He is at the forefront of the grievances expressed by angry farmers, who, after the Netherlands, are demonstrating in France, Germany, Romania and Poland.
However, it does not only concern the agricultural world.
Launched by Ursula von der Leyen in 2019, the European Green Deal should enable the European Union (EU) to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, in accordance with the commitments of the Paris Agreement.
Transport, energy, industry, forestry management and, therefore, agriculture: all European economic sectors are concerned.
What does this famous “Green Deal” actually consist of?
As an intermediate objective to that of 2050, the 27 have already committed to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by 2030, compared to 1990 emission levels. In this perspective, the Commission has presented on July 14, 2021 all the texts aimed at this objective.
This is Act I of the Green Deal.
This plan must gradually be voted on in Brussels, before being transposed nationally by each member country.
Since 2021, more than fifty pieces of legislation have already been adopted at EU level.
Among the most emblematic, the end of the thermal engine for new cars from 2035, the establishment of a carbon tax at the borders, or even the energy renovation of buildings.
Also read: Guillaume Tabard: “Agriculture, ecology, Europe, impossible triptych?”
“From Farm-to-Fork”
The agricultural version of this plan is called “From Farm-to Fork” (in French, “From the farm to the fork”).
It lists a certain number of objectives which exasperate the agricultural world.
Thus, by 2030, this agricultural component plans to halve the use of pesticides, reduce the use of chemical fertilizers by 20%, or even halve the sales of antibiotics for farm animals.
Furthermore, the share of areas cultivated organically must reach 25% on the same date and 10% of current productive areas should be fallowed.
Already shaken by the energy crisis and the opening of the internal market to Ukrainian products, the agricultural world claims that this “Agricultural Green Deal” would further weaken it.
Two studies are regularly cited by its detractors.
The first, carried out by a university in the Netherlands, concludes that the implementation of these objectives would lead to significant losses in yield and a loss of value of European production estimated at 12 billion euros per year.
Farmers are not opposed to ecology, but we are taking the problem in reverse, sacrificing economic and social issues, instead of the other way around.
Thierry Coué, deputy secretary general at the FNSEA office and pig breeder in Brittany
The second study, carried out by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), estimates that the “Farm to Fork” and “Biodiversity” strategies would lead to a 12% drop in European agricultural production.
““
From farm to plate” is a strategy of organized degrowth
,” summarizes Jérémy Jallat, member of the board of directors of Young Farmers in charge of the CAP.
“
It’s a totally disconnected project
,” says Thierry Coué, deputy secretary general at the FNSEA office and pig breeder in Brittany.
Farmers are not opposed to ecology, but we are approaching the problem in reverse, from the societal end, by sacrificing economic and social issues, instead of the opposite.
»
Also read: “Food sovereignty” or “unfair competition”, should we put an end to free trade treaties?
Nothing or almost nothing was voted on
However, most of the laws and regulations which were to translate the agricultural aspect of the Green Deal have not yet been voted on in Brussels.
For the moment, the European Commission and then the European Parliament have only adopted the objectives contained in the “Farm to Fork” strategy, in May 2020 and October 2021 respectively.
But without legislative or regulatory translation, they currently have no binding value.
“
It’s quite surreal,
” underlines Jérémy Decerle, Renew MEP and farmer
.
Farmers consider themselves victims of the “Farm to Fork” strategy, although for the moment, no text provided for by this strategy has a direct impact on farms.
»
The conservatives of the European People's Party (EPP), the majority group in the European Parliament, opposed to "From Farm-to Fork", even obtained several victories.
Thus the regulation on the restoration of nature, emptied of its substance by the European Parliament.
“
This regulation aimed to translate most of the “Farm to Fork” and “Biodiversity” strategy,”
says Anne Sander, LR MP in the European Parliament and CAP negotiator for the PPE group.
Ditto of the text which provided for the reduction by half of the use of phytosanitary products by 2030, rejected by the European deputies.
Also read: Robert Redeker: “The farmers’ revolt is the true uprising of the people of the earth”
Legitimate concerns
On the so-called “nature restoration” law, the right once again managed to delete the article which provided for the fallowing of 10% of agricultural land.
But this provision could be reintroduced in a less restrictive form during the final vote which should take place at the end of February or the beginning of March.
“
The risk would be that the European Parliament votes for an obligation of means and more results
,” warns Anne Sander.
France is a champion of the over-transposition of European standards: the obligation of result could very well be reintroduced into French law.
»
But for the moment, agriculture has been relatively spared by Act I of the “Green Deal”.
Why, then, such opposition in the processions of farmers marching in Europe?
The distance from European institutions can lead to discrepancies between the actual progress of the policies carried out and their perception among the population.
On the agricultural aspect of the Green Deal, some confusion may remain between what was definitively voted on, what was rejected and what is still the subject of debate.
“
This confusion is sometimes maintained by opponents of the Green Deal, who make farmers believe that this plan is responsible for all their ills,”
denounces Renew MEP and farmer Jérémy Decerle
.
Now, what is still only in the draft stage can also give rise to legitimate concern.
»
In fact, in addition to the law on the restoration of nature which must soon be definitively voted on, other texts debated within the framework of the Green Pact may concern agriculture.
Thus the revision of the “IED directive” on industrial emissions, which provides for the upgrading of livestock buildings for a certain number of breeders.
“
The thresholds for farms affected by these standards have been lowered for laying hens and pigs
,” explains Anne Sander.
Concretely, many small French livestock farms will fall under the scope of this regulation which must be definitively voted on at the end of March and which involves between 50,000 and 80,000 euros of investment.
An overwhelming amount.”
Read alsoGuillaume Tabard: “Gabriel Attal sent back to an emergency of results”
Towards a “pause” of the Green Deal?
Beyond the agricultural aspect, where is the Green Deal as a whole?
After the Covid-19 pandemic and the exit of Russian gas, this European “sobriety” plan was on the rise.
But there have been growing
calls for a “
pause ” as energy prices have risen and inflation has soared.
This term was pronounced on May 11, 2023 by Emmanuel Macron himself, who called the EU for a
“regulatory pause”
.
A term taken up on September 13, 2023, in Strasbourg, by Ursula von der Leyen who spoke of
“a new phase of the Green Deal”
.
A declaration which resulted in several setbacks.
The most emblematic of these was undoubtedly the authorization of glyphosate for ten additional years the following month.
Enough to delight the Eurosceptic parties, who have always fought the Green Deal.
But the EPP conservatives are also increasingly critical on this subject.
Even within the Renew group, the changing economic situation has cooled some.
“
We have to be realistic,”
emphasizes Jérémy Decerle
.
We have the most ecological agriculture.
We must continue decarbonization of course, by all means.
Not at any price.
» As a reminder, the president of the environment committee of the European Parliament, Pascal Canfin, very committed to the subject, is also a member of the Renew group.
Only the Greens of the Alliance for European Freedom (ALE) party remain on the line of unconditional support.
On February 6, Ursula von der Leyen is expected to present a new intermediate objective to mark the road to 2050: reducing CO2 emissions for the EU by 90% in 2040 compared to 1990 levels. A way to restore the Green Deal at the heart of the European campaign... and his own campaign for a second term at the head of the European Commission.
If Ursula von der Leyen cannot renounce the “Green Deal”, a central marker of her own policy, she will have to deal with an increasingly restive EPP.
Without forgetting the Eurosceptic parties, on the rise in many countries.