As such, Research Media Ltd will be providing coverage of the events in its flagship International Innovation publication, detailing the key issues, objectives and outcomes, as well as featuring interviews with prominent members of the ESF. Furthermore, complimentary copies of International Innovation will be available at the events.

International Innovation is a unique publication dedicated to the dissemination of the latest science, research and technology. It offers a bespoke service to researchers and leading scientific institutions who wish to highlight and share their latest work with those in the global research community, producing tailored articles and interviews to suit the needs of its clients.

Nick Brake, Director of Research Media Ltd, is enormously excited by the prospect of being an official media partner of all 2012 ESF events: “We are thrilled to announce our collaboration with the ESF at their upcoming events. The visibility that this will afford to the projects that we disseminate cannot be underestimated and we hope that our presence at the events will attract a wealth of new readers”.

The ESF is an independent, non-governmental organisation dedicated to pan-European scientific networking and collaboration and has played an essential role in mediating a multitude of heterogeneous research cultures and agencies. With a total budget of €61 million in 2010 and a projected economic impact in excess of €1 billion, it is a major driving force for advanced research in Europe.

To guarantee your FREE subscription to International Innovation and to ensure that you stay up to date with the latest ESF events, outcomes and interviews, please visit our dedicated subscriptions page at www.research-europe.com/subscribe.php.

Furthermore, for an overview of the ESF’s 2012 events, please see http://www.esf.org/activities/esf-conferences/2012-upcoming-events.html?year=2012.

Research Media Ltd is delighted to announce that it will be an official media partner of the COST Exploratory Workshop on Sustainable Protein Supply.

The one day event will take place in Amsterdam on Friday 16 March and will provide an opportunity for researchers and policy makers to discuss the most pressing concerns in supplying a sustainable protein supply in the future. In light of the FAO’s estimation that global meat consumption will rise to 463 tonnes in 2050, a collaborative approach to meeting demand and developing policies that promote sustainability is essential.

Nick Brake, Director of Research Media Ltd asserted: “We are thrilled to be an official media partner of the COST Exploratory Workshop on Sustainable Protein Supply. Sustainable meat and protein production is an important topic and a growing concern, and we hope that the event will make a major contribution to a more sustainable future”.

Key topics to be discussed at the event include improvements to the animal production chain, replacing animal protein with that sourced from plants, alternatives to conventional animal protein such as in vitro meat, and improved integration of the system.

Please see the COST website for further information: www.cost.esf.org

The programme sessions will offer a forum to present and debate on the current state of gender equality within research and science organisations. Research Media Ltd Director Nick Brake expresses his delight to play a key role in the Summit: “Research Media Ltd is pleased to promote the first ever European Gender Summit by serving as official media partner. As one of the leading scientific dissemination services in Europe, we look forward to spreading awareness of the importance of including all individuals in the pursuit of more comprehensive research and innovation”.

Participants will have the opportunity to learn about the latest research on gender and innovation, learn how to implement solutions to gender-related issues within their work environment, and contribute their project to be included in a reference base to be showcased at the stakeholder exhibition. The discussions will culminate in a manifesto on policy development on gender for innovation called “Integrated Action on the Gender Dimension in Research.”

The European Gender Summit is supported by the European Commission through the Science and Society Programme (FP7). Key speakers include Director of the Joint Research Council and the Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, Dr Elke Anklam, and Chief Editor of the peer-reviewed journal PLos, Dr Virginia Barbour

Commissioner for Research, Innovation & Science Máire Geoghegan-Quinn encourages the Summit’s dedication to gender equality saying: “Specific measures are needed to support women’s scientific careers, and to address gender factors in the research process, with a view to improving quality. The European Gender Summit will show how these issues can be tackled more effectively through collaboration between scientists, gender research scholars and policy makers”.

www.gender-summit.eu/

Research Media are pleased to announce that they will be an official partner for this year’s event, where we will be distributing free copies of International Innovation – our publication dedicated to the dissemination of the latest science, research and technology.

Simon Jones, Director of Research Media states: “We at Research Media are thrilled to be an official partner of the European Innovation Summit 2011. Research clusters consisting of industry, SMEs and academia are essential for research, development and innovation, and we hope that the event will serve to highlight the most pressing and pertinent issues”.

This year’s event will be held from the 10-13 October, and will be split into two distinct parts: a summit in Brussels, for which President Jerzy Buzek has granted the patronage of the European Parliament, and a Ministerial Conference in Warsaw.

Organised by Knowledge4Innovation (K4I), a non-profit, independent multi-stakeholder platform with members from the European public, private and academic sectors, the event will adhere to the motto ‘Towards a European Innovation Ecosystem’. In Warsaw, the summit will focus on both adapting EU research and innovation policies in national and regional contexts, and increasing synergy between different policy areas. Furthermore, the Brussels-based activities will enable participants to examine the role of individuals –  and young talent in particular – in fostering innovation and addressing the challenges presented by funding.

In the past two years the event has proved to be a lynchpin in debates on the function, pitfalls and importance of supporting innovations, attracting some 2,000 innovation stakeholders and over 200 speakers, including the presidents of the European Parliament and the European Commission.

This year’s event promises to be just as engaging, with the President of the European Parliament, Jerzy Buzek; European Commissioner for Innovation, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn; and the U.S. Ambassador to the EU, William Kennard, already confirmed as but a few of the high profile speakers at this year’s summit.

With hot debate surrounding future European policy and budgets for European innovation initiatives, this event affords a timely and open forum to discuss the most pertinent issues for all involved.

For further information, see the official website: www.knowledge4innovation.eu/EIS/SitePages/eis2011_home.aspx

I have said it before but it is definitely worth repeating that there has never been a better time to strengthen the involvement of the public and private sectors in the development and implementation of activities to improve food safety and protect the health of citizens in the EU and in Africa Union (AU).

