They made the earth their salvation. José Bové, 71 years old, breeder with a legendary mustache, former MEP and icon of the historic Larzac struggle, and Léna Lazare, 26 years old, peasant and young popular face of the climate movement in France, discuss their combative and political vision of climate change. agriculture of yesterday, today and tomorrow, while new actions by angry farmers are emerging.
How do you view agriculture today?
Lena Lazare: I have the impression of a world cut in two. On the one hand, farmers and agricultural companies which are expanding and industrializing excessively. Which are an obstacle to the installation of the new generation. On the other, farmers who are fighting back in the face of an increasingly difficult situation and also young people who promote a vision of peasant and agroecological agriculture.
José Bové: The agriculture we are in was built at the end of the 1950s, notably through the modernization laws of the 1960s. This is the beginning of land management by Land Development and Rural Establishment Companies. (Safer), the increase in the weight of the banks. The farmers are then caught in a spiral: to repay, they must produce more; to be able to produce more, more land is needed; and for that, you have to borrow more money. This is how we entered industrial agriculture, completely taken over by the public authorities and the majority trade union organizations, that is to say the National Federation of Farmers’ Unions (FNSEA) and the Young Farmers (JA). A model that was first described as “productivist” in 1982, and which I have always fought against because it only generates negative things.
What do you mean by that?
J.-B. : We see it with pesticides and nitrates, with the decline in food quality, which globalization accentuates. Our horizon is blocked. But I dare to hope that the age pyramid will participate in the construction of another model and a better future: more than half of farmers will retire by 2030. This must benefit agriculture peasant, promoter of small farms, respect for the environment, animal welfare. To be able to establish themselves and develop in a more massive and lasting manner in the territories, farmers must fight place by place. Because if we have won the battle of public opinion, this does not translate into a radical modification of the European or national model.
LL: This remains a strong point for mobilizing and helping not only younger generations to settle down, but also certain farms to exit agro-industry. If society carries out actions of civil disobedience – as was the case in the past with the fight against the extension of the Larzac military camp, the dismantling of the McDo in Millau against the World Trade Organization (WTO) within the framework from the beef conflict to hormones, or the GMO reapers – things can progress very quickly.
Is this the best weapon to fight?
J.B. : To win, you have to know how to create the balance of power. Civil disobedience is one of these tools: we disobey a law while always evoking a higher right, that of the general interest. This involves an attack on private property or goods, but it is always part of a non-violent action movement. I also insist: the action strategy must be clear. We cannot see some people throwing Molotov cocktails and others circling peacefully, inevitably, it will end in a nameless battle, and it will be in favor of the political and repressive power. I also believe that we must take responsibility for the action from start to finish. During the illegal mowing of GMO fields at the end of the 1990s, the police were given a list of all the participants and each of them had, beforehand, signed a charter of commitment which specified potential criminal prosecution. Trials and prison are part of the mobilization. We never hid, we were never masked, and Nicolas Sarkozy ended up signing this law banning GMOs.
LL: It is true that in Sainte-Soline activists came masked to “disarm” a megabasin, because they did not want to be involved in a media trial. And then it’s often the same people who take legal risks. We want to avoid having hundreds of arrests and reproduce past situations. The Extinction Rebellion group has seen a huge number of lawsuits, which has depleted their finances and their activists. We try to find the right balance. In any case, I believe very strongly in the strategy of composition.
That’s to say ?
LL: For me, there is not a single mode of action, and it is their complementarity that has allowed us to win battles in the climate movement. There was also a lot of debate on the notion of violence/non-violence in the Council of State during the dissolution of the Earth Uprisings. I really like the term “counter-violence” from Françoise d’Eaubonne, a pioneer of ecofeminism and a fan of sabotage. She emphasizes that there are different types of violence and tries to understand their origins. It is more enriching than falling into the criminalizing narrative of the State and, sometimes, the media.
