Editorial: In the debris of Farm to Fork

Last autumn, a cold shower came from the EU Commission. Nothing would be done to fulfil a range of remaining commitments from Farm to Fork. Several nearly finished proposals, developed over years by the Commission’s officials, were put on ice. Among them, are the Sustainable Food System Law and the Integrated Nutrient Management Action Plan, along with animal welfare and pesticide legislation.

Instead, a strategic dialogue on the Future of EU Agriculture was launched with the aim of “less polarisation”, accompanied by the somewhat clichéd declaration that “agriculture and protection of the natural world can go hand in hand”. The process commenced in January, involving 31 representatives from different interest groups. The outcome is anticipated to be a report containing recommendations for the upcoming EU Commission.

• Meanwhile the ongoing farmer protests across Europe have been hard to ignore. From a distance, it might seem like a unified movement. They are likely inspired by each other’s methods. However, the reasons behind the discontent and the demands vary:
• German farmers protested against proposals to eliminate tax exemptions for agricultural vehicles and a halt to agrarian diesel.
• French farmers are dissatisfied with perceived low wages, extensive regulations, and unfair competition from farmers in other countries.
• Polish farmers’ anger is directed at the influx of cheap Ukrainian cereals, a concern shared by farmers in other Visegrád countries.
• Spanish farmers have demanded changes in EU agricultural policy and measures to combat drought and rising production costs. Similar demands can be heard from farmers in neighbouring Portugal
• Dutch farmers protest the implementation of nitrogen measures based on the 1992 Habitat Directive.
• Belgian farmers are upset about what they consider rigid EU rules regarding, expensive fuels, and competition from goods imported from countries with lower environmental requirements.

It’s a mix with often location-specific and sometimes even contradictory issues. However, many EU politicians and the European umbrella farmers organisation, Copa-Cogeca, have not hesitated to paint a much simpler picture of an angry rural population versus environmental activists in the cities wanting to make life difficult for farmers. We will likely hear more of such rhetoric, which is unfortunate and even dangerous.

The drought that farmers on the Iberian Peninsula are suffering is a direct consequence of climate change. As you can read in the front-page article there are great economic benefits of transitioning agriculture now, compared to sticking to old tracks for a few more decades.

As a group, farmers do not face as tough economic conditions as one might think. Statistics show that, on average, farmers’ incomes have not deteriorated compared to other industries in the past decades1. However, certain parts of the sector may have had a worse outcome, likely overrepresented by those visible on the streets.

What is not talked about as much is that the agro-industry that provides farmers with feed, fertilisers and pesticides, makes money by not transitioning. It’s also known that they have financially supported the protests on several occasions.2

Will the strategic dialogue lead to the consensus it aims for? I would encourage them to be inspired by the Food System Economics Commission, sit down, and examine the debits and credits for both the environment and farmers in depth. Ultimately, it’s not just a question of whether agriculture and the protection of the natural world “can” go hand in hand – they must do so.

Kajsa Pira

1 http://capreform.eu/what-is-actually-happening-with-agricultural-incomes/
2 https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/collectie/13910/artikel/2435724-agro-industrie-...