Back in December 2007, the Lisbon Summit of EU and African Heads of State and Governments established the EU-Africa Joint Partnership. Under this joint agreement, the AU is the central partner of the European Union in Africa. My colleague Commissioner Tumusiime and I have jointly sought to implement commonly-agreed actions in the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) field.

Within the EU itself, we recently celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome – the initial massive step in the creation of what is today the European Union and the SPS field, in particular food safety, is a major EU policy area. It bears mentioning again that this was one of the first areas to be fully harmonised and one in which there have been many changes, challenges and successes over the decades, leading to the current integrated system that the EU currently enjoys.

Over the half century of its existence, the EU has evolved into a highly integrated marketplace in the area of agricultural products, where food must be totally safe and fit for consumption – irrespective of its origin. The roots of this evolution started from very distinct national systems in the SPS field, with little uniformity in legislation or controls among member states.

Where trade took place in live animals and food products, it was subject to rigorous controls, usually involving frequent costly checks at national borders and certification from official authorities. There were significant barriers to trade between countries. Thus, the change towards the current EU- harmonised SPS regime was policy and market driven.

This evolution required the building of a strong EU capacity to trigger and monitor the enforcement of these changes. Looking at Africa, I recognise that the continent is also undergoing similar changes and challenges. Agriculture is a dominant economic sector, and sanitary and phytosanitary issues are central to trade and regional integration in the region.

However, in each African country today, there are still several fragmented basic SPS rules, in addition to more specific laws covering different sectors leading to varying enforcement, monitoring and verification of compliance.

Regional integration would reinforce common internal markets and reduce undue customs formalities and control restrictions. Plus, the likely inclusion of an SPS chapter in each of the Economic Partnership Agreements currently being negotiated between the EU and a number of African countries and regions, will intensify harmonisation and integration.

Capacity development in the area of SPS is an essential element of the Economic Partnership Agreements, I would argue. While these agreements will provide the legal and regulatory framework for an improved market access of the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries (ACP) to the EU, complementary measures have to be taken to strengthen the supply capacity of African countries, to make sure that countries can actually benefit from improved market access.

Also, SPS measures are today seen by African trading partners as a key barrier to trade. For this reason, it is of utmost importance that African producers are able to produce food products, which will meet the standards necessary to have access to the EU market. All these factors are likely to accentuate the need for common principles for veterinary and official checks, controls and surveillance, which are essential to abolish internal border checks in Africa. No doubt, as the integration processes unfold, the need will arise to strengthen capacity to face up to the challenges and the EU stands foursquare and ready to assist in this task.

One way to assist in strengthening capacity in the area of food safety is through the European Union’s recent initiative: Better Training for Safer Food.

Launched in 2005, this initiative provides training to both European and Third World country officials responsible for checking that EU rules related to food, feed, animal health and welfare and plant health are properly applied.

In providing such training, we also aim to help developing countries improve their food safety systems for the benefit of their populations at large and their burgeoning economies. A specific programme is now being targeted at Africa, with the aim of promoting compliance with international SPS measures as a key to bilateral trade, both within Africa and with the rest of the world, and increasing the protection of African and EU consumers.

This is why, earlier this year, I launched the Better Training for Safer Food in Africa programme, together with my colleague Commissioner Tumusiime, and with other key-players in the game from Europe and Africa.

The main objectives of the Better Training for Safer Food programme are:

• To strengthen human capacity by training the trainers, in particular targeting veterinary and laboratory services

• To help improve the national and regional legal framework towards harmonised systems

• To strengthen the capacity of Small and Medium Enterprises to improve access to local, regional and EU markets

Providing better training under the initiative is actually one of the priorities for 2008-2010, as regards the implementation of the EUAfrica Strategy. The other priorities we have agreed to devote our efforts to include strengthening the SPS capacity of the officials of the AUC, Regional Economic Communities and specialised bodies.

We transferred a post from our Brussels HQ to the EU Delegation to the African Union, last September, to reinforce its thematic capacity in relation to SPS and public health issues. Further priorities are to share information and policy advice on rules and procedures; to strengthen the official controls of feed and food systems; and to initiate discussions on the rehabilitation and modernisation of testing and certification laboratories.

So what of the way ahead? Joint Expert Groups are needed to bring together the key players, I would argue, in order to deepen cooperation, identify synergies, and tackle challenges and create opportunities. Our two commissions and the member states on both sides have started to pool their efforts but many other stakeholders are waiting to see more results before deciding whether to fully engage and we need them on board. But the outcome we all hope to see, depends very much on everyone’s active involvement. A passive attitude risks undermining our ambitions so bold and creative leadership is required, and more needs to be done to increase the ownership of the strategy among the key players. The need for early and visible results has been consistently emphasised. It is crucial that the strategy is seen, by both citizens and political leaders, to deliver in the next 18 months.

The coming weeks and months will be crucial for the future of Africa-EU relations.

Indeed, we all have a political requirement to prepare implementation roadmaps for the next Ministerial Troika. I fully accept this is hard work, but it is nevertheless feasible. The Joint Expert Groups, with strong support from the two Commissions, should step up efforts to prepare clear and concise roadmaps and to accelerate the delivery of concrete results as soon as possible.

Innovation has been a mainstay of the UK and Europe’s identity. With current global economic constraints in mind, how will you encourage innovative research during your term in office? Is it not seen as a risk to push the boundaries of science with so few resources available?

The biggest risk would be not to push the boundaries of science. We need science for society and our economy to progress – innovative research is a pre-requisite for moving from crisis to sustainable growth. I want to re-focus EU research policy on five ‘grand challenges’: climate change, energy, food security, health and our ageing population.

I see the need to simplify procedures so that we maximise the value for each euro spent. I also want to bring in more SMEs, and complete the European Research Area so that more researchers stay in and come to Europe.

Could you outline your Agenda for 2020? What are the most important aspects of this proposal and how will it differ from the current research strategy?

