Dn a report on public aid to cattle breeders, published on Monday 22 May, the Court of Auditors urges the government to “define and make public a cattle herd reduction strategy consistent with climate objectives”. According to the Court, these objectives cannot be achieved without a reduction in the herd, which represents approximately 9% of emissions in France. The subject is a textbook case that illustrates the need to act ” all together “ that Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne has had the opportunity to repeat many times in recent months.
This ” all together “ means that the actor of the transition cannot be one type of actor in particular – the State, companies or individuals – but all these actors together, driven by a common vision. In economic terms, this means that the transformation of a sector such as livestock farming can only take place through a coherent and almost simultaneous evolution of supply and demand.
Let’s take a quick tour of the actors involved here: the State and the European Commission act here through subsidies to breeders; the breeders and the entire sector are responsible for the offer; and individuals, as well as various other actors (companies, local authorities, for example), participate in the formation of social norms in terms of meat consumption and therefore demand.
A risk of aggravation of the trade balance deficit
Notwithstanding the position of the Court of Auditors, State action alone cannot produce a satisfactory result. A fall in the national supply of beef, whether correctly planned or not, will lead, all other things being equal, either to an increase in imports to compensate for the fall in production in France, or to an increase in prices, or to a mixture of the two. .
In the first case, state action will only shift the problem. Admittedly, greenhouse gas emissions in France will drop, but global emissions will remain unchanged as other countries increase their livestock to meet French demand.
Breeders in France will then be able to argue that their efforts only serve to enrich their international competitors, and it will then be very difficult to appease the anger they will express. The height of the paradoxes would then be for the State to intervene to compensate for their losses, because that would amount to subsidizing the widening of the deficit in our trade balance.
You have 54.62% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.