Dr. Erjavec: Izzivi so, a v Sloveniji doživljamo renesanso podeželja

Ob bližajoči se 20. obletnici vstopa Slovenije v EU smo v novi epizodi podkasta gostili agrarnega ekonomista dr. Emila Erjavca. Med pogajanji za vstop v EU je bil član ožje pogajalske skupine za področje kmetijstva in ribištva, »strokovni motor« pogajanj za kmetijstvo. Je zelo priljubljen profesor na Biotehniški fakulteti in predvsem velik poznavalec kmetijske politike.

Voditeljica tokratne epizode direktorica Urada vlade za komuniciranje (Ukom) Petra Bezjak Cirman je v pogovoru z njim obudila spomin na pogajanja, spregovorila pa sta tudi o trenutnem stanju slovenskega kmetijstva. Dr. Erjavec je kritičen do nevzajemnega delovanja naših agroživilskih verig in meni, da je vladni ukrep spremljanja cen po celotni verigi pravi, a 30 let prepozno sprejet. Opozori na mlade, ki vse bolj iščejo alternativni način življenja na podeželju – pojav, ki ga imenuje 'renesansa podeželja', a ob tem ga skrbi razkol z mladimi kmetovalci. Povezovanje med njimi je nujno, je prepričan dr. Erjavec.

 Vabljeni tudi k ogledu videopodkasta.

[ENGLISH VERSION] 
Dr Erjavec: Challenges exist, but in Slovenia, we are experiencing a rural renaissance

As the 20th anniversary of Slovenia's accession to the EU approaches, in a new episode of the podcast, we hosted agricultural economist Dr Emil Erjavec. During the negotiations for EU accession, he was a member of the core negotiating team for agriculture and fisheries, the "expert engine" of the negotiations for agriculture. He is a highly popular professor at the Biotechnical Faculty and above all, a great expert in agricultural policy.

The host of this episode, Petra Bezjak Cirman, director of Government Communication Office (Ukom), in conversation with him, recalled the negotiations and also discussed the current state of Slovenian agriculture. Dr Erjavec is critical of the lack of mutual cooperation in our agri-food chains and believes that the government's measure of monitoring prices throughout the chain is right but 30 years too late in adoption. He highlights the trend of young people increasingly seeking alternative ways of life in rural areas — a phenomenon he calls the 'renaissance of the countryside.' However, he is concerned about the gap with young farmers. Dr Erjavec is convinced that cooperation between them is essential.

You are also invited to watch the video podcast.  

Transcript

Vladni podkast Govsi

Voditeljica Petra Bezjak Cirman: Dober dan, spoštovane gledalke, gledalci, poslušalke in poslušalci. Dobrodošli v četrti epizodi vladnega podkasta Govsi, ki nastaja v produkciji Urada Vlade RS za komuniciranje. Z vami sem Petra Bezjak Cirman. Današnji gost pa je povezan z 20. obletnico vstopa Slovenije v Evropsko unijo. Z nami je agrarni ekonomist doktor Emil Erjavec. Dober dan.

Dr. Emil Erjavec: Dober dan. Lep pozdrav.

Voditeljica: V podkast smo vas povabili, ker ste bili v času vstopa Slovenije v Evropsko unijo član ožje pogajalske skupine za področje kmetijstva in ribištva. Ste agrarni ekonomist, profesor na Biotehniški fakulteti in velik poznavalec kmetijske politike. Kako se spominjate 20 let nazaj? Kakšni so bili takrat strahovi in želje Slovenije na področju kmetijstva in ribištva?

Dr. Emil Erjavec: Treba je reči, da je treba iti še deset let nazaj. Torej, cel proces se je začel leta 1994 in v teh desetih letih, ko smo stopali v Evropsko unijo, je bilo precej upanja. Kmetje so upali, da bodo dobili primerljivo politiko, primerljive cene, primerljive podpore kot njihovi, recimo oni so predvsem gledali italijanske in avstrijske kmete. Država je pa upala, da bo dobila neko sodobnejšo varianto kmetijske politike, kajti v bistvu smo jo morali z osamosvojitvijo šele narediti in to je sovpadalo s celim tem procesom. Ključno vprašanje je bila takrat mlečna kvota. Ali bo Slovenija dobila možnosti za tako prirejo mleka, ki bo izkoristila vse potenciale. Kasneje je bilo ključno vprašanje, ali bo status kmeta v Sloveniji izenačen s statusom kmetov v Zahodni Evropi. Predvsem sta bili to dve ključni vprašanji.

Voditeljica: Iz zakulisja, kaj se je takrat dogajalo, malo izvemo. Ampak vi ste kar zgovorni. Slišali smo, takrat je bila politika drugačna. Zaupala je vam. Bili ste strokovnjak, bili ste celo strokovni motor te ožje pogajalske ekipe. Kakšen je bil takrat odnos med politiko in vami, pogajalci?

