This was the priority mission given to him by European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen: present the commission’s vision for agriculture and food within the first 100 days of the European executive’s term of office. Mission accomplished on 19 February. (CSV/EPP) talks to Paperjam about the driving forces behind this vision and its objectives.
Marc Fassone: The “From Farm to Fork” strategy adopted in October 2021, which aimed to bring about a fundamental transformation of the European food system, has faded away... It has been replaced by a “vision for agriculture and food.” What is the difference between this defunct strategy and the vision for agriculture and food that you have just presented?
Christophe Hansen: First, in terms of form, the working method is very different. We’re relying more on dialogue and consultation, without trying to impose numerical targets on stakeholders. The “From Farm to Fork” strategy led to such an excess of percentages and figures that, in the end, many key proposals could not be adopted. We now need to take a broader approach, encompassing economic, social and environmental issues.
Basically, the vision we have presented aims to give hope and perspective back to farmers, and more broadly to the players in the agri-food sector. This vision will guide our work over the next five years. It is a clear and assertive strategy aimed at strengthening the competitiveness and resilience of the agri-food sector to ensure that it remains attractive for future generations. For me, generational succession is one of the major challenges we face. The vision will also guarantee our food sovereignty in the face of rising political, geopolitical and climatic risks. The issue of predictability is going to be very important for our farmers, so that they can invest sufficiently in new technologies that will enable them to be more productive and more efficient.
Can we talk of a break with the past in European agricultural policy?
No. You have to remember that the previous commission, chaired by Ursula von der Leyen, set up the strategic dialogue. The idea was to get all the players in the agri-food production chain and the NGOs around the same table to put an end to polarisation. This polarisation was damaging, because it put some in one camp and others in another. With the European Board on Agriculture and Food (EBAF), we ensured that this objective of depolarisation was pursued so that we could find solutions together. Solutions that will perhaps be more applicable than in the past.
Is this depolarisation possible? Some issues seem to lend themselves more to controversy than to consensus-building. The environment and sustainability, for example. Two thousand scientists have just co-signed an open letter expressing their “deep concern about the shift in the EU’s political priorities towards competitiveness and economic growth at the expense of sustainability.” Do you think their concerns are justified? How do you respond?
I don’t think that, at the start of this legislature, when a new decision-making model is being put in place, we should revert to the polarisation reflexes that prevailed before. I am confident that this dialogue will lead to workable solutions that will help us achieve our objectives. These objectives are shared by the agricultural sector, which is both the first victim of climate change and our best line of defence. We need to focus on incentives to adapt production methods in order to combat climate change and protect our natural resources.
Specifically, what is your position on the issue of pesticides? Are we moving towards strict bans or more flexible solutions?
When a pesticide is authorised, it is at the end of a whole scientific procedure conducted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which assesses the toxicity and harmful potential of products before authorising them. Authorisation also takes into account the maximum level of residue that can be contained in a foodstuff or agricultural product. That said, we need to ensure that when such a product is withdrawn from the market, farmers have a credible and effective alternative to protect their crops. We must therefore ensure that biopesticides that are more sustainable and less harmful enter the market more quickly. We are going to speed up these procedures. At the moment, it has to be said that we are withdrawing a lot of products without ensuring that alternatives exist.
And we mustn’t forget the question of reciprocity. If a product is scientifically proven to be harmful to bees or human health within the European Union, it will also be harmful outside our borders. But these products continue to be used here. And if the minimum or maximum thresholds set by our food safety agency are respected, farmers and consumers have a right to expect such reciprocity.
Can you impose this principle of reciprocity on our trading partners?
The European Commission has been working on this for years, long before my appointment. I share responsibility for this dossier with Olivér Várhelyi, the commissioner responsible for animal health and welfare. We have already banned neonicotinoids that are used as seed coatings. We are already doing this, and I think that the exclusion list is set to be extended. Of course, there is resistance on this issue, but I think that if we can demonstrate that the use of these products jeopardises the achievement of our common goals--I’m thinking of the United Nations’ sustainable development goals--then we need to reach agreements. Not to do so would be greenwashing.
But in today’s globalised world, which is increasingly based on power relations, does the European Union have enough clout to assert its vision?
We are a net exporter of agricultural and food products. So it’s not out of the question that there could be tensions. But this is nothing new. Ideally, this kind of dispute should be dealt with at a multilateral level, before the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) or the World Trade Organisation (WTO). But I think we need to be more aggressive when it comes to defending our values. And these values obviously include the protection of human health and the environment.
Let’s stay with international trade: the Mercosur agreement is a highly controversial issue. Do you understand the rejection of this text by the farming community and a large part of public opinion, and do you feel that this rejection is justified?
A trade agreement is always negotiated on the basis of a mandate from the European Council, i.e., the member states. The commission does not negotiate in a vacuum. It had a mandate and very clear instructions with objectives to achieve.
