Drawing lessons from the ‘Siege of Paris’, and the future of French agriculture
At dawn on the 29th of January, millions of tractors flooded the roads around Paris, effectively cutting off access to France’s capital. Bales of hay were used to block highways, manure was sprayed on public buildings, and crates of cauliflowers were dumped across roads. Farmers vehemently proclaimed that this marked the start of the so-called “Siege of Paris,” engineered to pressure the government into responding to France’s growing agricultural crisis. While endorsed by popular support, this protest highlighted deep-seated frustrations within the farming industry. Farmers have been subject to rising costs and regulatory challenges, leaving them with little to no income to support their living expenses.
There are two primary concerns in the agricultural sector. The first relates to income.
In recent years, tougher environmental regulations crucial to sustainability have required farmers to invest in new methods of production. Nonetheless, these reforms were implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic when inflation was rampant, and consumers were looking for cheaper products. Competitive imports from abroad meant French farmers were unable to raise their prices to match increases in costs. All this has led to farmers selling produce for little to no profit. Rising costs associated with the Ukrainian War have further exacerbated the issue. Prices for fertilizer, livestock feed, and energy have soared, eating away at already scarce farming income.
The second concern fuels the first: free trade agreements and competition. The EU is currently negotiating a trade agreement with Mercosur, the economic bloc comprising Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay. If it were to go through, this agreement would lower tariffs on imports from the bloc, in particular relating to agricultural products. French farmers argue that this agreement creates unfair competition as foreign nations are not subject to the same agricultural policies. Such imports should be condemned, according to France’s Agricultural Unions, as they pressure farmers’ income while failing to meet the environmental standards EU farmers are subjected to.
As a result, the French agricultural sector is currently marginalized and vulnerable. There is a real sense of frailty among French farmers as suicide rates are rising and they are unable to meet basic needs. It is in this context that the Agricultural Unions have called for a sea change in the French food industry, demanding simplified regulations, fairer prices for produce and continued tax breaks to ensure farming prosperity.
Faced with his first national crisis, newly appointed Prime Minister Gabriel Attal has survived his baptism of fire, and has momentarily appeased the agricultural sectors. The government has conceded to virtually every demand made by the Agricultural Unions, reflecting both its current political weakness and the urgent need for reform to keep French farming afloat. Concessions include renewed French opposition to the Mercosur free trade deal and a pledge to reverse tax increases on farming fuels. Attal has also simplified administrative procedures, sped up payments of agricultural subsidies and banned imports treated with insecticides prohibited in France.
Nonetheless, these concessions are short-term, merely resolving the current crisis without preventing the certainty of there being future turmoil. French governments simply cannot afford to bail out farmers every time the economy takes a slight downturn. Reform to the French agricultural sector is therefore inevitable. Lessons need to be drawn from farmers’ deep discontent and systemic efforts to optimize productivity are long overdue.
In the future, French farming needs to focus on three core priorities: productivity, farmers’ living conditions and environmental awareness. All three of these pillars are interconnected and are key to the sector’s resilience and sustainability. The difficulty in reforming this sector lies in reconciling productivity with environmental goals while accounting for farmers’ lifestyle. Finding a balance between these three factors is the essential challenge facing policymakers, farmers and consumers alike.
The use of technology and innovation should play a major role in reforming French farming. Tools such as precision agriculture and data analytics increase productivity. Similarly, adopting resilient crops and climate-sensitive practices help farmers to adapt to changing environmental conditions. While investing in new food technologies is a significant fixed cost for farmers, savings in variable costs and working capital will offset this cost. Fuel, energy, and fertilizers will all be used more efficiently, benefiting farmers in helping them achieve better productivity and increasing profits.
Similarly, as consumer preferences evolve, French farming should embrace the opportunity to reevaluate and reform its policies. Recent years have revealed changing consumer preferences towards organic, sustainably produced and locally sourced foods. Further motivated by the climate impetus, it is expected that the agricultural industry will respond to customer demand for authenticity and ethical production methods. Shifting towards sustainability will change the sector, allowing space for regulation reforms and improved agricultural policies to support French farmers.
The key to a sustainable farming future remains finding a balance between economic viability and environmental consciousness. By embracing innovation, dialogue and adaptive strategies, French farmers can better navigate the complexities of the agricultural landscape while paving the path toward a more resilient future. In a context of climate urgency, this article hopes the French farmers’ protests will serve as a trigger for action and reform, instead of a sterile reminder of the deep-seated issues faced by the current agricultural sector.
Image courtesy of Julien de Rosa/AFP via Getty Images, ©2024. Some rights reserved.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the wider St. Andrews Foreign Affairs Review team.