Research and Innovation have a crucial role in the EU’s overall Europe 2020 Strategy. They are right at the top of the political agenda, perhaps for the first time ever, creating an unprecedented opportunity. Working with colleagues, I will submit the EU’s first ever Research and Innovation Plan in September and it will be debated by EU leaders at the October EU summit. Before that an expert group reporting directly to me will start work on developing a comprehensive set of indicators to benchmark progress on research and innovation. The Commission is proposing to keep the target of three per cent of EU GDP to be invested in R&D, complemented by agreed national targets. We also intend for it to be much more robustly monitored, so that where progress is too slow, effective action can be taken.

When outlining your mandate you stated that you wanted to use your term to put Europe firmly on the path to a sustainable and successful future. What needs to be done to achieve this and is a sustainable Europe even an achievable prospect?

I think it is the duty of politicians to be optimistic – and though the challenges are huge, there is much to be optimistic about. Europe has gone through a terrible economic crisis and it is not over, but the right action was taken to tackle it. Europe has led the world in the effort to beat climate change and promote sustainable energy and although Copenhagen was disappointing I am confident there will be more progress. Of course, the research side is absolutely crucial in this – in particular areas like second generation biofuels, electric cars and clean skies. Furthermore the green and the economic agenda are a perfect fit – it is precisely by taking a world lead in green technologies that we can give our competitiveness a badly needed boost.

How do you propose to strengthen and build upon the current European Research Area? Which aspects of the ERA require a significant investment or change of ethos?

To transform research into genuine innovation and to strengthen the whole chain from research to retail, a close working relationship with other Commissioners, with Member States, with research institutions and with business will be necessary. At EU level we need patent reform. We also need to make better use of EU regional funding to support research and innovation and to make sure we are using every instrument we have to encourage private sector investment. This is where the funding gap lies – we have already almost achieved the one per cent of GDP target for public investment, but it is the two per cent private contribution which lags behind.

International and interdisciplinary collaboration is an essential part of 21st Century scientific research. How do you propose to encourage beneficial relationships and what is your stance on data and knowledge sharing between EU and non-EU nations? Would you like to see an increase in human and technological exchange between countries in the EU and their neighbours?

One of the distinguishing characteristics of the globalised age is the increase not only in competition but also in collaboration. Researchers circulate with others from all over the world. No one country or region can tackle climate change alone and no one country can invest enough alone in developing areas like nuclear fusion – that is why for example we have the ITER project involving partners from across the globe. The EU’s Research Framework Programme already has a very strong international element. The U.S. is the non-EU country most represented in the projects we support. But, yes, I would like to develop our international networks even further. In particular I think we can do more to help developing countries – for example, we’ve just published some proposals on global health which include a strong research element.

Could you elaborate on the ‘Fifth Freedom’ concept? How will you ease its transition from proposition to reality?

The fifth freedom means the free circulation of knowledge, and of the people who create that knowledge, within Europe – and ultimately beyond. That requires world class research infrastructures, including new generations of electronic communication infrastructures. It requires excellent research institutions, engaged in effective public-private cooperation and partnerships.

Of course, this concept has been on the table for several years and a lot of progress has been made. Just to give a couple of examples, the previous Commission set up the European Research Council and the European Institute of Technology.

One key priority we need to progress with is achieving an adequate flow of competent researchers, with high levels of mobility between institutions, disciplines, sectors and countries. I have already had the opportunity to explain to a meeting of EU Employment Ministers what needs to be done to get rid of social security and pension obstacles, and I think we will achieve movement on that over the next couple of years.

The current FP7 funding initiative expires in 2013; how will FP8 differ from its predecessor and how much progress has been made on this?

Just as for previous Framework Programmes, there will be extensive consultation with stakeholders before the Commission brings forward its proposal to the Parliament and Council in late 2011 or early 2012. This consultation is likely to begin in early 2011. So it’s too early to say in detail how it will differ from FP7, though we do know two things already. Firstly, we need to focus on those grand challenges I mentioned previously, and secondly we want to simplify funding procedures already for the remainder of FP7 and then build on that in FP8.

Important lessons for future research funding will also be drawn from the interim-evaluation of FP7, expected for October 2010. This evaluation is being carried out by an independent expert group and aims at a comprehensive analysis of the FP7’s rationale, design, implementation and impact.

Can the EU do more to offer support to scientists? Are there enough opportunities for post-graduates to gain experience in their chosen field?

I think there can never be enough opportunities! And support for scientists is about much more than just money – although obviously in a perfect world we would have much more of that, too! We need to get more young people and more women into science. At the risk of using a cliché, we need to make science sexier, and better communicate the benefits it brings to us all and the interesting professional opportunities it offers. We are talking about a cultural change.

Many international efforts, such as the recent Climate talks in Copenhagen, have failed due to differing political agendas. How will you avoid this conflict of interest and promote a unified research strategy?

I agree that Copenhagen was disappointing – from the Commission’s point of view, President Barroso made that very clear. I don’t think there is a conflict of interest, though – if there is one thing that is in the interest of everyone worldwide, it is tackling climate change! The problem is one of vision – I think Europe has that vision but not everyone else shares it.

As far as research and innovation are concerned, there is definitely a shared vision within and beyond Europe – everyone agrees that only more investment in these areas can turn our economies round in a sustainable way. Of course, we will need to negotiate on priorities and on detail, but I think we have an unprecedented opportunity.

Are there any areas of European innovation that particularly excite you? For example, can Europe adopt a position at the forefront of renewable and alternative energies in the battle against climate change?

Yes, I think Europe is very well placed to lead on renewables – for example, in recent weeks I have visited both Solucar, a solar power platform near Seville in Spain, and the Marine Institute near my own home city of Galway in Ireland. Solucar has received well over €50 million in EU research funding through the Risk-Sharing Finance facility and through project funding. The Marine Institute is coordinating Irish involvement in 43 FP7 marine research projects worth €18 million to Irish researchers and €182 million overall.

In those places, I have seen cutting edge research and innovation in renewable and alternative energies and I know they are only two examples among many. Europe has plenty of wind, waves and sun and we have plenty of scope to produce second generation bio-fuels that do not compete with food production. Above all, we have a wealth of talented and highly motivated scientists and innovators in those areas. But I am equally enthusiastic about Europe’s research on new medicines, on green transport and on nanotechnology, just to name a few areas.

