SHARE
COPY LINK
For members

JOHN LICHFIELD

ANALYSIS: French farmers have won this battle, but are losing the war

French farmers have won big concessions from both France and the EU, writes John Lichfield, but these address none of the long-term problems and the hard choices that farmers, governments and consumers must make.

ANALYSIS: French farmers have won this battle, but are losing the war
A French police officer stands in front of tractors blocking the A6 highway near Chilly-Mazarin, south of Paris. Photo by EMMANUEL DUNAND / AFP

The French farmers have won. They have already won more concessions from the government and from the EU than they would have dreamed of a week ago.

But some of them don’t want to go home. They think they have the government on the run. They are having fun. They want more.

In truth, there is no such monolithic thing as “French farmers”. There are a dozen sectors, a half dozen regional differences and three mutually loathing farming unions.

Satisfying them all is impossible – and probably undesirable.

All is not equal in French farming. Some farmers are suffering. Some are making a fortune.  On average, French farm incomes are rising not falling.

The biggest French farming union, the Fédération nationale des syndicats d’exploitants agricoles (FNSEA), is struggling to keep its members under control.

The far-right small farmers’ union, Coordination Rurale, which detests the EU and the government AND the FNSEA, has sent a column of 200 tractors to disrupt the vast wholesale food market at Rungis south of Paris. Some have been arrested; some have agreed to retreat; others are still trundling north.

 If there is violence in the next few days, it will start with them.

In retrospect, the new Prime Minister Gabriel Attal blundered last week when he sought a publicity coup by snubbing the FNSEA and dealt on live TV with rebel beef farmers in the south west.

The union leadership was furious. They dropped the reins holding back angry members in different parts of the country.

They encouraged a siege of Paris which was meant to be a controlled show of force. They are now struggling to prevent their more militant members from joining ranks with the trouble-makers of the Le Pen-leaning Coordination Rurale.

The many jealousies and tensions between farm sectors and farm unions are crystallised in the profile of the FNSEA’s leader, Arnaud Rousseau. He is a multi-millionaire, farmer-businessman with 700 hectares of cereals north-east of Paris.

An image went viral on French social media last weekend. It showed a motorway blocked by a line of Ferraris. The image was captioned: “The big cereal producers of Beauce (the vast, fertile plain south of Paris) join the farming protests”.

There are no Ferraris in the motorway blockades in the “siege of Paris” this week but there are scores and scores of shiny, new giant tractors which cost up to €200,000 each.

There are also shabby tractors from the 1970s covered in mud.

The rebellion may have started with the agricultural ‘sans-culottes’ of southern France but the siege of Paris is spearheaded by farming aristocrats.

The cereal growers of north and central France have just enjoyed two years of biblical plenty. The Ukraine war drove up the global price of wheat and barley. They were still able to claim six-figure acreage subsidies from the EU farm policy.

Two of their demands are dubious, even disgraceful.

They want to reverse EU restrictions on the use of pesticides, including a ban on spraying pesticides close to people’s homes. They object to a new EU rule which forces them to leave 4 percent (just 4 percent) of their land fallow each year to revive the wild plant and animal life which has been extinguished by decades of intensive farming.

Other French farmers – dairy and beef producers, fruit growers and makers of cheaper wines – have deeper and more genuine problems. They have been stricken by drought and flood and a new disease affecting cattle. Fodder prices are high and beef and dairy prices are low.

Many have invested in a switch to bio-agriculture, encouraged by Brussels and Paris, but now find that the demand for organic products is too weak to sustain the repayments on their loans.

Since he came to power in 2017, President Emmanuel Macron has enacted three laws which are supposed to force France’s powerful supermarket chains to pay reasonable margins to farmers for food.

The supermarkets have found ways of short-circuiting the laws. They have imposed low, wholesale prices for beef, milk, poultry, fruit and vegetables – while raising their own prices in line with “global food inflation”.

Most of these issues have been addressed by concessions made by the government and the European Commission in the last few days.  

The EU has partially suspended the 4 percent set-aside rule. It has promised greater control over cheap food imports from Ukraine.

The French government has abandoned plans to increase taxes on the cheap diesel fuel available to farmers. It has offered a €100 million relief package to struggling wine producers in the south. It has promised to enforce more rigorously the laws on fair prices for farmers.

The FNSEA leadership is now struggling to convince its members that these are real achievements which will need time to take effect.

The left-leaning Conféderation Paysanne says the relaxation of the environmental rules is a regression, not an advance. It wants to go back to the era of EU guaranteed farm prices, which produced the butter mountains and wine lakes.

The hard right Coordination Rurale is looking for trouble, not solutions. Its members are mostly responsible for the attacks on food lorries from other EU countries in recent days.

Such attacks are utterly foolish and self-defeating. French farmers are by far the biggest beneficiaries from the EU farm policy (which gives them subsidies worth €9 billion a year). Closing national borders to “foreign” food makes no sense for a country which sells €2 billion worth of cheese abroad and exports half its cereals.

A proper debate on the future of farming is long overdue but much of the French media discussion of the farmers’ revolt has been misleading and hystericised. The crisis will pass but the central conundrum will remain.

How can farmers respect new environmental constraints, produce food plentiful and cheap enough to satisfy consumers AND survive with low prices and fewer EU subsidies?   

Brussels still tends to shovel the biggest share of aid to big farmers who need it least. Successive French governments – and the dominant French farming union, the FNSEA – have defended that illogical approach while paying lip-service to the need to protect “small family farms”.

