It’s done. Less than two years after the promulgation of an “orientation law”, the deputies adopted a new draft agricultural “emergency law” this Tuesday, June 2. The text now passes into the hands of senators.
This time, the title is clear. The urgency is there, undeniably, on the agricultural issue.
We must, very quickly and collectively, find solutions to protect farmers from the multiple economic, geopolitical and health risks that weigh on them. We need to define a “course”, a project for this sector that makes young people want to get involved in it, feeling valued within society.
We need to hear from all these farmers who say they are alone and abandoned in the face of the effects of climate change.
We must think about the conditions for the success of the necessary transitions, to depend less on nitrogen fertilizers, imported soya, pesticides, fuel to produce our food and finally act, concretely, in favor of our “sovereignty”.
But despite this, despite this shared sense of urgency, the miracle that many farmers were waiting for did not take place in the National Assembly.
Two irreconcilable fictional stories
Finally, this time again, it was a match between two fictitious, irreconcilable “narratives” that we witnessed.
On the one hand, the story of expansion, increased productivity and competitiveness as a miracle recipe. Opposite, a discourse on the agroecological transition caricatured and reduced to a “self-production” ideology.
And in the middle, therefore, an immense majority of farmers and distraught citizens. Because this match between two stories that are not anchored in any reality does not produce many winners.
It does not solve the problems of farmers any more than the environmental and public health disruptions generated by the current functioning of our food system.
However, voices are being raised, in many places in the public debate, to show that paths to consensus exist!
Farmers talk about their daily lives, to explain that they obviously cannot work “against” the environment. They explain that even if they decided to ignore it, climate change is already imposing significant changes in their practices, forcing them to adapt.
They affirm that these new practices, which aim to save natural resources and reduce dependence on inputs, are not necessarily synonymous with loss of production or profitability. On the contrary, they are essential to allow them to plan towards a still productive activity, in the medium term.
But they also need remunerative prices, market protection mechanisms, better targeted support, encouragement and recognition, to succeed.
Common demands
Likewise, agricultural unions, environmental NGOs, consumer associations are making common demands! Almost all of these organizations, for example, ask legislators to act to better regulate international trade and prohibit the importation of agricultural and food products treated with pesticide or veterinary substances prohibited by French or European law.
But even on these consensual proposals, addressed in the agricultural emergency bill, the debate heated up in the National Assembly. The possible dialogue on the conditions for the implementation and success of these solutions has given way to principled oppositions and clashes.
That’s enough!
A change is necessary within society to no longer allow a minority of actors to lock farmers into a debate so far removed from the difficulties they actually face on their farms. Whether we are farmers, consumers, residents of a region, we all have the opportunity to express our fed up.
And we have the power, by dialoguing, by being interested in the realities, aspirations and constraints of each other, by communicating outside our bubbles, to demonstrate to those who try to seduce the agricultural electorate by systematically banking on the opposition between agricultural production and the environment, that they are on the wrong track.
We can convince them that, on the contrary, it is a scenario of reconciliation of these issues that a majority expects. Because that’s where the real emergency lies.
About opinions
This text is signed by a guest author. He expresses his opinion and not that of the editorial staff. Our Live section aims to allow the expression of pluralism on religious, social and current affairs subjects, and to encourage dialogue, according to the criteria set by our editorial charter.
Share your opinion in comments or by writing to us at: readers.lacroix@groupebayard.com