How do you foresee the challenges of European innovation and research evolving during your term? Will global circumstances such as the economic collapse and climate change require a highly adaptive and flexible approach?

I have said already that the economic crisis has been both a threat and an opportunity for our research agenda. It is crucial that governments and businesses keep up and even increase investment in research and innovation, because this is the type of investment that creates most growth and jobs in the medium-term.

I sincerely hope that the challenge evolves from moving out of crisis to consolidating full and sustainable recovery. But that depends on making the right political choices and on implementing the Europe 2020 Strategy.

Certainly adaptability and flexibility will be essential. At EU level, we have already launched innovative public private partnerships, for example on clean skies and innovative medicines, and we want to launch more. We are also complementing the Research Framework Programme by working with Member States on Joint Programming, to improve the efficiency of the way national research funding is used and to avoid duplication.

© European Union, 2010

Dacian Cioloş outlines his vision for the future of European Agriculture

Firstly, could you offer an insight into what your role as EU Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural development entails?

I am the Commissioner in charge of the European Union’s Agriculture and Rural Development Policy for the next five years, which entails ensuring that the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) rules are properly applied in all member states, but also designing the policy for the future. In that sense, by far my biggest challenge will be establishing the rules for the CAP for the period from 2014 to 2020.

How will you make the Common Agricultural Policy of the future more transparent, fair, efficient and diverse. Has transparency become of greater importance given the recent media coverage of climate change data manipulation?

Transparency has been an issue of great importance to the Commission for some time. Because the CAP relies heavily on taxpayers’ money, we introduced rules last year that require the publication of all CAP beneficiaries and their receipts on the internet. In fact, in my Hearing in the European Parliament before taking office I called for CAP direct payments to become “more transparent, more equitable and more credible”. This is primarily because a large amount of our funding is distributed on the basis of figures which are no longer relevant. In many cases, the allocations are based on historic farm production in the period 2000-2002. While this was important at the time of the 2003 reform, it is clearly outdated now and we must agree on more objective criteria which are equally applicable in all member states – while ensuring that our direct payments remain decoupled from production.

You stated that you also desire to reassess the distribution of direct payments. How would this help to reduce the disparity between member states and types of agriculture? Are there any particular regions or agricultural forms that could be particularly ameliorated by such a move?

We need to make our direct payments more understandable to the taxpayer in future. Our basic aim is to encourage farmers to be more competitive and market-oriented – in a sustainable way. However, the market alone is not always enough, for example within the context of the high environmental and animal welfare standards that European citizens want. So we have to design a system of public support to reward farmers for certain public goods and services which are not rewarded by the market. These are the criteria that we are hoping to clarify in the coming months. While some are simply calling for a fl at-rate payment per hectare to take account of higher EU standards, there are also calls to take greater account of specifi c environmental benefi ts provided such as, natural handicaps, employment, climate change contributions, or adjusted to spending power, to name just a few. The main thing is to get objective criteria equal for all Member States. I am aware that this will be difficult, and will entail a certain amount of redistribution – not only among Member States, but also among sectors in certain countries – but it is vital to find more objective, more understandable criteria if we want the continued support from taxpayers for this instrument. And it is also important that we make the necessary changes in a phased way to avoid creating more problems than we solve. My emphasis at the moment is to concentrate on the criteria and the broader objectives for the CAP before we talk about precise amounts per hectare, or the overall budget. This has to be the correct order. Otherwise we would risk putting the cart before the horse

Food security and the sustainability of land management are two of the most prominent factors for the future of European agriculture. How will you ensure that 80 per cent of land within the EU territory remains devoted to farming and forestry?

Global Food security – notably the FAO forecast of a 50 per cent increase in world food demand by 2030 and a doubling by 2050 – is one of the biggest challenges that agriculture faces. In this sense, there is no question that food production will remain the major role of European agriculture. But we must equally ensure that this is achieved in a sustainable way. And this brings me back to the point about public goods, and the need for greater awareness that European agriculture already provides more than just food. In particular in the face of the significant challenges that we face with regard to the management of our natural resources (water, soil, energy), addressing biodiversity loss, and of course issues related to climate change. These are benefi ts which are simply not recompensed by the market. In short, the arguments for public support of the agriculture sector are as strong as they have ever been.

The economic crisis has had a major effect on Europe as a whole but has affected rural and farming communities disproportionately. How can the European Commission ensure that these invaluable communities remain viable and continue to play an essential role in the agricultural sector?

In March, the European Commission highlighted a new EU2020 Strategy to help the EU economy emerge from the current economic crisis – highlighting the need for SMART growth, sustainable growth and inclusive growth. As highlighted by EU leaders last month, I believe that

EU agriculture policy will be a key policy in achieving these objectives. For example, it is impossible to talk about the social fabric of rural areas without considering agriculture. Similarly, while I believe it is impossible to think about rural areas without agriculture, it is also clear that we cannot think about rural areas with nothing but agriculture.

Climate change poses one of the greatest threats to traditional agricultural technique. Do you believe that Europe is well prepared to meet the challenges of climate change? Will significant compromises be required to ensure that food production, safety and quality remain at the same high level?

When talking about climate change, some politicians and lobbyists in Europe point the finger at the agricultural sector. In fact, EU agriculture has cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent since 1990 (relative to the average for other sectors of just 8 per cent). But I am convinced that agriculture is part of the solution rather than part of the problem. To be clear, there can be no compromise on food safety or food production; we must ensure that our techniques are sustainable. In the context of climate change and water scarcity, this may require “producing more with less”- but this is where other issues such as scientifi c advance will become more and more important – and where again, a pan-European resolution is potentially much more efficient than a national or regional approach. Bio-energy is a classic example of where technological advances have the potential to make the most of what agriculture has to offer.

