Holistic farm policies needed to keep focus on SDGs argues EESC’s Peter Schmidt [Advocacy Lab Content]

Governments are shifting their priorities away from Sustainable Development Goals, but the EESC’s Peter Schmidt argues for a holistic approach, designing policies that can help farmers and citizens transition to a more sustainable way of producing and consuming.

Schmidt, President of the Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment Sector (NAT) at the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) spoke with Euractiv’s Xhoi Zajmi.

XZ: What are some of the main challenges facing the agricultural sector in Europe?

PS: The impact of climate change is probably the biggest challenge. There are two phenomena here. One is water scarcity and drought; the other is floods. It is extremely difficult for farmers to deal with this, and it leads to other problems.

Another point is the volatility of prices due to the multi-level crisis situation which we are in: the Ukraine invasion is distorting and disrupting food supply chains, production and delivery. The COVID crisis was also quite challenging.

The third point is a major social challenge, due to the very difficult economic situation of medium and small sized farmers. They are struggling with food prices. We don’t have a cooperative system. There are different actors and bargaining powers within the supply chain. The big ones have the biggest power, and the smallest ones have less power.

XZ: While there are challenges, we also have an agenda of SDGs to be reached by 2030. Given the current global situation, do you see it coming to fruition?

PS: We need to fulfil [the agenda], but only 17 percent of the SDGs have been reached. If it took almost 10 years to get to this, we have a remaining six years to get to at least 80 percent.

Governments and economic actors are shifting their priorities towards different goals. That puts the 17 SDGs at risk. To be crystal clear, that is wrong.

We have the money to make the transition. The problem in the transition and why it is taking more than before, is because the working-class people are under the impression that it has to be paid for by them.

The SDGs address important points like the social aspects, decent work, no poverty, zero hunger, peace… Unfortunately, only a few of the UN member states organise their budgets and the governance according to the SDGs. That’s why it’s not a surprise we haven’t gotten there.

For example, the Green Deal was not a program helping implement the SDGs. We did not create a policy to reduce unsustainable consumption. On the contrary, we came up with the Global Gateway. We think this is a kind of support, but if you go deeper than what is considered the Global South, it’s a neocolonialism program.

XZ: What is NAT’s role in this?

PS: Though our instruments are limited, we did not want to just follow the Commission’s proposals. We, as civil society, want to go proactively into the debate and develop our own position.

From the beginning, in 2015, together with other stakeholders, we developed an idea. What is our understanding for sustainable development? We started with an opinion on a comprehensive food policy for the agriculture sector.

We challenged the growth model, started thinking of rebooting the economy in a way that is intended for the well-being of people rather than just the money-making system. Equipped with this, we are now in different movements that land into Council conclusions.

Last year at the High-level Political Forum (HLPF), the UN asked its members to present their voluntary national reviews as to what was done in order to implement the SDGs. We managed to get the civil society to contribute. We also identified the upcoming challenges. We organise a lot of activities in order to be part of the implementation of the SDGs. We are part of the European Sustainable Development Network (ESDN).

XZ: Do you see communications with the new Commission and by extension your work becoming more challenging?

PS: We are independent from the Commission and on occasions, critical of it. Because of the outcome of the European elections, it will be more challenging. The more populists and right wing, the less support for the SDGs, because they deny the need of SDGs.

XZ: Have farmers protesting and people wanting to consume more sustainably. What is the best way of reconciling these demands?

PS: It doesn’t make sense to talk about sustainable development if you do not significantly change the framework. The question must start from a different point. Do we as consumers have a real choice on a sustainable product?

A hundred companies globally are responsible for 70 percent of the emission of greenhouse gases. It is super inconvenient making policies in order to convince 8 billion people, rather than talking to or even supporting hundreds of companies, telling them that they have to produce differently in order not to destroy the planet.

There is another aspect, which is not very often discussed. When energy prices rose, we also saw food prices spike. I was the rapporteur of an opinion on food speculation. It very clearly proved that there are four or five players globally which control around 80 percent of the food commodity trade in the world. They make the prices, they have all the means and knowledge, even more than FAO and all the member states of the UN together.

Policymakers created policies in order to cut the energy price. They didn’t do it with food prices for good reasons. We should not do that, because the complexity of fixing food prices is much bigger than that of energy prices.

The wrong-constructed economy that creates more poor people and gives the money to the rich, has this problem: it splits the society. If we think that we forced farmers to produce cheap food in order to calm down the people, then this is the wrong approach. We have to make social policies, which bring people into the position to have the affordability for quality food and higher food prices.

Think of a low-income family. How can they afford food which is sustainably produced and at the same time make sure the farmers get a fair price which they need to survive?

Of course, farmers are furious. We fully understand that but some of the demands to withdraw measures are wrong. All measures are a member state obligation to implement.

XZ: What about the HLPF conducting an in-depth review of some of the SDGs?

PS: I had the opportunity to talk to the Under Secretary General of the UN, Guy Ryder. He explained the idea of five packages for the Summit for the Future. I immediately thought this could pose competition to the SDGs. We already have goals. The question is how can we implement them? Let’s move and accelerate the process and not come up with a new program.

To be honest, I don’t have high expectations. For us, it is always the moment to meet stakeholders, governments, in order to bring the EESC into the game. We get feedback from the people and from the organisations. We can bring the reality check in Brussels and New York, whether the policies are implementable. It’s that simple.

[By Xhoi Zajmi I Edited by Brian Maguire | Euractiv’s Advocacy Lab ]

Read more with Euractiv