After many years of negotiations, the “new Common Agriculture Policy” (CAP) was approved in November 2021 by the European Parliament, with a rift between those who felt that it was adequate for the new context (the European Green Deal adopted in June) and its detractors, who felt that it was a continuation of the productivism upheld by the agri-food industry, masked by a misleading degree of ‘greenwashing’. Its final adoption took place on 2 December 2021 for implementation in January 2023, for a period of five years.
Between 2021 and 2024, European farmers faced many difficulties, most of which could not have been foreseen. The pandemic triggered a recession that hit every sector of the economy. Extreme events took place, one after the other: biblical rains, periods of drought, wildfires, ad hoc water rationing. The bird flu epidemic reached its peak in autumn 2022. The war in Ukraine caused a hike in energy prices, amongst other things. Farmers still face strong international competition, to the point that they curse future and existing free-trade agreements. Many have been forced to sell their products at a loss while other players in the chain (wholesalers, mass retail) secured substantial profit margins. The implementation of the new CAP will change a lot of habits, which will mean that the administrative burden on operators will be extremely time-consuming. It also turned out that the support they were due was late in coming and the crisis-management instruments were less than perfect, untransparent and, in some cases, simply not up to the task at hand.
Over the last six years, 4 million European farms have gone. A number of studies have shown increasing suicide rates for farmers, particularly cattle farmers. Finally, more recently, farmers from Poland and Romania have been up in arms against Ukrainian imports, which they claim do not meet the phytosanitary standards of the European Union.
On 5 February this year, the European Committee of the Regions announced the results of a study showing that in the forthcoming European elections, intentions to vote ‘against the EU’ are on the increase in rural areas, particularly in Germany, Croatia, Estonia, France, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal and Slovakia (see EUROPE 13343/7). This would at least partly explain what the opinion polls suggest: that the far right is on the march.
To win back these voters, the largest political family of the European Parliament, the Christian Democrat EPP group, has dubbed itself “the farmers’ party” and has attacked some aspects of the ‘European Green Deal’, in particular the regulation on the restoration of nature, even though the institutional agreement for this has already been passed, at the Parliament on 27 February, by a slender majority (329 votes in favour, 275 against and 24 abstentions) (see EUROPE 13359/1). What will become of the Green Deal in the European Parliament in June?
The world of agriculture is complex. Many of those who inhabit it are aware that global warming will bring consequences that are unfavourable to the profession, starting now and which will only increase in the future. Some of them have thrown themselves wholeheartedly into organic farming, others do not understand certain aspects of the CAP. A vote for the far right is not so much about ideology as a protest, or sending out a distress signal. There is unquestionably a lack of explanation from the authorities, but more importantly, a feeling in rural areas of having been abandoned, a lack of recognition and support for their workers.
In her state of the union speech of 13 September 2023, the President of the European Commission spoke at length about industrial policy, but also found time to pay tribute to farmers and to announce “a strategic dialogue on the future of agriculture in the EU”, stressing that this is compatible with the protection of nature. There did not appear to be a great deal of urgency, as the first session of this dialogue has been set for 25 January 2024. The main objective was to conceive the post-2027 CAP (see EUROPE 13336/3) in a report to be expected by the end of the summer.
In the meantime, farmers’ demonstrations began in Germany, France, Poland, the Netherlands and Romania. At the level of the EU, the first institution to react was the Parliament: at its plenary debate of 17 January, the anger of the farming world was recognised as legitimate. Depending on their political stripes, the members of the European Parliament attacked different measures: those of an ecological nature (compulsory set-asides), the use of pesticides, over-regulation, Ukrainian products, etc., but a consensus emerged against the CAP in force: even the European Commissioner in charge of it, Janusz Wojciechowski, acknowledged its budgetary shortcomings, including for the crisis reserve (see EUROPE 13330/9).
The ‘Agriculture’ Council met on 23 January. It focused on limiting imports of certain Ukrainian products – poultry, sugar and eggs – while the Commission was preparing a proposal to extend the liberalisation of trade with Ukraine for one year (see EUROPE 13334/1). Additionally, while demonstrations were taking place in virtually every country of the EU, the ministers asked to be involved with the strategic dialogue, the mandate for which was becoming clearer. Simplification, derogations, sufficient revenue, crisis aid budget to be increased, many words were spoken, but no common emergency strategy was reached (see EUROPE 13334/2). The ministers warmly welcomed the Commission’s proposal of 20 December aiming to reduce the level of protection for wolves (see EUROPE 13335/11), in response to requests from the farmers concerned, but greatly disappointing defenders of nature.
This gesture, which will be of local application, was insufficient to resolve the mounting crisis. (To be continued)
Renaud Denuit