Food security - this is the slogan used by Federal Agriculture Minister Alois Rainer (CSU) to fight for more money for farmers in the EU and also within his own government. The EU agricultural budget is currently being renegotiated as part of the EU financial planning.
Rainer argues: Only if farmers receive enough financial support can it be ensured that people in Germany and Europe continue to have enough local food on their tables. A new study available to the ARD capital studio calls this argument into question.
Will the agricultural aid evaporate?
The EU spends around 54 billion euros on agriculture every year. A lot of it is distributed with the watering can, through so-called direct payments. Farmers receive a fixed amount for each hectare of land they cultivate. The German Nature Conservation Association (NABU) has calculated what would happen if agricultural aid was completely or partially abolished. The study works with the recognized agricultural economic simulation model CAPRI.
The results of the study surprised NABU President Jörg-Andreas Krüger, because the EU agricultural aid had hardly any effect on production volumes. “They fizzle out without any effect,” says Krüger.
The study calculated various scenarios. What happens if EU agricultural aid is completely abolished? What if direct payments stop, meaning significantly less money is distributed? The result: There would be slightly less production in Germany and Europe than before. For grain, for example, the harvest volume would decline by 1.5 to 2.8 percent, depending on the scenario. For meat there is a minus of 0.75 percent. The amount of milk would remain almost unchanged.
Without or with significantly fewer agricultural payments, it would no longer be worthwhile to grow grain, corn, etc. in some locations with poor soil quality. In particular, farmers would probably no longer cultivate numerous meadows and pastures because it would no longer be profitable for them.
The study authors explain the fact that hardly any less would be produced by saying, among other things, that agriculture would be more intensive overall and that there would be less organic farming, for example. For NABU boss Krüger, the study shows “how bad the political argument is that agricultural subsidies are needed to secure our food supply.”
Farmers' association criticizes study as "unpractical"
Agricultural economist Alfons Balmann from the Leibniz Institute for Agricultural Development in Transition Economies was not involved in the study. He considers the results to be “not implausible.” However, Balmann criticizes, the study says nothing about what will happen to companies in the short term if a large part of the money suddenly disappears.
The farmers' association fears drastic effects on businesses if significantly less EU money would reach farmers. Farmer President Joachim Rukwied therefore criticizes calculations like those in this study as very theoretical and impractical.
“Without the direct payments, many companies would no longer be able to continue into the future. They would have to close the company gates. Closing would mean closing forever,” says Rukwied to the ARD capital studio.
“Distributional competition” for EU funds
Agriculture Minister Alois Rainer's arguments hardly seem to be getting through, even within his own government. Chancellor Friedrich Merz (CDU) wants to invest money at the EU level primarily in defense and competitiveness and considers the previous proposal for the coming EU financial framework from 2028 to be unaffordable. Farmers could receive less money in the future than before.
There is a certain “competition for distribution,” says Albert Stegemann, deputy chairman of the Union parliamentary group in the Bundestag. He is also in favor of more money for defense. But: "On the other hand, the issue of security of supply also has defense relevance for Europe, so it makes sense to think about these things together." He considers agricultural aid to be central to food security.
The Federal Ministry of Agriculture emphasizes that there is no question of an end to direct payments. “Accordingly, it would not be appropriate to derive conclusions for future production or structural change from a scenario that is not politically foreseen,” writes the ministry.
NABU demands different distribution
NABU is also not in favor of completely canceling agricultural aid. Conservationist Krüger sees the study as refuting the fact that most of the money has to be distributed to all farmers at a flat rate per hectare in order to ensure food security. He advocates using the money to reward farmers' social services more. “This is soil conservation, this is humus in the soil so that more nutrients can be stored, this is water storage in the soil so that we can defy climate change,” says Krüger.
The study also shows that if there were no more money flowing in, farmers would have significantly less scope for precisely such social services.
