Farmers are protesting against cuts in agricultural diesel. But aren't the problems much deeper? Experts and politicians are calling for massive change.
Berlin – The fact that the traffic light government wants to put the red pencil on agricultural diesel is currently driving farmers to the barricades. Some say rightly: the removal of subsidies will hit farmers disproportionately hard. Others believe the farmers' protests are exaggerated: they argue that no farm will go under because of the removal of diesel subsidies.
For agricultural scientist Alois Heißenhuber, a retired professor at the Technical University of Munich, the traffic light government's planned subsidy cuts are the “famous straw that breaks the camel's back”. In principle, farmers have been waiting for a “sensible solution” to their problems for decades, the agricultural economist told us Merkur.de from IPPEN.MEDIA.
The “tragic” thing about it, in his opinion, is that concepts and solutions have been in the drawer for a long time. The only thing is that politicians don't implement it. “And you have to fear that this government, which seems to be quite divided, will no longer be able to do that.”
Solutions for angry farmers long ago in the drawer? “Never implemented”
Heissenhuber refers to a book that is over 150 pages long Paper entitled “Future Agriculture”. 40 social groups from the areas of agriculture, business, environmental protection, nature conservation, animal protection and consumer protection have presented recommendations for the creation of sustainable agriculture.
The report states, for example, that farmers must have a business interest in avoiding harmful effects in the future. Politics must make this possible through laws and financial support. The costs of change would have to be borne by society as a whole and not just by farmers. Food prices must better reflect production costs again, and there must be compensation for those with lower incomes.
There were ideas for agriculture – but politics got in the way
The various groups approved these proposals to politicians in August 2021, unanimously. Farmers, animal and conservationists – everyone was in favor. “There are very good approaches there,” says Heißenhuber. “But what depresses me is that they were never implemented.”
A few things came up for the politicians that seemed more important than the farmers' problems: first the federal election campaign, then the new government, then that Ukraine war and finally further global crises.
A specific point that needs to change, according to Heißenhuber, is that the area of a farm should no longer be the criterion by which the EU's direct payments are distributed – which was also a recommendation of the Future Commission.
Subsidies per hectare – Greenpeace also criticizes this. In a press release, the environmental organization calls for a radical departure from the current system in agricultural policy: “Cem Özdemir must finally do his job, promote environmental and climate protection in agriculture and resolutely reduce environmentally harmful subsidies.”
Greenpeace is calling for a change in VAT on agricultural products
The organization refers to a self-commissioned one study, according to which six billion euros in environmentally harmful subsidies flow into agriculture every year. In order to change that, Greenpeace is calling for the state to stop subsidizing the VAT for “climate-damaging meat and dairy products”, but instead set the VAT rate for plant-based products to zero and support those farmers who “invest in more animal welfare or alternatives to meat”.
Agricultural expert Heißenhuber believes that the issue of taxing food is also a “hot topic,” but Greenpeace’s proposal is not feasible. But he also believes that a realignment of agricultural policy – fair supply chains, more animal welfare, and the costs being borne by society as a whole, as suggested by the Future Commission – is unavoidable.
“To see the problem in the current government is too short-sighted”
“Seeing the problem only in the current government is too short-sighted,” emphasizes the agricultural economist from the Technical University of Munich. “Over the past 40 years, the Ministry of Agriculture has been largely in the hands of CDU and CSU people.”
And there were also large protests by farmers during the CDU government. Heißenhuber recalls the farmers' protests in 2019, during Angela Merkel's government. At the time, tens of thousands of farmers put up green crosses to protest against CDU Agriculture Minister Julia Klöckner's agricultural package. Klöckner wanted to shift direct payments to farmers, which raised fears among farmers that they would be financially strained.
Agricultural diesel dispute “small stumbling block” – but farmers’ anger is understandable
In view of the challenges facing agriculture as a whole, the agricultural diesel cuts that are now being hotly debated are only “a small stumbling block,” said Heißenhuber. Nevertheless, he understands that farmers' anger is currently being unleashed. “Just like the overly complicated fertilizer regulation, for example, it is another pinprick.” Other controversial plans by the traffic light coalition – heating law, CO₂ price increase, rising energy prices – have caused a lot of anger in politics overall.
In view of the farmers' protests, members of the Bundestag from the Greens and FDP are now also calling for fundamental changes in subsidy policy. Agriculture has been in crisis for decades, former Agriculture Minister Renate Künast (Greens) told the newspapers Funke Media Group. “Something has to change fundamentally.” What is needed is a “transformation path and not a fait accompli without alternatives”. Künast calls for “the subsidy to be gradually reduced and to talk to the industry”.
FDP politicians criticized politicians’ “cheap horse trading” with farmers
The deputy FDP parliamentary group leader Carina Konrad said that she considered the frustration with the agricultural policy of the past few years to be “absolutely understandable”. “Cheap horse trading” was practiced: “Additional requirements for farmers were exchanged for more financial support,” said Konrad.
It is now time to do away with these practices. “Our agricultural policy must once again be consistently oriented towards objective needs and long-term goals in order to bring about real, positive change,” said the FDP politician.
Union rejects debate about subsidies in agriculture
The Union parliamentary group in the Bundestag, however, rejects a debate about reforms in financial aid for agriculture. The subsidies are timely because they are compensation payments for public goods such as security of supply and landscape management, said the deputy parliamentary group leader Steffen Bilger spark-Newspapers. “They correspond to the special role of agriculture, which ensures a reliable supply of high-quality, healthy and affordable food for the population from our local regions.” (smu)
#cheap #horse #trading #farmers #protests #reveal #deep #problems
