The vests are no longer yellow, but green. It is no longer the roundabouts that are on fire but the countryside. Too many standards, Brussels diktat, insufficient remuneration… This diffuse anger is shattered by the demands of greening agricultural practices. Decryption with Sébastien Abis, researcher at Iris, the Institute of International and Strategic Relations, and director of Club Demeter, a think tank dedicated to agricultural issues, which publishes on February 14 Do we want to feed the world? Crossing the food Everest, by Editions Armand Colin.
As anger rises in the countryside, the multiplication of standards is often put forward by farmers to explain the difficulties in the sector. Is this fed up justified or is it a pretext for refusing to change the model?
Neither. It is true that the agricultural world must manage a multitude of standards today. However, this is not the only cause of the sector’s difficulties and its disarray. For thirty years now, agricultural Europe has been becoming greener. On the one hand, European farmers were asked to subscribe less to a productivist approach because food security had been achieved at the continental level. And on the other, we have intensified environmental requirements and the health performance of agricultural production. All of this is obviously necessary and welcome. But European agriculture has had environmental performance imposed on it without maintaining, at the same time, its economic and productive performance. However, the world and geopolitics have upset a lot of balances. The Covid pandemic, then the war in Ukraine, underlined the importance of food sovereignty. Finally, Europe realized that it was not immune to weather events or animal diseases, such as avian flu.
In this context, European farmers are trying to do the job. But EU policy lacks coherence, between what it imposes within the framework of the Green Deal and its discourse on strategic food sovereignty. I would add another inconsistency, that of consumers, who want more security and sustainable agricultural practices without agreeing to pay the price. The right price for food is one that is good for health, for the planet, but also good for the producer and the territory. For two years I have been explaining that food inflation is very good news!
What do you mean by inconsistency in European policy?
You cannot ask European farmers, whatever the sectors, to remain powerful on the quantitative level, to be increasingly strong on the environmental aspect, and hyper-efficient on the health side. If food security risks increase due to climate change, geopolitics or disease, and at the same time you disarm farmers by depriving them of scientific, agronomic and technological tools that would allow them to responding to these issues is complicated! Furthermore, we cannot continue to impose standards on our farmers and allow a bunch of foodstuffs produced elsewhere to enter our markets, under conditions that have nothing to do with ours.
While the subject of purchasing power is on the minds of millions of French people, you say that food inflation is good news. For what ?
Obviously, the question of purchasing power is extremely sensitive. However, are we, once again, really consistent? We know that transitions are essentially new constraints. We must explain to consumers that European quality food has to be paid for, and that if tomorrow we want to have a local agricultural fabric on a European scale, with correct environmental and social performance, it will cost 2 to 3 times more. ! This is the real sticking point. Is this sustainable? Honestly, there was a time in this country when food expenses in household budgets were much higher than today. When mass distribution continues to say that the right price for food is the low price, it is a totally anachronistic discourse in relation to the transitions we are facing. Because this gives consumers the illusion that food is worth nothing, or almost nothing. We must align labels with our ethical and moral values.
Can this agricultural anger be an obstacle to the green transition?
I believe that we should not exaggerate the “unhappy agriculture” aspect. Let’s put an end to this miserabilist image. There is, of course, a part of the agricultural world which is suffering, but the sectoral and territorial realities are very varied. Likewise, we must put an end to imagery such as “Martine on the farm 50 years ago”. Those who are embarked on what I call food Everest, with this triple injunction of safety, sustainability and health, are above all agricultural entrepreneurs. Like all entrepreneurs, they need to have freedom of commitment and action. “Trust us and give us the means”: that’s what they say. There is obviously the question of standards but also that of remuneration, agricultural equipment of the future, digital tools. This is not at all contradictory to the green transition. It’s even the opposite!
Does this mean that we need to take a break from standards to allow farmers to breathe a little?
I believe in standards, they reassure and they protect. But today they add up, with this very French disease of overtransposition of European rules. If the standard becomes paralyzing and contradictory, then we need to sort it out.
What type of product are you thinking of?
Take prepackaged foods and look at the number of indications and mentions that appear on them, I challenge you to read everything… Aren’t we losing the consumer a little?
Is the search for strategic food sovereignty a pipe dream?
Agricultural Europe has dependencies. A dependence on energy, which it will compensate more and more with renewables and I like to recall that the main provider, today, of green energies in Europe is the agricultural world. And then, there are products that we will never make on the continent. But there are things that we also do very well, and the more of us there are in Europe, the more we increase the tonnage, but also the diversity of our agriculture. Over the past twenty years, enlarged Europe has considerably increased its volumes and the variety of its production. Our problem is our inability to bring this story to life outside, that is to say outside our borders. Europe positions itself only on the register of free trade agreements. However, some of them have not been favorable to the European agricultural sector. The stronger Europe is in its strategic robustness and in its unity, the more it can weigh in today’s world.
Some agricultural lobbies are still worried about Ukraine’s future entry into the European Union…
The case of Ukraine is interesting. Out of solidarity, we have completely liberalized our trade with this country. Not all Ukrainian foodstuffs entering the EU market, whether sugar, chicken or cereals, are produced according to European standards. It is legitimate that this raises questions. Now, if Ukraine enters the European Union tomorrow, with normative convergence, this will strengthen our agricultural power in volume and diversity. However, the new CAP, which entered into force in January 2023, is based on 27 national strategic plans. We are experiencing a sort of renationalization of European agriculture, which has mechanically opened Pandora’s box of local demands. In the Netherlands, they relate to nitrogen and livestock, in Germany, to energy, in France, it is a bit of a mixture of all that. Finally, the risk that is on the horizon is that of competition between Member States. We must restore commonality to European agricultural policy.
.