Sandrine Le Feur: Since the start of the agricultural crisis, the far right has exploited peasant distress to oppose agriculture and ecology, and to suggest that agriculture will have the choice of environmental regression. Let’s be clear: they press on salient divisions (elite vs. people, rural vs. urban) for electoral purposes, particularly before the European elections. They give the illusion that agriculture would be better off without environmental standards.
This is unreasonable. The problem is not linked to the existence of these environmental standards (the ambition of which will also have to increase in the years to come to respond to the climate and biodiversity crisis), but to the methods of application of these standards, which involve a colossal amount of paperwork. Administrative simplification is one of our priorities, and I think that it will largely remedy the frustration that some may feel regarding the ecological transition.
Beyond this issue on which we are working, it is crucial to continue to defend the Green Deal. Ecology and agriculture are not opposed to each other, on the contrary they need each other. Without biodiversity, without pollinators, without rich soils, without a stable climate, without water, agriculture declines. At the same time, without food sovereignty, we are dependent on our trading partners and their lower environmental standards.
I think that in reality, the agricultural world is very close to ecosystems, and it is important not to make it say what certain political parties would like to project as an image.
Benoît Biteau: By giving in to this old cliché consisting of opposing ecology and economy, ecology and agriculture, indeed ecology can be the big loser from these measures, but also and above all agriculture.
Numerous economic studies show that the farmers who do best are those who have turned to agroecology, and that “Being greener also helps you get out of the red!” ». In a global and long-term approach we see clearly that what threatens productivity, food sovereignty and therefore the income of producers is climate change and the collapse of biodiversity.
Responsible measures would therefore have been more in the ambitious remuneration of farmers who take care of the climate, biodiversity and health and therefore the common interest, through the establishment of payments for ecosystem services (PES), which would have the deserves to act in favor of the climate, biodiversity, health, farmers’ income and the provision of healthy, quality food to the entire population, whatever their income level. These PES can be financed by a reorientation of the CAP, but also by the redeployment of public policies currently focused on curative solutions, which would become preventive and anticipation policies.