Interview by Eva van de Rakt, end of January 2024.
Eva van de Rakt: For decades, you have been working to reform the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy as an expert, political advisor, and representative of civil society. What are the biggest issues in this key EU policy area?
Hannes Lorenzen: The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has been a never-ending work in progress for decades. What’s concerning is the fact that there is no recognizable blueprint. Since the 1980s, we have been putting up scaffolds everywhere for renovation projects that cost a lot of money, but never come to fruition. Issues like protecting the environment, animals, and the climate are making no significant progress because we keep making cosmetic changes in an attempt to patch up outdated agricultural policy structures.
What do these outdated structures mean in practice?
Farmers are still being driven in the wrong direction: Regardless of the consequences, they are encouraged to keep growing and keep increasing production. This is harming our environment, soil, water, diversity, and the climate. More and more farmers are falling by the wayside. Increasing amounts of food are wasted. Meat exports keep rising – and we are left with the manure. The CAP was once a pillar of cooperation and integration in Europe. Today, it is a sad reminder of the Member States’ and the Commission’s inability to reconcile our food system with the great challenges of our time: We need to transform agriculture into a culture that is compatible with people, the climate, and nature.
What kind of Common Agricultural Policy do we need to finally finish this endless construction site and make a significant contribution toward the objectives of the European Green Deal?
Ursula von der Leyen has announced the Green Deal as a “man on the moon” moment, the great leap forward that would have Europe break new political and economic ground, leading the whole world by example. But if you take a closer look at the progress we’ve made in agricultural policy, the rocket hasn’t even taken off yet. On the contrary, we are chipping away at the engine and control units of the Green Deal, allegedly because the rocket is too heavy for lift-off. Together, the agricultural industry and the farmers’ associations that support it are currently pulling agricultural policy reform out of the Green Deal. The measures that have been announced, such as the “farm to fork” strategy, the legislative framework for a sustainable food system, the Nature Restoration Law, and pesticide regulations – all of them have unfortunately been dismal false starts.
What can we do to compensate for these false starts?
A future-proof CAP would have to be bold enough to start from scratch. Subsidies should only be granted to diverse, small-scale farming and to operations that switch to agroecological systems. Our rural development policy should build the necessary decentralized, critical, economic, and social infrastructures to create local, crisis-proof food systems. Subsidies should not be distributed per acre, but according to progress made in terms of reform and meaningful employment. Farmers should be able to earn their income under fair, competitive market conditions and by cooperating with each other and local food businesses. We must also protect them from imports linked to social and environmental dumping, and we need a public health policy to accompany this new start.
There is currently a huge amount of anger being unleashed by many farmers, not only in Germany. In recent months, farmers have also taken to the streets in the Netherlands, France, Poland, and Romania. There have even been some riots. Why are these protests so violent?
It's because of the never-ending construction sites and because of haphazard planning on the part of the responsible authorities in the Member States and in Brussels. But it is also the public’s ignorance and indifference about the situation in which many farms in the EU find themselves. We don’t feel their plight at the supermarket check-out. But we can now hear and see it on the streets. The elimination of diesel subsidies was the straw that broke the camel’s back, but farmers were already furious long before that. Even farmers who switched to organic farming a long time ago don’t see why they should have to meet ever more, and sometimes utterly nonsensical, requirements while their income is constantly fluctuating, declining, or has become unpredictable. Any farmer who is serious about converting their farm is faced with more work and a high economic risk. This is not remunerated appropriately and is barely appreciated. Fortunately, farmers are not completely alone: “Wir haben es satt” (“We’re fed up”), an annual demonstration during Green Week in Germany, is backed by a large alliance, showing that a broad united front can come together in a joint fight for an agricultural turnaround.
How can and should we respond to this anger?
Kind words, shows of solidarity without any personal political commitment, and lip service in support of small businesses without taking any concrete action ‒ that’s no longer going to cut it. On the contrary, it only exacerbates the anger. Cozying up with the farmers’ association and tacit agreements with the agricultural and food industry have greatly damaged the credibility of those who announced a big agricultural turnaround.
What could be the consequences of this loss of credibility?
We must seize the opportunity to bolster the National Strategic Plan for CAP reform so that it can actually facilitate an ambitious agricultural turnaround. If we fail to do so, advertising bans for unhealthy foods will be of little use. Now, in the runup to the European elections and before the new European Commission is sworn in, our public debate about the future of European agriculture must include an action plan for a new Green CAP. Otherwise, the farmers’ protests will only accelerate the rollback in agricultural policy.
In Germany, domestic intelligence services are warning that right-wing extremists could infiltrate the farmers’ protests. How do you assess this risk?
It is a high risk. The far-right AfD and its counterparts elsewhere in Europe offer simple answers: Let’s get rid of the government, let’s get rid of the Greens, the EU, the agricultural turnaround, the entire issue of climate change. Our responses to the many crises in agriculture involve considerable effort. They require explanations, empathy, cooperation, mutual interest, and respect. Just like in real life. The only way forward is to deliver. In 2024, democratic parties could become the minority in some countries and regions. If that happens, our task will be to slow down the big rollback and reposition ourselves on many different levels. The development in Poland is cause for hope, but it also shows how difficult it is to restore insight and reason once it has been lost.
Future enlargement will pose additional challenges for the EU and its agricultural policy. What do we need to consider before Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, and the Western Balkan countries become members of the EU?
Ukraine’s accession is the elephant in the room as the EU deliberates its next agricultural reform in 2027. Worried that the elephant might move and start breaking things, the Commission does not dare move itself. The established farmers’ associations are already upset about the prospect, warning of price competition from the East and demanding compensation payments. In fact, if Ukraine were to join the EU, the CAP as we know it would blow up. Given the size of Ukrainian farms, our current acreage-based payments would either balloon or even bust the agricultural budget. Ukraine’s agricultural structures and yields per hectare are comparable to the US. Most farms in the EU could not compete with that. In the Western Balkans, Moldova, and Georgia, small-scale farming prevails. The agricultural turnaround would thus become a necessity, both regarding our structures and Ukraine’s need to adapt its agroecological structures. Ukraine will join the EU at some point, not because we keep promising it, but because we need Ukraine. The people in the Western Balkans are already deeply disappointed by eternal stalling and inaction regarding their accession. This is another reason why relaunching our CAP is so vital.
What does this mean for Ukraine specifically?
Ukraine’s agricultural industry is currently asserting its interests in Brussels very forcefully. It wants to sell Ukrainian grain and meat surpluses to the EU, which was the initial trigger of the farmers’ protests in the Eastern European Member States and now throughout the EU. It would be wrong to support the interests of international corporations operating in Ukraine just because we stand in solidarity with Ukraine. Rather, the conditions for accession and future EU payments must be contingent upon certain criteria in all Member States. These criteria must promote production methods and infrastructures that help farmers treat their livestock humanely, foster soil fertility, and protect the climate in an enlarged EU. Currently, none of these criteria are central, neither in the EU or in Ukraine. Unfortunately, they are falling by the wayside in the current agricultural policy rollback. Without a sweeping overhaul of the CAP that takes realities in Ukraine into account, accession will be a disaster for the entire EU. This can and must be prevented.
Hannes Lorenzen is an agricultural expert. He served as advisor to the Greens group in the European Parliament from 1985 to 2019. He is the founder of various European networks on sustainable agriculture and rural development, including the Agricultural and Rural Convention (arc2020.eu), which he chairs.
Eva van de Rakt is Head of the EU and North America at the Heinrich Böll Foundation in Berlin. From 2019 to 2023, she was Director of the foundation’s EU Office in Brussels.