In an opinion article in Le Figaro this week, the philosopher Robert Redeker, blamed the crisis on “ecologists” who “have contempt” for the deep roots of France and want to see a “land without people”.  

This is piffle. If anything cleared French farmers from the land in the last half century, it was the pre-ecological, intensive EU farm policy, supported for decades by French and other EU governments and by the dominant farming unions.

You only need to look out of the window of the Eurostar as it races towards Paris through northern France to see hedgeless, chemical-soaked cereals fields three times bigger than farms used to be until the 1970s.

Some rationalisation of farming in the name of efficiency and productivity was inevitable. But what now?

Do we want to keep more farmers on the land? Do we want to make farming more ecologically responsible? Yes and yes.

Are we therefore prepared to pay much more for our food? Are we prepared to subsidise farming more, rather than less? No and No.

Member comments

  1. Last night in our village of Lautrec in the Tarn, I attended a gathering of regional bee-keepers in the southwest. They–and the bees–are under incredible stress. There are attacks from the invading species of Asian hornets plus the effects of climate change–drought and super high temperatures. This effort to overthrow the set-asides for wildflowers on which honey bees thrive is another blow–as is the use of industrial chemicals on crops–as these kill bees and other useful insects.

  2. Nice to see you John Litchfield
    I was a regular reader of the Independent and latterly the i
    which I now read on my iPad ( sign of the times) Enjoyed reading the article on farming. I’ve always respected you for your straight talking and balance and it looks like you haven’t lost your touch

Log in here to leave a comment.
Become a Member to leave a comment.

POLITICS

Explained: What’s behind the violence on French island of New Caledonia?

Violent unrest has disrupted daily life on the French Pacific island of New Caledonia - leaving several dead and prompting president Emmanuel Macron to declare a state of emergency. Here's a look at what’s happening, why, and why it matters so much to France.

Explained: What’s behind the violence on French island of New Caledonia?

Two people have been killed and hundreds more injured, shops were looted and public buildings torched during a second night of rioting in New Caledonia – Nouvelle-Calédonie, in French – as anger over planned constitutional reforms boiled over.

On Wednesday, president Emmanuel Macron declared a state of emergency as the violence continued, with at least one police officer seriously injured.

What began as pro-independence demonstrations have spiralled into three days of the worst violence seen on the French Pacific archipelago since the 1980s. 

Police have arrested more than 130 people since the riots broke out Monday night, with dozens placed in detention to face court hearings, the commission said.

A curfew has been put in place, and armed security forces are patrolling the streets of the capital Noumea.

So, New Caledonia is a French colony?

New Caledonia is, officially, a collectivité d’Outre mer (overseas collective). It’s not one of the five départements d’Outre mer – French Guiana in South America, Martinique and Gaudeloupe in the Caribbean and Réunion and Mayotte in the Indian Ocean – which are officially part of France.

As a collectivité, New Caledonia has special status that was negotiated in 1988 that gives it increasing autonomy over time and more say over its own affairs that the French overseas départements.

Home to about 269,000 people, the archipelago was a penal colony in the 19th century. Today its economy is based mainly on agriculture and vast nickel resources.

What has prompted the riots?

This is about voting rights.

Pro-independence groups believe that constitutional reforms that would give the vote to anyone who has lived on the island for 10 years would dilute the vote held by the indigenous Kanak people – who make up about 41 percent of the population, and the majority of whom favour independence.

New Caledonia’s voter lists have not been updated since 1998 when the Noumea Accord was signed, depriving island residents who arrived from mainland France or elsewhere since of a vote in provincial polls, enlarging the size of the voting population.

Proponents of the reform say that it just updates voting rolls to include long-time residents, opponents believe that it’s an attempt to gerrymander any future votes on independence for the islands.

The Noumea Accord – what’s that?

It was an agreement, signed in 1998, in which France said it would grant increased political power to New Caledonia and its original population, the Kanaks, over a 20-year transition period. 

It was signed on May 5th 1998 by Lionel Jospin, and approved in a referendum in New Caledonia on November 8th, with 72 percent voting in favour.

The landmark deal has led to three referendums. In 2018, 57 percent voted to remain closely linked to France; in October 2020, the vote decreased to 53 percent. In a third referendum in 2021, the people voted against full sovereignty with another narrow margin.

And that’s what the reforms are about?

Yes. The reforms, which have been voted through by MPs in France, but must still be approved by a joint sitting of both houses of the French parliament, would grant the right to vote to anyone who has lived on the island for 10 years or more. 

President Emmanuel Macron has said that lawmakers will vote to definitively adopt the constitutional change by the end of June, unless New Caledonia’s political parties agree on a new text that, “takes into account the progress made and everyone’s aspirations”.

Autonomy has its limits.

How serious is the unrest?

French President Emmanuel Macron urged calm in a letter to the territory’s representatives, calling on them to “unambiguously condemn” the “disgraceful and unacceptable” violence.

New Caledonia pro-independence leader, Daniel Goa, asked people to “go home”, and condemned the looting.

But “the unrest of the last 24 hours reveals the determination of our young people to no longer let France take control of them,” he added.

This isn’t the first time there’s been unrest on the island, is it?

There has been a long history of ethnic tensions on New Caledonia, starting in 1878 when a Kanak insurgency over the rights of Kanaks in the mining industry left 200 Europeans and 600 rebels dead. Some 1,500 Kanaks were sent into exile.

Clashes between Kanaks and Caldoches in the 1980s culminated in a bloody attack and hostage-taking by Kanak separatists in 1988, when six police officers and 19 militants were killed on the island of Ouvea.

SHOW COMMENTS