Some European farmers on February 1 literally set fire to a square in Brussels in front of the European Parliament. They burned decorative trees, they burned tyres (which they had brought on purpose), and they even brought down and attempted to burn a metal sculpture. This was not good behaviour, certainly execrable, and it would be nice to find out who caused this damage to the city.
But they are right to be angry. Their work is less and less profitable, always very tiring, and they have not, for years, been able to find the answers they have been waiting for. What should milk producers say when they are paid 15, 16 cents a litre and then they see it at the supermarket at ten, twelve times that price? And it is the same for meat, for grains, for vegetables… It’s not a matter of greed; it’s a matter of the farmer’s
product costing more than he sells it for. As a result, he accepts subsidies, when they are available,
to help him survive. It is indeed a different matter for small farmers than for the big ones, who can make economies of scale, who have larger productions, can negotiate more forcefully on price, and for whom the incidence of bureaucracy is less onerous. Moreover, the issue is different along the whole supply chain that brings those products to our tables, where giant companies can set rules and prices.
The European agricultural system is subsidy-based, not market-based. One-third of the EU budget, more than 50 billion a year, goes to this crucial sector also to keep the countryside alive, protect the landscape, and make life possible without potentially dangerous animals breeding excessively and becoming a problem. It is clear that
“Brussels,” which is then nothing more than the expression of the wills of European governments, bears some responsibility for a situation evolving in a negative direction. Certain international agreements often cause concern because there is a fear that goods of lower quality than the legal minimums imposed here will enter Europe.
But the protests these days stem mostly from something else, from national situations, such as the price of agricultural diesel in Germany, or pollution thresholds in the Netherlands. Agriculture is not all the same in Europe, it changes from country to country, and national policies are decisive. But at the national level, many governments and parties tend to point the finger at “Brussels,” to offer an enemy that is distant and difficult to understand. And it is being done especially in these months, close to the European elections, probably to scrape up some votes in the wake of the parties, old and new, that have benefited from fueling these protests: on the backs of farmers, because while in Brussels the commission, the governments, and the parliament are working on the new European Agricultural Policy, at the national level the issue is scarcely addressed—when in fact the measures are not detrimental to farmers. Since this is a vital industry essential to everyone’s life,
subsidies are probably required for it. However, it’s possible that the economic model needs to be completely changed to provide conditions so that the many small farmers in nations like Italy can at least come close to living off their labour, relieving them of the burden of the industry’s supply chain. Perhaps the system can be better organized and not with everyone producing a little bit of everything. Even though here distances, count a little bit, even though we normally eat fruits and vegetables that come from the other side of the world.