You have stressed the importance of a public debate on the current CAP and how to improve it for post-2013. Is the opinion of civil society imperative to the success of the new CAP?

A recent opinion poll showed that 90 per cent of the EU population believe that agriculture & rural areas are important for the future, but only 11 per cent of the population claimed to know something about the CAP. It is clear that we must do more to make this policy simpler and more transparent. This is why I have launched a public debate asking for contributions to some very fundamental questions about why we need a Common Agriculture Policy, and what tools we should use to achieve these objectives. We are happy to take contributions from anyone from any member state – as part of our deliberations before the end of the year. Our website – http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-debate – will be open until the first week of June, and we will then hold a Conference in Mid-July to try and synthesise the contributions. Let me encourage your readers to make their opinions known – in English or any other EU language.

The Commission will publish a major paper entitled “Communication” later this year. Is the dissemination and public understanding of your work an essential aspect of your remit?

As mentioned above, one of our main aims from policy reform is to establish a system more easily understood by the wider public – not just by farmers. Hence the public debate now. My Communication in November will be followed by a public consultation, and then by formal legislative proposals in the middle of next year and a negotiating process of potentially two years (including co-decision with the European Parliament for the fi rst time). Certainly one of my aims will be that a similar opinion poll in five years time will show a greater share of the population who understand something about the CAP.

Is the average European citizen aware of the demands that they place upon the agricultural industry and our natural resources? Can education play an important role in guaranteeing a sustainable future and, if so, how is the European Commission encouraging this?

This opinion poll clearly highlights that we have not done enough to expose what farmers provide beyond mere food production. I hope that this public debate will help provide some publicity, and stimulate thoughts among the broader public on what our policy objectives should be. However, it is clear that we must see what else we can do. Education will obviously play an important role, but that remains within the remit of Member States

European farming is known for its high quality standards. Will organic initiatives, such as “good for nature, good for you”, help to encourage an equilibrium between the human demand for quality and nutrition and the needs of the natural ecosystems with which we interact?

EU quality rules are something that we shall be looking at in more detail later in the year – where we will, for example, probably look at various labelling issues in order to make clear to the consumer how certain foods are produced. I should also mention that we have just agreed upon a new EU organic logo, which will come into force from July 1, and run alongside existing logos for the next two years, in order to underline the stricter EU production requirements. As mentioned above, basic sustainability requirements will probably be a part of the mandatory rules for the future CAP. I feel it’s too early to say at this stage whether policy issues related to organic farming will in any way change from the options open to Member State rural development programmes at present.

Could you explain the mission of the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development? What role does it play within the Commission?

As the DG in charge of developing and managing the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), our mission is twofold: to promote a sustainable agriculture in Europe and to ensure the vitality of its rural areas. In practical terms, it means that the measures we put in place are designed to support farmers in developing a dynamic and viable agricultural sector at the heart of the rural economy, while facing up to today’s important societal challenges, such as preventing soil and biodiversity degradation, adapting to climate change, ensuring security of food supplies and bridging the income gap between urban and rural areas.

I’m convinced that DG AGRI will play a vital role in the Europe 2020 strategy, the Commission’s overall strategic map for the coming years. By restructuring Europe’s agriculture to bolster competitiveness (eg. through the increased use of green technologies and the continuous development of high value-added quality products), the CAP can make a significant contribution to realising the vision of smart, inclusive and sustainable growth.

As the new Director-General, what do you hope to bring to DG Agriculture and Rural Development? How wide-ranging is your role as Director-General of the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, and what are your principal responsibilities?

I’m in a unique position as this is my second time as Director-General of DG AGRI, and of course it should be helpful that I already ‘know the ropes’ to a large extent! Some things have changed since I last did this job, but one thing hasn’t: I have an excellent team of motivated, hard-working staff. I want to help them to do their best and be happy in their work.

As the CAP reform process gets underway, one of my main tasks is to offer my support to our Commissioner, Dacian Cioloş. We’re now in the process of consulting with stakeholders and decision makers after publishing the communication on the future of the CAP. At the same time we’re preparing the impact analysis and the legislative proposals for the CAP reform – which are due in the second half of this year. The ideas and comments of the consultation are being analysed and fed into the work on the proposals. This is an important task for us and as head of the Directorate-General it’s my responsibility to ensure that the groundwork has been done properly. It’s a crucial step to ensure that the CAP reform is a success. This is the first time a reform is to be decided by the European Parliament and the Council in co-decision under the Lisbon Treaty. It will be a multi-annual process, involving all parts of my DG.

What are the main aims of the CAP and what are some of the strategies it is employing to promote quality and safety, and a farm sector in tune with the environment and animal welfare? How are you planning to develop an even more sustainable farm and food sector?

With regard to food quality, food safety, the environment and animal welfare, the CAP already does a great deal. For example, through the system of ‘cross-compliance’, income support payments to farmers are linked to rules in these areas. Rural development policy offers more targeted support for improving food quality, caring for the environment and ensuring high standards of animal welfare, beyond legal obligations.

We want to strengthen the links between income support payments and a range of environmentally sound practices. We want to refine various rural development measures so that they have even more to offer in terms of innovation, care for the environment and responses to the challenge of climate change. And we want to embed these measures in an improved process of strategic management and targeting, in strengthened coordination with other EU policies, and with clear priorities reflecting the objectives of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth set out in the Europe 2020 strategy.

What are the major challenges facing agriculture and rural development today?

It’s striking that one challenge that had become less ‘fashionable’ for a few years has come right back into the public consciousness and is high on our agenda: food security. It’s forecast that, by the year 2050, there will be 9 billion mouths to feed worldwide, and in the meantime global demand for food is rising very strongly. The EU’s farm sector must play its part in meeting that demand.

But we can’t get into a ‘race for productivity’ that pays no attention to the constraints of the 21st Century. Yes, our farmers must produce more, but while doing this they also have to take good care of the environment and limit greenhouse gas emissions – with the help of policy, of course.

