Chairman of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety of the European Parliament, Pascal Canfin refutes the idea of a decreasing Green Deal. For him, Europe is showing consistency when it opposes Mercosur or establishes quotas on Ukrainian chickens. And don’t talk to him about those who predict the failure of the “farm to fork” strategy. Their speeches are based on unserious studies which do not reflect reality at all. Atmosphere.
L’Express: How do you judge the response provided by the French government to the agricultural crisis ?
Pascal Canfin: The essential point is to enforce better sharing of value. As long as we do not obtain this, farmers’ income will remain insufficient and the ecological transition will not be able to follow. When Lactalis asks farmers to lower the price of milk without changing its margins, we are in a system of pure balance of power. We need to change that. Hence the Egalim law. For the moment, this remains bypassed by certain purchasing centers. It is not applied in its entirety. On the occasion of the next term which starts in June after the elections, we will therefore introduce a form of European Egalim law in order to better organize the sharing of value at the continental level. Because the problem raised here is the same in France as in other countries. Our philosophy will also be to place distributors and processors under climate and biodiversity constraints. And not just farmers.
However, some fear that the Green Deal is in danger. Especially if the elections in June modify the political balance.
The Green Deal will continue to move forward because European citizens are asking us to fight climate change but also because it is our geopolitical and economic interest. We have just reached an agreement, even with the right, on the deployment of zero carbon technologies in Europe in order to counter the effects of the American Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). We will authorize the deployment of new genomic techniques in order to provide new solutions to farmers. In a few days, we should obtain an agreement on carbon storage in soils, which should give additional income prospects to farmers.
Of course, there are still blockages. But a lot of things are moving forward. Not out of ideology, but because it is in our interests. In 2022, France spent 110 billion euros to buy oil and gas. That’s almost five points of GDP! Opposing the Green Deal as the far right does means continuing to make us dependent on fossil fuels. This is the reality. Our dependence on Russian hydrocarbons has already blown up in our faces. But tomorrow, if Donald Trump returns to the White House, what will happen? Will our dependence on American shale gas become our new Achilles heel? And then, there are also the fossil resources that we will look for in Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Is this what we want tomorrow for our sovereignty? Being dependent on Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump or the Islamist regimes of the Gulf? This is not our vision.
In theory, carbon products should be taxed more. But implementing this type of measure remains difficult. We saw it recently with non-road diesel. What to do ?
Such a mechanism works when there are alternatives. In the case of non-road diesel for farmers, there was none. Conversely, European manufacturers accept a relatively high carbon price (around 80 euros per tonne). For what ? Because they can choose between several energy sources and it is rational for them to have a carbon price that raises the cost of “brown” technologies while promoting the profitability of green investments.
We can see the same mechanism at work in automobiles. If we have adopted new rules of the game on zero-emission cars, it is precisely because for 10 years, our manufacturers have been investing in electric cars. Probably not enough since China is leading the way in this area and that is why we are massively accelerating and creating tens of thousands of jobs in this sector. But look at the success of social leasing in France. 100,000 people came forward in 3 weeks to benefit from an electric vehicle for 100 euros per month. This far exceeded the government’s expectations. And this shows that the shift towards a carbon-free world is really possible by using the right method.
Is food sovereignty, on the other hand, a sweet dream for Europe and France?
Let’s try to define it now. Let’s take an intensive pig or chicken farm located on French territory. Where does the food for these animals come from? From Brazil ? From Argentina? This is not what I would call sovereignty. Likewise, when you have conventional cereals in Beauce whose yields are ensured by nitrogen fertilizers, it is important to see that these are produced using Moroccan phosphate and gas coming from Algeria or Qatar. How is this sovereign? Let’s get along well. I am in favor of including the objective of food sovereignty in French and European laws. But by lifting the hood, we will discover that among those who defend this notion tooth and nail, some have bad practices. I am convinced that the Green Deal goes in the direction of the food sovereignty that we seek.
However, the European strategy in terms of agriculture would only lead to a drop in production, an increase in imports and an increase in prices, according to several recent studies. What do you think ?
These studies are completely unreliable. They do not take into account everything that Europe undertakes. For example, do they mention new genomic techniques? No. Do they mention the simplification of authorizations for biocontrol, that is to say alternatives to conventional phytosanitary products? Neither. These works all start from the same hypothesis, according to which Europe is doing nothing apart from reducing the use of pesticides. Unsurprisingly, they conclude that there is a drop in production. But frankly, I can also make this kind of deduction for you on the corner of a table. In truth, the Green Deal is not a diminishing policy. The status quo would be much better. Ask any farmer today what the number one risk to their yields is. He will invariably answer: the consequences of climate change! Look at what is happening around us. In Italy, rice production is declining sharply. In Spain, the production of olive oil is also collapsing due to lack of water. We could multiply the examples. Sticking our heads in the sand under these conditions will actually lead to reductions in production.
Doing nothing would therefore be extremely penalizing. But what about France’s reversals on Ukrainian quotas or Mercosur?
Concerning Ukraine, we have demonstrated consistency. Firstly, out of solidarity, we changed the rules of the game to allow this country to sell its production in a context of war. Two years later, we looked at the consequences and noted that they would not be sustainable in the long term, particularly for the poultry sector. So we adjusted the rules by reintroducing quotas on part of the production. This is not a change of course. We obviously continue to support Ukraine, which defends our values and whose victory is essential in the face of Russian aggression. But our responsibility is to arbitrate in complex moments and find the right compromise. That’s what we did.
On Mercosur, there has been no change of heart either. Since 2019, we have been opposed to the agreement with Mercosur as it stands. Given the agricultural power of Argentina and Brazil, the consequences would be too destabilizing for the European market. We therefore do not support this agreement. It is not a question of ideology but simply of seeing if it is consistent with our interests. We are also in favor of the trade agreement with Chile, which will be submitted to the vote of the European Parliament in a few weeks because trade with this lithium-producing country would make us less dependent on China in access to raw materials. the ecological transition.
.