Dr. Emil Erjavec: Treba je povedati, da smo mi bili seveda neke vrste tehnična skupina. Za kmetijstvo sva bila dva, jaz sem skrbel za strokovno-strateški vidik, potem je bil pa še zmeraj državni sekretar s kmetijskega ministrstva in v takem dvojčku smo vse skupaj počeli. To je edini resor, kjer je bil tudi državni sekretar zraven, tudi edini politik v celi skupini. Vsi ostali smo bili nabrani z različnih vetrov, od Banke Slovenije, gospodarstva, ministrstev, pa tudi nekaj nas je bilo profesorjev. Imeli smo zelo dober status kot ožja pogajalska skupina. Takrat je veljalo, vlade se bodo menjale, ožja pogajalska skupina pa mora ostati, da ne bomo spreminjali kurza in da bomo sledili zagotavljanju interesov Slovenije. Politika je z nami lepo delala, predvsem pa, kar je bilo zelo zanimivo, vzajemno, torej na nekaterih področjih je v bistvu cela zgodba nastala na ministrstvih, na drugih predvsem v pogajalski skupini. V glavnem pa je šlo tako ali tako za legitimiranje vsega skozi državni zbor, skozi vlado in tako naprej. Imeli smo zelo močan politični backup. Vse vlade, vsi predsedniki vlade, pa tudi nekateri ministri. V začetku je bilo zelo pomembno, mogoče se ta njegova vloga niti ni tako poudarjala, je bil evropski minister Igor Bavčar, ki je dejansko predvsem v tisti prvi fazi. Ključne stvari so se dogajale 1998, 1999, ko smo dejansko državo na novo sestavili, zakonodajo z institucijami. Prilagodili smo se na zahteve EU-ja, ampak tudi moram povedati, predsednik vlade imel izjemen posluh. Potem je seveda pomembnejšo vlogo, ko smo mi rasli, seveda tudi vodja pogajalske skupine dobival vse močnejši primat. Torej tudi kolega dr. Janez Potočnik svojo vlogo, kar se mogoče ne poudarja tako. Takrat smo se potem zelo veliko pogovarjali, da na nek način ne dopustimo, da bi se pogajali o vstopu v Evropsko unijo diplomati. Zakaj ne? Torej nekaj diplomatov je bilo seveda zraven in so imeli pomembno vlogo. Ampak če prepustiš vse zunanjemu ministrstvu, gre za male detajle. Ne gre za velike vsebinske premike. Težko se pogovarjaš o denarju, zakonu in institucijah, tako da Slovenija je bila tu ena od izjemnih držav in verjetno tudi zaradi tega tako uspešna v pogajanjih, ko forma, in diplomacija je nosilec forme, nikoli ni imela prednosti pred vsebino. Žal kasneje temu ni bilo več tako, po pristopu.

Voditeljica: Nekje ste dejali, da ste bili v bistvu tehnična vlada. In tudi v Bruslju ste bili kar predrzni. Rekli ste, da smo bili zelo uspešni pri teh pogajanjih. Kako so pa ta bruseljska pogajanja potekala? Kako je v teh zakulisnih vodah v Bruslju?

Dr. Emil Erjavec: Recimo, zdaj, ko smo še malo starejši, lahko rečem, da to seveda ni bila tehnična vlada, ker ni imela demokratičnega mandata. Imeli smo pomembno neformalno vlogo. Poslušalo se nas je. Če je kdo iz ožje pogajalske skupine povedal, usmeril, napisal, se je to dalo skozi vlado spraviti bistveno lažje. Torej, danes je to nepredstavljivo, da bi neka tehnična skupina imela tako vlogo, recimo na pripravo zakonov, na spremembe in tako naprej. Bil je nek zanos, bila je neka država, kjer so vsi delali za iste cilje. Kar se pa Bruslja tiče, je bilo pa seveda, pogajanja o kmetijstvu so bila zmeraj, pri vsakem pristopu, češnja na torti, najbolj komplicirano. Kmete imaš na ulici. V vseh državah so bili. Pričakovanja so velika in s tem v povezavi smo tudi zelo veliko čustev, ampak tudi veliko znanja. Mi smo se zelo hitro odločili, da kot majhni, mi smo vstopili v bistvu zadnji v cel proces. Torej Poljaki, Madžari so že bistveno prej bili zraven, da bomo to počeli na maksimalno strokoven način, torej politika na dejstvih, in ne na moč. In to se je izkazalo kot pravi pristop. To je pomembno. Recimo pri pogajanjih o kvotah smo prinesli statistične podatke. Glejte, vaši podatki niso v redu. Takole. Pri pogajanjih o denarju smo utemeljevali vsako zahtevo z resnimi analizami v ozadju in v eni fazi je bilo zelo slabo, ker je komisija vse zavračala.

Voditeljica: Menda ste celo razlagali, kako se prideluje laški rizling.