Finally, we still need to help rural areas as a whole fulfil their potential as attractive, dynamic places in which to live and work.

Could you summarise the EU’s Rural Development Policy and demonstrate what improvements it will bring? Why is a rural development policy so important?

Rural Development Policy looks at our rural areas as an organic whole. Farming is still an important part of that whole – especially in some regions – and so the policy helps the farm sector to raise its competitiveness. But the policy also looks beyond that aim: it helps to care for our soil, landscapes and water, as well as to create jobs and improve essential services in the countryside.

Some people don’t realise just how ‘rural’ the EU is. According to current measurement methods, what we could loosely call ‘non-urban areas’ cover 90 per cent of the EU’s territory and are home to 60 per cent of its people. We need a good policy for those areas every bit as much as for our towns and cities.

Under the Rural Development policy, the EU will make available over 96 billion euros for rural development projects in the 27 Member States over the period 2007-13. What impact is this making on the current state of food and agriculture in Europe?

In environmental terms, we can see strong results wherever the policy is used well: improvements in soil and water quality, habitats preserved which would otherwise have been lost, farmland enriched with valuable landscape features like copses and terraces. And in the long term, a good level of environmental care will sustain the productivity of European farming, which is so important in a world with a growing population: if you want to feed more and more hungry mouths, look after the land’s resources wisely – this is a stark lesson from history!

What plans do you have for the future of DG Agriculture?

My Services are currently busy working on several important policy developments. Besides the major task of preparing legislative proposals for the CAP reform ahead, they are especially involved in discussing the entirely revamped product quality policy – the so-called ‘Quality Package’ – with the European Parliament and the Council, and finalising a green paper to be issued before summer to prepare the ground for a stronger promotion policy for farm products. In the longer perspective, I may envisage making some adjustments to the organisation of the DG, depending on the outcome of these reform processes and the discussions on the forthcoming financial perspective 2014-20.

Is there any other aspect of the DG’s work that you would like to discuss?

We should be absolutely clear that the agriculture of the future must be an agriculture based on knowledge. If we’re serious about the challenge of producing more with less and being good stewards of our environment, we need to be constantly pushing back the boundaries of agricultural knowledge, using it to develop new products and practices, and spreading the fruits of this process to as many farmers and food producers as possible. In DG AGRI we’re looking at ways of delivering more in this area, especially by better bridging the gap between researchers and farmers.

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/agriculture

Firstly, could you offer an insight into what your role as EU Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries entails?

As Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries I am responsible for the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and the Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP). In particular, I am overseeing the ambitious and comprehensive reform of the CFP, which is currently underway. The reform aims to ensure that EU fisheries are sustainable environmentally, economically and socially, so that the sector continues to provide livelihoods for coastal communities. I am also committed to strengthening and consolidating the IMP, so that it helps to generate new growth and jobs and contributes effectively to a greener economy. We need a cross-sectoral, coherent approach to unleash the considerable economic and employment potential of Europe’s maritime sector.

Could you outline the changes that you propose to make to the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP)? What benefits will these modifications offer over the existing mandate?

I intend to present proposals that will lead to a drastic reform of the CFP. I want the future policy to put an end to overfishing and to bring fishing activity into closer harmony with the ecosystem. So we need clear targets, such as maximum sustainable yield and adequate instruments to manage our fisheries. But we also need some mechanisms with which to adjust fleet capacity, because with a fleet that is too large there will always be some pressure to fish more than can be fished responsibly.

I believe that more responsibility on the part of the industry should feature prominently here as well. We need to encourage more self- and co-management in the daily application of our policies. Fishermen’s organisations, such as Producer Organisations, can play an important role here, but I also see room for improved action and cooperation between Member States in the different sea basins.

Innovation was the key theme of the recent European Marine Stakeholder Conference in Gijón; how do you propose to ensure that Europe stays at the forefront of maritime and fisheries innovation, research and development?

Indeed, the next phase of the EU’s Integrated Maritime Policy needs to underpin the strengths of the current maritime segments as well as emerging markets insofar as they represent real and significant growth opportunities for Europe. This can be done by identifying the untapped future potential of cutting-edge marine and maritime technologies, resources and services as drivers for new innovations, competitiveness and, ultimately, growth and jobs.

A first important step in delivering on this ambitious agenda lies in analysing sustainable maritime growth scenarios, their drivers and the policy measures required to make these scenarios a reality. The complexity of the task requires the pooling of all available expertise – in the EU institutions, in Member States, in the regions and within individual stakeholder groups.

Based on this initial analysis, an integrated approach to an industrial policy for coastal regions and maritime sectors must be developed. It must employ a multitude of measures, from awareness-building, via framework and market regulation to research and innovation support, in order to promote the positive contribution that maritime technologies and activities can make to the economy, society and individual quality of life.

We will also move towards smart, green EU fisheries. To do so, we will examine how to mainstream innovation under a future European Fisheries Fund (EFF) in order to contribute to the objectives of a new CFP, such as competitive EU fisheries, the promotion of environmentally sustainable fishing and adding value to fishing and fishing-related activities. We need to assess where market failure exists and hence where there is a rationale for public intervention. For example, that fisheries are dominated by small and micro enterprises, often family-based, which limits their capacity to finance innovation and fosters risk aversion.

Are there any particular technologies where you would like to see a greater level of investment and implementation? How do you propose to increase the prevalence of blue biotechnologies?

The oceans, seas and coasts hold great promise for new economic activities based on exploration, utilisation, innovation and technological development. But it is up to markets and investors to select certain technologies. Nevertheless, we can already see some technological developments that could foster industrial applications and bring benefits for society. Examples are clean and energy-efficient ships, alternative fuels and shore-side electricity supply; large-scale multifunctional offshore platforms for aquaculture; renewable energy generation from the seas; satellite communication and data acquisition; maritime surveillance; and advanced logistics and e-services for transport. European industry has started to explore future ‘visions’ which may provide some initial guidance on technological trends and their possible practical applications.