J.B. : It happened to us here, in Aveyron, I wouldn’t say to sequester, but to keep with us the president of Lactalis, who at the time was Michel Besnier. The gendarmes who came to free him shook hands with all the demonstrators…
Does the repression seem stronger to you than in the past?
J.B. : I don’t notice a change in state violence. She is the same. We face the CRS who guard the fields, the police dogs who bite the demonstrators and the helicopters who throw tear gas or sound grenades. We were arrested and convicted. I went to prison four times. It is in the logic of the State to try to break a movement. But there is always a tipping point where the legitimization of state violence no longer applies.
LL: Many people of my generation are unaware of the violence of past struggles, that of Sivens with the death of Rémi Fraisse in 2014, or, if we go back even further, the death of Vital Michalon in Creys-Malville in 1977. This is why he is important to perpetuate and transmit memory. However, since 2018, I have noticed a big change in the climate movement, promoting mainly symbolic civil disobedience. At the beginning, we experienced little police violence and we were rarely taken into police custody. This is no longer the case today.
Almost a year ago, farmers expressed their anger. And the FNSEA announced a new national mobilization. What is your feeling?
LL: Let’s be clear, the January 2024 agricultural movement was launched by breeders in the South-West. The initial demands focused on income and not on the ecological aspect, as people were led to believe. Unfortunately, the media debate was monopolized by the FNSEA. Even today, this remobilization is not trivial: the elections to the chambers of agriculture are approaching… Let us not forget that the majority union was very criticized during the first operation.
J.B. : The demonstrations took place in France as well as in several other European countries. Since 2009, there has been progress towards changing the model, but the European agro-industrial lobby cannot bring itself to do so. Their pressure paid off: in a few weeks, all the most virtuous projects on pesticides or the environment were suspended or abandoned. In France, the agricultural bill was unsuccessful due to the dissolution of the National Assembly. The mobilization is restarted in a completely artificial manner by the FNSEA, which is now trying to crystallize the protest over the free trade agreements with Mercosur. But it is a subterfuge to renegotiate with the government all the measures that are close to its heart.
Is the divide between farmers and ecology real?
J.B. : We witnessed a Poujadist agricultural movement which relied on the misery experienced by people on the ground to break everything that is evolving in order to change the current model. In my opinion, it aims to radicalize the opposition between agriculture, peasants and ecology. As if the industrialization of the world had nothing to do with global warming, that it was the problem of environmentalists alone. The media have their share of responsibility in the attempt of the FNSEA and the Rural Coordination to bring public opinion back towards the principle of a punitive ecology. The other forces, unions or others, must do their part and explain that the mode of agricultural production and the environment are co-constructed, but without losing sight of the economic and social question.
LL: Personally, I distinguish between FNSEA executives and its members. Between the “agrimanagers” and the farmers. Arnaud Rousseau, the current president of the majority union, is one of the most illustrious representatives of these “agrimanagers”. He has the status of a farmer but no longer practices the profession. He is a business manager, whose goal is to maximize profits. It therefore has no interest in moving towards more ecology. But none “real” farmer is not happy to put pesticides in his field. He is the first to take risks for his health. To be concerned about adaptation to climate change.
How to convince the most skeptical?
J.B. : On the Larzac plateau, we continued to purchase land in order to strengthen small farms and settle young people. Almost all of these farms are organic. And it had no consequences on the future of the farms, quite the contrary. People live well. Here, it is social life that creates economic activity and not the other way around. There has never been any opposition to this model. For what ? Because this fifty-year-old story has brought coherence and support. As proof, there are 25% more farmers in our territory.
LL: For me, engaging in an ecological approach is synonymous with independence. In conventional agriculture, we are often dependent on a whole bunch of players in the agro-industrial complex. This is where the economic difficulties begin. Conversely, when you produce food for your animals and do not use pesticides or fertilizers, you know what to expect financially. Changing models not only has short and medium term economic benefits, but also improves working and living conditions.
Source: www.liberation.fr
