“With the military weapon, Russia holds the food weapon” (Henri Biès Peré, Fnsea) – La Tribune

LA TRIBUNE – In the past, the threat of a food embargo may have represented strong pressure on Russia. Is this the case today too?

HENRI BIES FATHER – No. In 2014, the European sanctions resulting from the annexation of Crimea reinforced Vladimir Putin’s decision to invest 52 billion dollars in agriculture, in order to no longer depend on the outside for food, and to no longer fear shortages in the event of Western sanctions. Since then, as a wheat importer, Russia has become the leading exporting country. Similarly, whereas before 2014 it had almost no farms, today Russia is self-sufficient in poultry and almost in pork, thanks to massive investments in factory farming. Global warming has helped, by making cultivable land that was previously unusable because it was often frozen.

What are the consequences of such a situation?

This self-sufficiency represents a food weapon that should not be neglected alongside the military one, especially since Russia, also thanks to less demanding rules than those in force in France, which make it more competitive, has also succeeded in taking French agriculture in market share in Asia, as well as its leading position in Morocco, Algeria, Turkey and Egypt. These countries, which were historically privileged customers of France, notably wheat producers, with a regular flow of business from year to year, now depend on Russia for their imports. This will have repercussions in international diplomacy, because they will be natural allies of the hand that feeds them. Putin has already used food aid in war zones such as Syria, Yemen or Iran to promote his authority in already unstable regions.

What can be the impact of the war with Ukraine?

If Russia, which already accounts for 18% of world wheat trade, gets its hands on Ukraine, which accounts for 12%, it will control a third of world wheat trade. Considering the number of areas whose population is increasing but which are not able to produce their food, one can measure the geopolitical power that Putin will then hold, and the risk that this represents for the food sovereignty of the planet. Not to mention that the increase in wheat prices caused by the war risks weakening the importing countries, which are faced with budgetary difficulties. It is very worrying.

Read: Russia-Ukraine conflict sends wheat prices to more than nine-year high

The quality of French wheat, and the ability of French farmers to adapt their production according to the specific characteristics required by each user, is also only a temporary advantage. Admittedly, Russia is currently betting on volumes. But it will be able to adapt to changing market demands. It can also still count on some 50 million hectares of extremely fertile fallow land.

What lessons can be learned from this situation?

The war that is opening reminds us of the importance of being vigilant vis-à-vis our dependence on imports, and therefore of being able to offer our own consumers all kinds of products, both high and low-end. It also shows that if the ecological transition is necessary, and requires more effort, it must not deprive us of the geostrategic weapon consisting in the capacity to feed the world populations which today cannot be self-sufficient. When the European Union, in its Farm to Fork strategy, proposes to withdraw 10% of agricultural land from production to devote it solely to biodiversity, this is a false lead. We cannot lower our guard on the volumes produced because it is an important asset, including to weigh on the political level in the next challenges of the planet.