After a few weeks of crisis, during which a form of national harmony was formalized around the poor human, social and material fate reserved for those who feed us, discord was quick to resurface as soon as the tractors returned to the farm. fold. It was not so much the direct and indirect support for agricultural incomes which triggered the hostilities as the “rearmament” advocated by the government and interpreted by some as a productivist waging war. By decreeing a “pause” on Ecophyto, the Prime Minister knew that he held a trophy likely to calm the agricultural revolt while attracting the wrath of environmental defenders, within civil society but also from part of the agricultural world.
Two Ministers of Agriculture
The head of government was not mistaken, even if a good dose of bad faith, with relative toxicity, accompanied the (over)exploitation of the announcement. It was not in fact a question of putting the cover back on banned molecules, as we have heard, but of questioning Nodu, the indicator for monitoring phytosanitary pressure, as a recent parliamentary report recommended. on the fiasco of the Ecophyto plans, for which the rapporteur Dominique Potier, MP and organic farmer in his state, is in no way a lobbyist of ” agribusiness “. By declaring moratoriums on meadows and wetlands, by establishing the presumption of urgency in the face of disputes, by reducing the time limits for rights of appeal, by placing OFB agents under supervision, etc., the government has given pledges to farmers, perhaps beyond what they expected. Not to mention that with Attal 2, the profession is entitled to two ministers. At the same time, Brussels buried the pesticide component of the Green Deal, after re-authorizing glyphosate for 10 years, while paving the way for New Genomic Technologies (NGT), in the name of ecological and climate transitions. Suffice to say that the pill is very, very bitter for the defenders of organic farming, convinced of embodying resilience in all circumstances, including in terms of generational renewal.
Prioritize threats to prioritize responses?
At a time when, for the first time in history, the planet has experienced warming of more than 1.5°C on average for 12 months, the objective of the Paris Agreement for 2050, the “ break » Ecophyto reactivates the divisions between the imperatives of food sovereignty and the imperatives of transition, between the so-called ecology punitive » and the punishments inflicted by the climate, such as droughts, floods, fires, alteration of carbon sinks etc. Question for 10 euros, the equivalent of a few deciliters of glyphosate, a few liters of diesel (road or not), a few m3 of water, a few kilos of potatoes or tens of kilos of wheat: what , the collapse of biodiversity, climate change, all-out chemical contamination, soil degradation, overexploitation of resources, the attack on food sovereignty, the demographic surge, the return of famines or the influx of climate refugees constitutes the most serious threat to the future of Humanity? Prioritize threats to prioritize responses? It would have been the way to overcome the divisions. Unfortunately, the “cocktail” effect is more certainly guaranteed, like the famous “cocktail” effect attributed to pesticides. After the harmony born from roadblocks, we dream of such harmony to face all dangers.