EU Agriculture Commissioner Hansen: “Environmental protection will look different in the future”

Brussels. Farmers are considered the big winners of the proposed EU budget: They are set to continue receiving a large share of European citizens' tax revenue – yet farmers are taking to the barricades. On the 8th floor of the Berlaymont in Brussels, the headquarters of the EU Commission, EU Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen speaks in an RND interview about how funds for farmers should be distributed more fairly, what measures he wants to use to attract young people to the profession, and why EU funds ultimately ensure affordable food.

Mr. Hansen, you know farming well: Your father was a farmer, and your brother later took over the farm and continued to run it until his death. Are you also a bit of a farmer?

At least I eventually bought a barn from my parents, where a few chickens still live today. But after my brother's death, the family was faced with the question of what to do with the farm. His daughters chose other paths in life, so the fields and meadows are now leased out. It's really hard for my parents to see other people's tractors roaring across their fields.

In fact, farms are dying in many regions because no one wants to take over. You want to change that with more subsidies for young farmers. But is that enough?

Indeed, one of the biggest problems facing agriculture is that less than 12 percent of EU farmers are under 40 years old. Therefore, we want to make it easier for young people to enter the farming world. To achieve this, we want to encourage member states to double their current budgets for young farmers. We are also setting up a contact point to help young farmers apply for funding and advise them on how to build up their businesses so that they can make a good living. We are also increasing the flat-rate start-up grant to €300,000. But money alone is not enough. Young people also need access to arable land, and that is scarce. That is not fair. Young farmers need real prospects; after all, they are the future of our agriculture. To distribute funding more fairly, we are focusing on farmers who are already receiving pensions. Of course, support will continue to be available if someone is barely able to make ends meet despite their pension and therefore continues to farm their fields. But we can no longer afford to continue paying a flat rate even though someone has long since retired from active working life but still owns a few fields.

How big could the effect of these measures be?

If we manage to increase the proportion of young farmers from 12 to 15 percent by 2034, that would be real progress. This requires not only money, but also a better image. We need to put farmers back in the spotlight: They provide us with healthy food and make an important contribution to climate, species, and water conservation. I also believe new financing instruments are necessary and can easily imagine some kind of EU scholarship for young farmers who have innovative ideas for the agricultural sector.

EU Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen (l) at the cattle market in the Belgian town of Ciney with EU MP Benoit Cassart (r).

Source: EU/Nicolas Landemard

While many people are currently on summer vacation, for most farmers, vacation is a rare luxury. They now want to provide EU funding for vacation replacement for the first time. How will this work?

It must no longer remain an unattainable wish for farmers to take a vacation. A better work-life balance also makes the profession more attractive. That's why a subsidy from the EU budget will finance temporary workers in the future - for vacation, illness, or around the birth of a child. The important thing is that it must be straightforward. Nobody wants to fill out a 20-page application when they need support at short notice. That's why we're working on a streamlined solution. In general, we want to make farmers' everyday lives easier and will be presenting many proposals for reducing bureaucracy over the next few months. Nobody becomes a farmer just to sit behind a computer for hours. Farmers want to get out into the fields or be with their animals. That's why we're reducing bureaucracy and freeing up more time for vacation and family. In doing so, we're also strengthening the mental health of our farmers. Because yes, this is also a reality: the suicide rate in agriculture is shockingly high. Unfortunately, this is a taboo subject, and we must finally talk about it and do something about it. I hope this is a first step.

Previously, €387 billion in EU funding was earmarked for agriculture. In the new budget, you are proposing only €300 billion...

...that sounds like major cuts, but it's a naive calculation. Agricultural policy means far more than just what ends up directly in farmers' accounts. The funds previously used for rural infrastructure such as farm tracks will in future be financed from a different EU budget. The crucial point is that direct payments to farmers remain stable. This is precisely what the 300 billion euros are intended for—and that, mind you, is the minimum amount we're planning for.

So you can promise that farmers will not receive less than before?

Yes, I can promise that. Despite new priorities such as defense and competitiveness, the amount of direct payments to farmers will remain the same. There will be no cuts here. We promise planning security so that every farm can make long-term investments. It is important that farmers receive fair payment for their work, while at the same time ensuring that food remains affordable for consumers. The funds for agricultural policy therefore indirectly flow back to every EU citizen, because this is the only way many foods remain affordable.

Nevertheless, farmers are demonstrating, and farmers' associations are sending out inflammatory letters. The farmers' president of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania says the EU has lost its mind. Are you surprised by the fierce criticism?

This is the third agricultural reform I've witnessed in Brussels, and each one has been met with loud demonstrations and sharp criticism from farmers. Protests are apparently part of the process. Many criticized our proposals before they were even on the table. Now we're sitting down with Parliament and the member states to discuss the plans. That will take months, perhaps years. And yes, we'll definitely make adjustments in some areas.

The lion's share of EU funds has so far gone to large agricultural corporations. How do you intend to ensure that more real farmers benefit in the future?

If we want to do more for young farmers, family businesses, and small farms with the same budget, we have to cut funding from the big agricultural corporations. There are also many large companies that currently receive agricultural subsidies but don't actually farm themselves. That's why we're introducing a cap: a maximum of €100,000 in area-based funding for a farmer. And the funding will gradually decrease as the amount increases. This leaves more money that we can distribute more fairly. Furthermore, only farmers who carry out agricultural activities on their farm and actively contribute to food security should receive funding.

Environmental standards, funding criteria, definitions: In the future, each government will be responsible for setting the specific rules, rather than the EU Commission. Is there a risk of a patchwork of rules, with farmers in Poland, for example, having an easier time than those in Germany?

No, it should be easier for all farmers. The EU Commission will continue to set the overarching goals and will carefully review governments' national strategic plans. This guarantees that we won't experience environmental dumping and that member states won't undercut each other's nature and environmental standards. But EU states will be given more leeway to consider regional factors. After all, farmers in Brandenburg face different challenges than their colleagues in Bavaria. This means: environmental protection will look different in the future, but it won't be abolished.

The EU has given Viktor Orban a devastating report card due to the worrying state of the rule of law. While Orban suppresses critical voices, discontent among the population is growing. Can demonstrations and frozen EU funds reverse the authoritarian course – or is the country finally heading for dictatorship?

Ursula von der Leyen has announced that the disbursement of all EU funds will be tied to the rule of law. So, will the oligarchs with large estates in Hungary soon no longer receive any money?

Compliance with the rule of law is very important, and therefore the disbursement of funds is also tied to it. But farmers must not become scapegoats for their governments. Agricultural aid should therefore not depend on whether a country implements rule of law reforms or not. I know this will be hotly debated in the coming months. But a farm must not go bankrupt because a country fails to implement reforms.

So in the case of Hungary, the pro-government oligarchs with huge fields and large agricultural conglomerates would continue to receive EU funds?

Not to the same extent as before. Such large farms will already receive much less money due to the cap and the gradual reductions. Furthermore, we want to primarily support "active" farmers. Those who only own large fields to collect EU funds but are not actively farming themselves will no longer benefit from EU funding as they have in the past.