With a clear majority, the French National Assembly adopted the law on agricultural emergency aid and food sovereignty in the first reading at the beginning of June. This vote marks an important success for the government, which is responding to the massive farmers’ protests of recent years. At the same time, the debate reveals a fundamental change in French agricultural policy: food security and the competitiveness of agriculture are becoming increasingly prioritized – even if this causes new conflicts with environmental and nature conservation goals.
The law is the political result of a development that goes far beyond the protests of 2025. French farmers have been under increasing pressure for years. Rising production costs, international competition, extensive environmental requirements, and the effects of climate change have worsened the economic situation of many businesses. The government is now trying to counterbalance this with a comprehensive reform package.
The state rediscovers food sovereignty
At the center of the law is a concept that was long used mainly in geopolitical debates: sovereignty. While the energy crisis after the Russian attack on Ukraine highlighted Europe’s dependency on raw materials, attention is now increasingly focusing on food security.
Paris aims to strengthen domestic production and improve the competitiveness of French companies compared to international competitors. Administrative procedures must be accelerated, certain requirements simplified, and investments facilitated. The government argues that France can only maintain its role as a leading agricultural country in Europe if farmers can once again operate economically profitably.
This argument finds support not only in the political center. Conservative forces and the Rassemblement National also advocate a stronger focus on national food sovereignty and economic competitiveness.
Water as the new bone of contention
In particular, the rules surrounding water supply were discussed controversially. The law facilitates the construction of water reservoirs for agricultural irrigation and strengthens the powers of prefects in permit procedures.
For many farmers, this is a necessary adjustment to the reality of climate change. France is increasingly experiencing drought periods, declining groundwater levels, and growing uncertainty in water supply. Without additional storage options, so the argument goes, agriculture in numerous regions will reach its limits in the long term.
Environmental organizations view this development critically, however. They fear that ecological protection mechanisms will be weakened and existing usage conflicts exacerbated. The debate over the so-called “Bassines,” large artificial water reservoirs, has meanwhile become a symbolic conflict that goes far beyond technical issues alone.
A political change of course
The parliamentary discussions showed how divergent the interests are. More than 1,600 amendments were debated. Topics such as intensive livestock farming, dealing with wolves, water policy, and the income situation of farmers led to sometimes fierce confrontations between government, opposition, and interest groups.
The government repeatedly suffered defeats in the process. Numerous passages were amended or rewritten against their will. This underscores how sensitive agricultural policy issues have become. Hardly any other political field simultaneously touches on economic, ecological, social, and identity-political issues in a comparable way.
The real significance of the law, however, lies in its political signaling function. France is not opting out of environmental protection, but is shifting priorities. Where ecological objectives often set the tone in recent years, food security, production capacities, and economic resilience are now coming more to the forefront.
Whether this long-term change of course will be successful remains uncertain. The challenges of climate change, biodiversity crisis, and global markets do not disappear. But the mood in the National Assembly shows that the political debate has changed. The question is no longer only how agriculture can become more sustainable. It is increasingly about how it can still produce enough under increasingly difficult conditions.
Author: P. Tiko