Like a string of legislative texts, the orientation bill “for sovereignty in agricultural matters and the renewal of generations in agriculture” was swept away by the tsunami of dissolution. A text supposed to respond to the revolt of the campaigns of last January, which Arnaud Rousseau found incomplete but which, according to him, “had the merit of existing”. The president of the FNSEA, the leading agricultural union, calls on the next government, whoever it may be, to get back to work. And issues an ultimatum to the executive on aid for organic agriculture.
L’Express: How do you analyze the very clear victory of the National Rally in the rural world?
Arnaud Rousseau: 93% of rural areas placed Jordan Bardella and the National Rally in the lead, unheard of. This result is obviously explained by a combination of factors. But at the root, there is this feeling of downgrading, the idea that rural areas are a kind of “under France”. A second zone whose voice does not carry, which is not heard by the urban elite on subjects such as the place of the car for example. Added to this is a “farmer equals polluter” discourse that the agricultural world feels is vexatious. The result is a different vote, with the tune of “After all, we haven’t tried them”. I think that insecurity and the subject of migration are, in reality, minor in this choice.
In the RN program there is the output free trade agreements. Do you support this proposal?
No way ! We need international trade to export our wheat, our wines, our spirits, our cheeses… The subject is reciprocity, the gap between what is imposed on European farmers and what enters the market from countries non-European. We import products into Europe which do not comply with any of our standards and which are not subject to sufficiently frequent and thorough controls. This is neither acceptable nor bearable. In international negotiations, agriculture often figures as an adjustment variable. So, on this question of free trade, and in the face of protectionism which is devastating to our agriculture, I answer mirror clauses, reciprocity and controls.
On May 28, the National Assembly adopted at first reading the bill on agricultural sovereignty. Where are we ?
Like all current bills, it is now suspended. And if the next government, whatever its political color, does not decide that it must continue its legislative path, then it will disappear. What responses will be provided, in addition to what has already been done? That’s the real question.
At the FNSEA, our demands and our project for all farmers remain the same. Starting with the payment of CAP aid for organic farming, promised for months, and which is still lacking. Organic farmers, who are going through a major crisis, are waiting for this money and now, we are being told that, for a dark software story, we cannot pay them! Only 50% of them received this aid. It is a scandal, which represents considerable sums, several hundred million euros. We are issuing an ultimatum to the government: if by June 15, they are not paid, we will launch actions from Monday, June 17.
Would you go so far as to block France during the Olympic Games?
No, we will not take the Olympics hostage. It’s France’s meeting with the world, so we will manage our Franco-French problems intelligently. When you have to go, you don’t hesitate. But we also take our responsibilities when we have to withdraw from the field.
If the next government takes over a large part of the law already passed in the Assembly, will you be satisfied?
I find this bill rather narrow, even if the measures on the installation and transfer of farms go in the right direction. In the competitiveness aspect, however, the account is not there. The current government assured us that this law would be supplemented later by a new Egalim text [NDLR : régissant les relations commerciales avec la grande distribution]. Likewise, a law on phytosanitary products was to be presented, without knowing its outlines. Finally, there were no tax measures. It is therefore not completed. And not up to the anger that was expressed in the agricultural world.
Look at the first article: agriculture is recognized as being of “major general interest”. It’s a complex definition. Explaining this on the ground is very difficult. Farmers don’t want a legal dissertation. They want to know how this text can change their daily lives. The question of the quantum of penalties for environmental damage is a very concrete example. Every year, farmers find themselves in court because they destroyed a meter of hedges with their tractor. The French Biodiversity Office, the environmental police, carries out around 3,000 annual checks on farms. Few of them give rise to criminal consequences, it is true, but these controls are felt to be extremely intrusive. There is a sort of presumption of guilt. We are not asking for a blank check to do anything. Simply to reestablish a form of common sense which has largely been lost.
When we compare French farms with their German or Dutch competitors, their lack of competitiveness is obvious. Why is this subject taboo in France?
It’s not taboo, even less so for me. The success of a farmer is not just about competitiveness, but we cannot let go of this question. Today, a farmer is an entrepreneur, an entrepreneur of life, who makes choices, who knows his market, who interacts with the outside world. In 1950, with 20 cows, you lived well. Today, this is impossible; larger herds are needed, particularly for milk. So, several collaborators or associates to take turns on weekends. As a dairy farmer, it’s morning and evening, every day of the year. The consent of a breeder’s son or daughter to take up such a time-consuming profession almost no longer exists. Strong support measures are needed.
And then opposite, you have the market conditions. Take organic, this is a segment where production constraints mean that the product is generally more expensive. Except that consumer consent is no longer there and the entire sector is in crisis. The State has paid millions in subsidies to encourage farmers to go organic, but the market is not following suit. Some farmers are now backtracking. A figure: 1% loss of organic space in France means 280 million euros of public money gone up in smoke. Not because farmers are incompetent. Because the demand is not there. French agriculture will be, tomorrow, what the consumer makes of it through their act of purchase.
Does Ukraine’s accession to the European Union constitute a threat to this fragile balance?
Integrating Ukraine, under the conditions in which they want to impose it on us today, would be a catastrophe. The largest Ukrainian farm, with which we are in competition, is 700,000 hectares. The average French farm is less than 70 hectares. When France receives around 9 billion euros per year under the CAP, Ukraine would receive twice as much. Who will pay ? Before the war, Europe imported 20,000 tons of Ukrainian sugar. In 2023, 700,000 tonnes will be brought in. As for the volatility in wheat prices, it has jumped over the past year and a half. These are economic realities that cannot be ignored. Here again, let us understand clearly: the Ukrainians are fighting for their freedom, which is also ours, and we obviously have to help them militarily. But European, and French, agriculture cannot be the adjustment variable for this support.
.