plant protection products: The Member States may only authorise products with active substances which underwent a stringent registration process at EU level. But particularly in Germany – one of the major centres of competence globally in plant protection – there are shortcomings in implementation. An audit performed for the European Commission has shown that the competent German public authorities do not meet the legally defined timeframe in the authorisation procedure. There is an „authorisation backlog“ which is going to become even more severe in the medium term, as numerous active substances are coming up for reapproval in the EU. The authorisation of plant protection products has developed into the proverbial eye of the needle and thus into a competitive disadvantage for German farmers.
- A well-functioning authorisation system for plant protection products in Germany
The outcome of the EU audit on the authorisation of plant protection products in Germany shows that the system is in fundamental need of reform. Lack of EU harmonisation, inefficiencies and German „special ways“ have led to a situation where, finally, not one single application was decided within the legally prescribed timeframe. In the future, there should be only one institution which performs science-based assessments of all fields of testing and reports to the Federal Ministry for Agriculture. In order to function, this institution needs to be politically independent and not bound by instructions. The same ministry should be responsible for both risk management and authorisation decisions.
- Germany should no longer block the approval of the active substance glyphosate
Political considerations prevailed over legally regulated, science-based assessment procedures in the reapproval of the active substance glyphosate. Sound planning, reliability and the scientific basis of approval and authorisation procedures for plant protectants are at stake. Approval and authorisation decisions according to political expediency do not serve the intended purpose. Glyphosate is a precedent of the increasing politicization of regulatory procedures.
- Do not throttle innovation with over-regulation
Costs for the development and market launch of one active substance in plant protection have almost doubled within 20 years: In the period from 1995 to 2014 they rose to approx. 251 million euros. Regulatory costs alone have tripled since 2000. Meanwhile, the average time from the first synthesis of a new substance to the first placing on the market is 11.3 years. Probably, an innovative substance discovered today will unfold its effect only in the late 2020s. The German federal government should advocate vis-à-vis the EU that research and development are no longer obstructed by test requirements remote from reality (e.g. under the „Bee Guidance Document“ every field test would require an area of 448 square kilometres).