The conflict in Ukraine is an agonising tragedy. But, for agribusiness, it is above all a great chance to destroy European objectives in terms of agroecology, at the price of the climate, biodiversity and human health. Will the decarbonization of the agriculture sector be the next collateral casualty of the Ukrainian drama?
 |
| [Ukraine war and food shortages /UNSPLASH] |
Using terror to enforce one's political agenda is a method that has shown to be effective in the past. Agri-food sector leaders have recognised this, and they have used it to their advantage. Since the commencement of the conflict in Ukraine, they have created the threat of food shortages in order to push their old model of productivist and polluting agriculture. The predicted fall in agricultural exports from Ukraine, on the other hand, is not expected to have disastrous effects for the nations of North Africa and the Middle East, which is essentially self-sufficient in terms of food supplies.
The true threat resides elsewhere: in the over-reliance of European agriculture on fossil fuels, which is a source of concern. In addition to rising gas and oil prices, European farmers are presently suffering surging expenses for synthetic nitrogen fertilisers and potash, both of which are sourced from Russia and Belarus, respectively, and account for more than a third of total imports.
As a result of this dramatic increase in the price of inputs, coupled with intense financial speculation on agricultural raw resources, higher consumer prices might result, with the consequences being disastrous for many European families who are already suffering from the energy crisis.
As a result of this tense environment, the reaction supplied by the agriculture industry is positively ebullient: according to this sector, the only option for Europe to secure its food security would be to maintain its energy-intensive agricultural model. Over the course of many weeks, the food industry's behemoths have waged a deceitful campaign against the European Green Pact, saying that it would result in an unacceptable decline in output in response to the threat of food shortages. Particularly in their sights are the long-term goals of lowering the use of pesticides and synthetic fertilisers, as well as the promotion of organic farming, which are all part of the "From Farm to Table" plan.
Agribusiness, determined to undo the meagre environmental achievements already in place at the European level, publicly calls for increased production by allowing cultivation on fallow land (including the application of pesticides) or even authorising the use of pesticides in protected areas of ecological interest. Nevertheless, although the possibility for increased harvesting in these places is quite modest, the environmental costs associated with doing so would be extremely substantial.
An absurdity
This unrelenting lobbying effort seems to be beginning to bear fruit. As a result of public pressure, the European Commission has recently postponed the presentation of two forthcoming laws on "the sustainable use of pesticides" (you'll note the oxymoron) and "the restoration of ecosystems," on the grounds that they need to be "reworked." To put it another way, reduce your degree of ambition. The scientific literature, on the other hand, indicates that agro-ecological approaches may provide yields that are comparable to those obtained using traditional methods. In any event, even if this were not the case, Europe has the sufficient agricultural area to assure its food self-sufficiency, provided that it undertakes a reorientation of its output.
For example, just a tenth of Walloon wheat is meant for direct human consumption, while 50% is designed for animal husbandry production. This suggests that with double the amount of plant-based food consumed by humans, we could fulfil the cereal requirements of a population equal to twice the size of Belgium. Because the remaining forty percent of Walloon wheat is fully devoted to the manufacture of harmful agro-fuels, this is all the more startling. Do you think it is foolish to promote the intense production of edible foodstuffs in our territory just for the purpose of fueling automobiles rather than supplying food for human consumption?
Avoid allowing the agricultural industry to use the conflict in Ukraine to further its own interests. Defending our food sovereignty is now, more than ever, a clear geopolitical and environmental concern.
For a better redistributive policy
To be sure, agroecology is capable of feeding us, but it can only do so by absorbing rather than releasing carbon dioxide and repairing rather than depleting biodiversity, as has been shown. A similar transformation would also enable European farmers to break free from the triple reliances (on energy, seeds, and synthetic inputs) that have been causing them to become impoverished from year to year. Because if we do not act now, environmental deterioration might render a third of agricultural land unusable by 2100, resulting in the extinction of agriculture as we know it.
In the near future, the EU will have to expand its financial assistance to farmers in order to help them get through the present energy crisis, as well as to nations that are threatened by food shortages via the World Food Programme. In order to alleviate the shock of rising prices, which is pushing an ever-increasing percentage of our populations into precariousness, only redistributive measures – through better fiscal and social fairness – will be effective at the national level.
Contrary to what the food industry claims, the start of famine in Europe is not something that will happen tomorrow. A food system that is not sustainable, on the other hand, would be terrible for our collective future. The time has come to make a stand, and we must not back down.