Lhas “great agricultural law” of the five-year term announced in April 2022 by Emmanuel Macron during his presidential campaign is finally about to see the light of day, after multiple delays. Between the initial intentions and the text presented on Wednesday, April 3, in the Council of Ministers, the context has radically changed. The war in Ukraine, food inflation, trade tensions and above all the agricultural protests throughout Europe have forced the government to review its copy, the objective of which is to stem the decline of French agriculture.
The original intention remains. This involves modernizing our production model to regain competitiveness, while adapting it to the constraints imposed by climate change. The bill includes a component – much awaited but which does not resolve all the problems – intended to facilitate the transfer and installation of farms. One in three farmers will retire within ten years. But what especially attracts attention is the clear attenuation of ecological ambition. The agricultural anger which was expressed shortly before the Agricultural Show reshuffled the cards. At the request in particular of the National Federation of Farmers’ Unions (FNSEA), which sought to channel the protest movement, environmental standards were significantly reduced.
At the same time, agricultural sovereignty has been made a strategic priority. Almost absent from the debate at the start of the bill’s gestation, the subject became central with the invasion of Ukraine by Russia which is using its agri-food power as a geopolitical weapon. In principle, it would have been irresponsible and dangerous to neglect this dimension in the way our agricultural model evolved.
Backfire
The difficulty consists of making the objectives of sovereignty, normative simplification and competitiveness coincide with the climate issue and with the preservation of biodiversity. The concessions granted by the government in the text presented are worrying. They can be seen as so many brakes on the essential ecological shift and a final attempt by the FNSEA to perpetuate the productivist model. The left and environmental NGOs rightly criticize the delays in the climate transition that will result from this. These concessions can also be seen as a necessary quid pro quo to avoid a total blockage of the European normative process.
The introduction of the carbon tax, the trigger for the “yellow vest” crisis in the fall of 2018, should serve as a lesson. When the method does not arouse wide acceptance, it is imperative to adapt it in order to avoid a global challenge to the climate agenda. The far right, which feeds on anger, is just waiting for this. It is enough to observe the rise of populism almost everywhere to measure the fragility of the European consensus which led to the development of the Green Deal. The European Commission has understood this well, by starting to amend its project. France is no exception and is also trying to take this backlash into account.
The pragmatism that the government boasts, however, calls for extreme vigilance. The climate transition of farms is barely addressed in the bill. The question of the use of phytosanitary products is completely absent. It is now up to parliamentarians to find a satisfactory balance to move towards an agricultural model that is both profitable, protective of the environment and more resilient. This is a challenge, as the European election campaign will incite one-upmanship and demagoguery.