One of the priorities outlined in the Commission’s Progress Report on the Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP) was the need for enhanced and better coordinated governance of the whole sector. Which areas require the greatest improvement and why has it taken so long to adopt a unified pan- European approach?

IMP governance is so important because it facilitates coherent decision-making and regulation. This includes well-functioning coordination structures, the involvement of science and data resources, transparency and dialogue with stakeholders. I am convinced that efficient governance reduces ‘end of- pipe problems’, where unsolved matters and conflicts are passed on throughout the process. Let me take two examples. Spatial planning will provide certainty for investors in sea-related projects, and thus unleash economic growth, while ensuring sustainability. The integration of surveillance will lower costs while making surveillance more effective, to the benefit of safety, security, law enforcement and the efficiency of the logistics chain.

Following the guidelines to Member States on an integrated approach to maritime policy, Member States endorsed the value of sharing information and learning from good practice. Yet much remains to be done: we have to step up our efforts to build adequate maritime governance structures and improve their performance and to increase the coherence of different sectoral policies under the IMP umbrella.

The Progress Report also highlighted the need for a Marine Knowledge Network. What benefits will this provide and how soon could this be implemented?

This will bring three main benefits: reduced costs for those who use marine data – industry, public authorities and researchers; more competition and increased innovation; and less uncertainty in knowledge of the behaviour of the seas and oceans. Preparatory actions are already underway that will produce concrete improvements in access to marine knowledge this year. In July the Commission presented a Communication together with an impact assessment to set out further steps. These steps include further actions to be financed under the new financial regulation for maritime policy in the years 2011-2013. By the end of this period we aim to have a prototype operational network and a plan for continuation beyond this time.

There are numerous examples where a lack of access to government-held data is blocking innovation in the marine world. For instance, lack of basic knowledge of water depth and marine sediments not only increases the cost of pipeline laying or offshore energy development, but also inhibits new innovative services from small enterprises; either to supply these existing sectors or to open up new opportunities in areas such as bioprospecting. The July package of measures, which falls under the ‘marine knowledge 2020’ umbrella, will seek to open up these public resources and unlock this potential for innovation and growth.

Individually Transferable Rights (ITRs) have always been seen as controversial. How will you make the law more transparent and reduce the contentious nature of this regulation? Will this have a significant impact on smaller-scale fishing?

The controversy you mention is due to the fact that ITRs are often perceived as leading to the privatisation of a public resource, which, if traded freely on the market, leads to excessive concentration of rights in the hands of a small number of rich companies. Therefore, when discussing the wider introduction of ITRs in the EU, we should keep in mind that rights allocated to fishing entities are only user rights, which either fall back to the public after a specified period or can be revoked following a given notice. These user rights should also be conditional on respect for CFP rules. As to preventing speculation and excessive concentration of rights, a set of safeguarding measures should be designed and implemented (maximum ceilings or limits on transfers between fleets, for instance). Such safeguards are already functioning well in a number of ITR systems.

Another element which has been perceived as controversial is the EU-wide transferability of ITRs. I do not, however, sense that there is political acceptance of this solution; rather we will be looking at ITR systems under which transferability is limited to within Member States.

ITRs in small-scale coastal fishing could be only introduced on a voluntary basis and accompanied by additional safeguards such as the ring-fencing of their ITRs, meaning that the large-scale sector would not be able to buy the fishing rights of small-scale coastal fishing. This solution has already been applied in some national ITR systems already in operation – both inside the EU (Denmark) and outside (Norway).

What do you foresee as the greatest threats to the European fishing and maritime communities in the coming decades and do you believe that Europe is well prepared to meet these challenges?

I am convinced that a serious reform of the CFP would be exactly the instrument to help us avoid serious threats. This does, however, require that we put our house in order, not only in terms of bringing fishing activity in line with the fishing possibilities the stocks are able to offer. We must go further: as I indicated, fishing needs to respect ecosystem requirements, so we need to avoid damage to the ecosystem, for instance by reducing and eliminating bycatches of non-commercial species. We need to avoid damage to fragile benthos and bottom areas such as coral reefs. Part of the challenge lies in adapting our knowledge base to these requirements, but this is feasible. We must also be prepared to contribute to climate and energy ambitions by adjusting our fishing activity and developing clean and less energy-intensive technologies for fishing activity. Lastly, we need to consider how to link fishing and aquaculture to spatial requirements in maritime areas. We have to factor all these elements into our future policies to tackle all the challenges ahead.

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/maritimeaffairs_fisheries/

Could you begin by offering an overview of your duties within the World Health Organization (WHO) Department of Food Safety and Zoonoses?

WHO provides leadership in global efforts to lower the burden of diseases from food and animals. WHO develops risk assessments, recommends risk management options, and translates complex scientific knowledge into simple risk communication messages for stakeholders, including consumers. It is important to underline that the primary responsibility for safe food lies with the producers, but consumers clearly also have a role to play in preventing diseases.

Through the development of messages and training materials, WHO assists countries in promoting food safety through systematic foodborne and zoonotic disease prevention and health education programmes. I am responsible for health promotion in food safety and more specifically for education directed to the end-users.

Each year millions of people become ill and thousands die from preventable foodborne diseases. What is WHO’s specific approach regarding consumers?

Food production is complex and involves a range of different stages before the food reaches the consumer, including on-farm production, slaughtering or harvesting, processing, storage, transport and distribution. Food can be contaminated at any point along the food production chain, including preparation. Food safety is therefore a shared responsibility between producers, industry, governments and consumers.

Food safety requires an ongoing effort and cannot be approached from one direction only. The classic ‘farm to fork’ approach focuses on the quality and safety of the foods to ensure that food products arriving on the market are safe for consumers. However, when the products are on the market, inappropriate handling behaviours can contaminate the products and affect food safety.

WHO’s new approach focuses on the ‘table to farm’ concept with a primary focus on the consumer’s health and wellbeing. This concept reinforces WHO’s mandate to ensure that no harm is caused to humans through food consumption. Raising awareness of all food handlers, which include consumers, about the health risks posed by inadequate practices is part of WHO’s strategy to reduce the burden of foodborne diseases.

