Anger of farmers: “Sometimes we have not gone far enough”, declares Aveyron MP Stéphane Mazars

Le député Mazars revient sur la crise agricole qui a touché la France. Centre Presse – José A. Torres

Le député de la première circonscription, Stéphane Mazars, est revenu sur la crise agricole qui a secoué le pays et qui couve toujours.

The farmers' anger has calmed somewhat. However, it has been brewing for many months, even years. On the ground, did you feel this exasperation rising ? And was it not possible to respond to it before it erupted ?

Indeed, we could sense this crisis coming, with my deputy Pauline Cestrières who is also a farmer, during the various meetings that I had throughout my mandate. It was a discontent linked to administrative hassles, the pressure of controls, concerns about the cost price of farm products, concern linked to unfair competition from certain countries, etc. And it ended up becoming unbearable.

All these subjects, since 2017 when I was elected, I have heard them on the ground. We have identified all the subjects. But on certain points, we have not gone far enough to give real visibility to our farmers. The account was not there.

Precisely, do you think that the responses provided by Gabriel Attal to this crisis are sufficient ?

The Prime Minister made a number of commitments. And with concrete answers. It remains to talk more to the breeders who are perhaps those who are, at the moment, suffering the most from the crises. You also need to commit to a schedule.
When we met with the different unions, FDSEA and JA, this was part of the demands. We must take advantage of this time until the Agricultural Show to ask questions and establish diagnoses. This first step will first take place at the local level with meetings organized in the coming days between the prefect and representatives of the profession. At the national level, work is being carried out in parallel. It can be dealt with by regulation.

The bracketing of several standards related to the use of phytosanitary products worries some. Is this a decline in the ecological question ?

Above all, we must not oppose agriculture and ecology. Especially in a territory like ours. They are fully aware of the issues. They are on the front lines of climate change. And it is they too, through inconsiderate use of these products, who would put their lives in danger.

We can trust them in their ability to address these environmental, diversity and public health issues. Today we have to question what we are implementing, the contradictions, sometimes with standards taken at the level of the European Union. We must succeed in co-constructing, in a peaceful, rational, scientific framework, the agroecology of tomorrow. On this subject we must move away from militant postures and biases. And we must respect this principle: no ban without a solution. If we can get out of dependence on certain products, so much the better. But we cannot leave farmers without a solution at the risk of putting them in great difficulty.

In Aveyron, the conflict between milk producers and Lactalis drags on. Can't parliamentarians weigh in on the discussions and move the issue forward ?

If, within the framework of discussions between Lactalis and our farmers, the latter believe that the letter and spirit of the Egalim law are not respected, it will be up to us to draw the attention of the public authorities so that checks can be carried out. If the manufacturer is not able to take this cost into account, the contracting is not done as the law requires. It is therefore necessary to control and, if necessary, sanction.

In the midst of the agricultural crisis, the 300 euro increase in the envelope for MPs' mandate fees has sparked controversy. Was the timing right ?

No, the timing was very bad. We would have been fine without it. Most MPs discovered this decision on social networks or through the press. This is a decision emanating from the quaestors, three deputies who manage the administrative and financial matters of the Assembly. The office of the national assembly then validated; there was no vote by the deputies and we were faced with a fait accompli. We all regretted this decision taken at the worst time. Even if it is not an increase in our remuneration but the advance made each month to cover our professional expenses, linked to permanence, travel, etc.

I subscribe to read more