We have “offensive” products that export very well. For example, wine and spirits, but also dairy products with our protected geographical indications, such as Comté, Roquefort and so on. We also have products where we are more on the defensive, such as poultry and beef. For the latter, the member states had demanded that the commission introduce safeguard clauses. And for the first time in history, these safeguard clauses apply even within the fixed quotas. If, for example, there was a disturbance in the price of beef, these clauses could be activated to prevent imports.
This invaluable service [farmers] provide to society as a whole needs to be enhanced.
We should also remember that 200,000 tonnes of beef from Mercosur countries are already entering our market today. Perhaps we need to convince consumers that our product is perhaps more sustainable because it doesn’t have to be transported 12,000 km. This is an aspect that needs to be taken seriously and worked on. Just as we need to work on the competitiveness of our farms. That’s the big challenge: if we can reduce the administrative burden on farmers, encourage innovation to increase their competitiveness and ensure that they get a better price for their products, we'll have made a lot of progress.
But do you think that all these explanations are understandable to public opinion or even to the farming sector?
A lot of people were shouting before the agreement was even available. I wonder whether those who shouted really read the agreement in its entirety. I’m thinking of the safeguard clauses mentioned earlier, which are still very important. My duty as Commissioner for Agriculture and Food is to work to resolve the problems of competitiveness. We saw it last year: when farmers took to the streets, it was to demand a reduction in the administrative burden, to obtain a fair price for their produce and to ensure that the principle of reciprocity in international trade is guaranteed. If we can deliver on these points, I think the fear of a lack of competitiveness with third country producers will be resolved.
You mentioned the farmers’ demonstrations last year. What place do farmers have in European society today, and do they get the social recognition they deserve?
We need to give farmers back the place they deserve. They’ve been neglected too much in recent years. We need to make society understand that farmers produce healthy food, the healthiest food in the world, for 450m European consumers and--and this is a huge responsibility--they ensure that our rural areas remain alive, that our landscapes are preserved, as is the environment. This invaluable service they provide to society as a whole needs to be enhanced.
Farmers are prepared to make efforts. We need to support them, not penalise them.
In practical terms, how do we go about enhancing the social status of farmers?
First of all, we need to make the efforts that are already being made more visible. A study by the European Commission clearly shows that by 2023, European agriculture will have reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 2%. By way of comparison, the transport sector has only reduced them by 1%. Agriculture is doing things better and more efficiently than other sectors. That has to be said. It’s true that agriculture and food production account for 11% of the EU's emissions. But that’s the trade-off for the fact that it also feeds an entire population and beyond. As long as agricultural production remains a chemical process, there will be emissions. Farmers are prepared to make efforts. We need to support them, not penalise them. The dialogue we have established with the EBAF will be crucial to achieving these objectives with the players on the ground.
Social recognition is one thing. But what about financial recognition? What can you do to ensure that all farmers can make a good living from their work?
Farmers are often the weakest link in the value chain. That’s an observation and a legitimate criticism. We need to strengthen their negotiating position in the value chain. We have put forward two proposals: the first to combat unfair trading practices; and the second relating to the common organisation of markets, to encourage farmers to form producer organisations so that they have more leverage with distributors. We have also proposed that contracts should henceforth be in writing. Contrary to what you might think, this is far from being the case today. Written contracts make things more predictable for farmers and help them avoid having to sell a harvest to the highest bidder without covering production costs.
Do you think the supermarket lobbies will make your job easier?
They’re not going to make things any easier for us, that’s quite clear! That’s why we have set up an observatory of the agri-food chain, to see who is making what margin. This kind of transparency is important for consumers, and enables us to act in the best possible way.
And I think it’s also very important for consumers to have this transparency. With transparency, we can also act better.
My aim is to give young farmers prospects and make them feel encouraged
Do you think that the farming world still has confidence in Europe?
I think that the agricultural world is in the process of regaining confidence in politics. This vision is a very important step in restoring that confidence. Our vision has only just been published and I’ve already had some very positive feedback: farmers feel valued and put back at the centre of the discussion. That’s a very important point. Personally, I’m currently touring Europe to meet farmers and their representatives on the ground. That’s something I think is very important. I’m not afraid of debate. I come from a farming background myself and I know the terrain. It’s a good way of getting into discussions.
You had 100 days to present your vision. Now you have. In five years, at the end of your mandate, what will make you say that you've done a good job?
At the very beginning of my mandate, I met a young farmer who had just taken over the family farm with her brother. I asked her a similar question and she replied that if in five years, she and her brother were still farming, then I would have done a good job. My aim is to give young farmers prospects and make them feel encouraged. In five years, I’ll go back to her and ask her if she thinks we’ve succeeded.
This article was originally published in .