Can you describe the responsibilities that rest with the consumer?

Even though the contamination of food can occur at any stage of food production and major responsibility lies with the producers, a large proportion of foodborne diseases are caused by foods that are improperly prepared or mishandled, be it at home or in food service establishments. But few consumers understand that they have a role to play in preventing foodborne diseases.

Consumers are often unaware of, or fail to apply, safe food handling procedures. In developing countries, there is a lack of awareness that food can make an individual sick if it is not properly handled, prepared and stored. In developed countries, consumers take the safety of food for granted. For instance, consumers buy produce from around the world and are increasingly interested in buying produce (eg. meats, cheeses and other fresh products) directly from local farms, but may not realise that even fresh food requires safe handling. New food products are constantly being introduced and the fact that there are more choices than ever before creates complexity: what to choose, how to cook, how to store? There is inadequate knowledge of which foods, agents and practices pose the greatest risk. Consumers need to have this basic knowledge to minimise the risks and make safe choices.

What are the basic principles that consumers need to know to handle food safely?

Consumers should always follow the five basic safe food handling rules to protect themselves and ensure that the food they eat is safe: 1) Keep clean; 2) Separate raw and cooked; 3) Cook thoroughly; 4) Keep food at safe temperatures; and 5) Use safe water and raw materials. This is the message of the WHO Five Keys to Safer Food that everybody should know throughout the world.

A great example to illustrate the WHO’s ‘table to farm’ approach can be demonstrated by Key 2: Separate raw and cooked food. A wide majority of food handlers ignore the risks and the health consequences associated with cross-contamination occurring by using the same tools for raw and cooked food, thereby enabling cross-contamination. Even if all the players involved in the food production chain took the perfect measures to ensure the quality and safety of the product, the risk of eating contaminated food is present if the food handler does not practice safe food handling behaviours.

Over the space of 10 years, the WHO Five Keys to Safer Food became an international reference source, having been translated into 68 languages, mainly on behalf of countries which use them as the basis for educational programmes and health promotion campaigns. How do you explain this success?

It is a simple global health message: countries can easily adopt and adapt in any context. Although differences in socioeconomic conditions and cultural behaviours can vary from one environment to another, risk factors for foodborne diseases are basically the same everywhere (food prepared too far in advance, food not kept at safe temperatures, inadequate cooking/reheating, improper storage, use of contaminated ingredients, use of contaminated equipment, contamination by an infected person). The option to design a global message is of particular importance to avoid confusion, especially now that communication regularly goes global. We developed a concept and training materials which meet the needs of countries. As an example, the Five Keys to Safer Food poster includes the rationale behind the recommendations (the ‘why’), which facilitates understanding, learning and teaching to encourage the adoption of safe behaviours. We assist countries in providing them with templates to produce materials, which is of great value both in terms of investment of time, human and financial resources. We also concentrate efforts in facilitating communications between countries to encourage them to share their materials, experiences and tested solutions. As a result, countries benefit from each other’s efforts (eg. through the use of translated materials) and are stimulated to duplicate the successfully implemented programmes and create new ways to disseminate the message in various contexts.

How are the Five Keys to Safer Food used?

They are used both in developing and developed countries to promote food safety by training food handlers in restaurants, canteens and marketplaces, processing businesses, hospitals, healthcare centres, schools, and at home. The Five Keys to Safer Food are intensively used in emergency situations to prevent and control outbreaks (eg. cholera). They were part of the main preventive recommendations during the 2005 outbreak of Avian influenza. More recently they were promoted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) to advise consumers during the 2011 outbreak of Escherichia coli in Germany caused by sprouts. This food safety event led to 55 deaths and it is an important reminder that foodborne diseases have devastating health consequences in both developed and developing countries.

Through food safety education, we strongly promote the health of women and their families. Women play a key role in food production and preparation, in particular in developing countries. They have too often limited access to education while their role is essential to ensure transmission of the safe food handling practices. We also direct our efforts to have food safety education integrated into school curricula since children are tomorrow’s consumers. We work towards a systematic integration of food safety education into nutrition programmes. For example, the importance of fruits and vegetables in nutritious, healthy diets is well-recognised, and in recent years consumers have been encouraged to eat more of these products. At the same time, food safety problems linked to the consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables contaminated with microorganisms are increasing. Consumers must be aware of the potential health risks and nutritional benefits when growing, buying and consuming these products. The right to education is again essential.

How do you see the role of consumers in the future?

We know that in the future consumers will drive the changes needed to improve food safety systems and we work to stimulate countries to communicate and consult effectively with consumers. Consumers have a right to expect that the foods they purchase and consume will be safe and of high quality. They have a right to voice their opinions about the food control procedures, standards and activities that governments and industry use to ascertain that the food supply has these characteristics. They need to be fully confident not only when they buy products, but also when they eat in restaurants, canteens, food markets, etc. With the recent changes in lifestyles, more and more meals are taken outside of the home, which is another factor contributing to the increase of foodborne diseases all over the world. Education in food safety is a way of empowering consumers, providing them with the tools to raise their voices and participate in the public debate. In some countries, consumers have put pressure on authorities to make the results of food inspections public. Therefore some countries now display classification results at the entrance of restaurants to raise consumer trust and expectations for safe food handling and healthy food.

I will end with an experience I had in Egypt when we organised with a local NGO a Five Keys to Safer Food training initiative for women in a slum of Cairo. I asked the organisers how the women would benefit from the course, as there was no infrastructure to maintain basic food hygiene and limited or no access to running water. The response given was that now the women understand that having access to running water is essential to improve the health of the family, they will have the impetus to put pressure on the local authorities to get infrastructures.

This example also shows that education in food safety through the Five Keys to Safer Food goes far beyond food safety in improving the health of communities, and can ultimately aid in achieving the UN’s Millennium Goals.

www.who.int/foodsafety/consumers/en