It was on Monday afternoon that the historic event happened. The farmers’ two traditional organizations were unable to put forward a common, unified demand to the state. It has never happened before. The state’s sane negotiator Viil Søyland sat down at a meeting table in the Ministry of Agriculture approximately ten minutes before 5 p.m. She said in the meeting that “this was a damage that had to be limited”. She used words like “extraordinary, burdensome”. Norges Bondelag used words such as “serious” and “regrettable”. The small farmers’ association said they “felt pushed out of the agricultural settlement” before it had started, and had been treated unfairly. Moving forward comes with power and responsibility. That is what the Farmers’ Association chooses. Standing in the hallway comes with power and opportunities, not just powerlessness. To put your foot down and turn up the volume. That is what the Småbrukarlaget will test. Negotiator: Farmers’ association leader Bjørn Gimming (back) will negotiate an agricultural agreement with the state’s negotiator Viil Søyland (front) Photo: NTB Crisis of confidence and number crunch Before you think that farmers are angry anyway and that tractor actions during rush hour and cow dung in front of Parliament and slogans on hay bales are a Spring tradition: The crisis of confidence has increased in agriculture in recent years. This concerns both Rural Norway and the central government. It’s about the profitability of the barn and the price of much of what you put in your shopping bag. Most of all, it is about respect and understanding: This week’s breach shows that the farmers are no longer united. There is a crack in the team. This year’s negotiations will show that politicians – regardless of party and while the Center Party is in power – have stretched the arc of expectations to the breaking point in recent years. It is a fairly widespread opinion that farmers’ income (as private individuals) lags behind that of wage earners. The work to define this income gap, i.e. a reference sum to compare with, has so far not led to progress. The farmers want to close this gap by 2025. That is why it is urgent. The farmer organizations disagree about the size of the gap and how it should be calculated. Especially because loan costs and the return on capital are calculated differently. The farmers and the state do not agree on the calculations either. In total, the farmers are demanding NOK 6.9 billion. The farmers propose that the state spend NOK 5.4 billion from the state budget and increase food prices by NOK 1.07 billion. The requirement will give NOK 171,300 in income growth per man-years, of which NOK 120,000 goes to closing the income gap. The total may seem moderate compared to last year’s NOK 10.9 billion in total settlement. It is more relevant to compare some other numbers. The requirement calls for the same use of budget funds as last year’s exception agreement. NOK 120,000 is three times as much as last year’s agreement to close the income gap. The farmers are also demanding more than 1 billion in food price increases, it is difficult for a government that struggles with the measurements to expose itself to a popular uprising against increased food prices. It is the dairy farmers in particular who are prioritized in this year’s agricultural settlement. They are affected to a greater extent than other farmers by the fact that less milk is sold, lower income and increased expenses. Photo: Eirik Damsgaard / news Uprising and settlement In the 2021 election year, we learned about the Peasant Uprising. The Facebook group reached far beyond agriculture’s faithful congregation. The outside vote was tactful. For the first time, the Farmers’ Association lost some of its defining power over what the farmers stood for, demanded and which image of Norwegian agriculture was correct. The rebels have now gained more influence in the Småbrukarlaget. They don’t stand still in the hallway, they have action power, arguments and momentum. The rebels represent a new generation of farmers with their boots on. They have either inherited the farm and/or invested heavily to run their business. They sometimes have other interests than farmers approaching retirement age. The agricultural settlement is about three things: The price of agricultural products. Compensation for increased expenses the farmers cannot do anything about. Income increase to catch up with other groups in society. On behalf of society at large, the politicians want food production, rural settlements and natural landscapes. As businesses, the farmers deliver on that. At the same time, farming is also the source of many families’ household income. In your negotiations with the state, you can also in practice decide on a price increase directly in the market, on the milk and vegetables we all buy in the shop. If this contract is no longer valid, something bigger is at stake. If there is no trust in all the cogs in this machine, a lot will come to a standstill. A lot is at stake Therefore, many believe that what is actually at stake is the entire negotiating institute the farmers have had for many years. The farmers know what they have, but not what they get. On the bourgeois side, perhaps only KrF will seriously prioritize continuing the current negotiating institute. If the Small Farmers’ Association can be accused of throwing the institute overboard while the Farmers’ Association loses control, it will be the ultimate proof of the strength of the team on the farmers’ side. The small farming team will say they have nothing to lose. The farm team has a lot to lose. The Farmers’ League can be accused of being faithful to the system, the Small Farmers’ League of being short-term populists. The small farm team’s problem is that they have little time and play loudly. Maybe too high. The farmers’ association’s problem is that they have less legitimacy as the Official Voice from agriculture’s side. They are under intense pressure from all sides, including internally. The government’s problem is that expectations for more money are high in agriculture, partly fueled by the Center Party. At the same time, there is an expectation from the population and voters that prices in the shop will not increase significantly. The problem of society at large is that we all depend on this system to work, no matter how complicated it is. The way forward Pressed for money: Center Party’s agriculture minister Sandra Borch Photo: Emma-Marie B. Whittaker / news By 16 May, the Farmers’ Association and the government should agree on an agricultural agreement. In any case, the government will not have a majority in the Storting for it, and will have to negotiate with SV and possibly the centrist parties. If the Småbrukarlaget wants to criticize the negotiated agreement, it will involve a political downside for anyone other than the government to embrace it. At the same time, a parliamentary majority will be decisive for the institute’s survival and for there to be a point in such negotiations at all. If not, the industry might as well become an item on the state budget. The centre-party’s agriculture minister Sandra Borch faces her most important weeks as a minister until National Day. In practice, it will be impossible for her to meet expectations in all camps. But she is dependent on the rebellion not increasing in scope and trust not falling further. It will cost her more than all possible items on the state budget.
ttn-69
The story of an announced crisis of confidence in agriculture – Statement