Dr. Emil Erjavec: Ja. Vprašanje coniranja Slovenije v različne vinske cone je bilo zelo pomembno vprašanje, saj je Slovenija takrat, nismo še imeli tako izrazitih klimatskih sprememb, bila v coni B, kar je pomenilo, da je dosladkavanje vin možno, in takrat je bila ravno trgatev in smo razlagali, poslušajte. Pojdite zdajle v Slovenijo, na Štajersko ali na Dolenjsko ali v Prekmurje, pa jim povejte, da ne smejo dosladkavati vina, ker je seveda zelo visoka kislina in zelo nizki sladkorji. To seveda je bilo za njih nepredstavljivo, ker je v ozadju ena država članica hotela, da predvsem primorski pridelovalci ne bi imeli boljših pogojev, ker dosladkavanje pomeni boljše pogoje.

Voditeljica: Katera je bila to?

Dr. Emil Erjavec: Soseda. In smo se morali pogajati tudi v Rimu, da se je izenačilo. Na koncu je bilo tako, da so naši pridelovalci, ki živijo ob meji, šli v Bruselj in komisarja prosili, da so lahko v isti coni kot Italijani, ker so imeli tudi vinograde čez mejo. In na koncu je prišlo do zdravega kompromisa, to je, da je bila Slovenija razdeljena na dve coni. Danes je pa tako ali tako nepomembno vprašanje, ker so klimatske spremembe tako spremenile pogoje za pridelavo grozdja, da dosladkuje praktično nobeden več in tudi je izven vseh kakovostnih kriterijev. Ampak mi smo živeli takrat v nekem drugem svetu. To je bilo 30 let nazaj.

Voditeljica: Ste zadovoljni s tem, kar ste izpogajali?

Dr. Emil Erjavec: To morate kmete vprašati. Mislim, kar se tiče dosežkov samih pogajanj, je bilo najpomembnejše to, da smo lahko, sicer tudi z zgodovinsko perspektivo izgleda cinično, lahko iz svojih sredstev v prvem letu dofinancirali neposredna plačila do ravni, ki je bila primerljiva z državami Zahodne Evrope. Torej, zakaj? Zaradi tega, ker se je Evropska unija odločila in tudi ni imela denarja razpoložljivega. Vzhodna Evropa tako ali tako nima sredstev za kmetijski proračun. Bomo to mi počasi začeli na nizki ravni 25 odstotkov. Edina država, ki je tukaj bila problematična, delno tudi Malta in Ciper, je bila Slovenija, in so nas hoteli tako nizko odpraviti. Saj boste vi s tem preživeli. Videla se je relativno velika nestrokovnost političnih pogajalcev z njihove strani in tukaj smo morali biti zelo ostri. Na koncu je to uspelo, ko so videli, da smo drugačni in so nam to pustili. Drugače drug velik rezultat je pa obseg sredstev. Mi smo zagotovili po letu 2004 do danes okoli 6 milijard evrov evropskih podpor, kar je seveda izjemno. Tega kmetijstvo ne bi bilo deležno slovenskega denarja in to je omogočilo obstanek marsikatere kmetije, pa tudi razvoj marsikatere kmetije. Mogoče do neke točke je bilo teh sredstev še celo preveč, kajti so se ljudje preveč navadili na neposredna plačila in druge oblike podpor in zanemarili tisto, kar je bistveno. To pa je, da dejansko ti hrano pridelaš in prodaš na trgu.

Voditeljica: Omenjala sva te strahove. Naslovnice iz leta 2000, 2004 omenjajo Portugalsko, Francijo na področju kmetijstva. Se pravi, ti strahovi se niso nikjer upravičili v Sloveniji? 

Dr. Emil Erjavec: Takrat smo zelo študirali druge države in je bilo zelo jasno, kako se je Portugalska zelo uspešno pogajala, žrtvovala pa je kmetijstvo, saj je bila podobna zgodba tudi pri nas. Ampak dejansko ne tako radikalno in v bistvu s pozitivnim učinkom. Kaj se je zgodilo na Portugalskem? Prišli so veliki koncerni, vsa živilskopredelovalna industrija je razpadla, ker so trgovine prinesle svoje dobavitelje in tako naprej. In portugalski kmetje so izgubili. Naši kmetje pa niso samo ohranili proizvodnje, ampak so dobili celo možnost, kar za slovensko gospodarsko ni dobro, ampak recimo več kot tretjina mleka in več kot petina govejega mesa gre v Avstrijo in Italijo, kar pomeni, da so deležni tudi možnosti prodaje na drugih trgih. Kar je pa slabo, da prodajamo surovine, ne pa končnih izdelkov.

Voditeljica: Preden greva na današnji čas, še ena iz tistega časa. Kaj vam pomeni Divja goska po Bruslju?

Dr. Emil Erjavec: Ja, Wild Geese oz. Divja gos je znameniti irski pub pod direktoratom za kmetijstvo, kjer smo se zmeraj zbirali, kjer so bili tudi kakšni sestanki neformalne narave. Za nas je tako zgodovinsko zelo pomembno, ker smo tam na en list papirja napisali pogajalske zahteve. Torej, če sem prej omenil, kako so nas dolgo časa zavračali v zahtevah in niso hoteli upoštevati značilnosti slovenskega kmetijstva in naših zahtev, je prišlo tam pred formalnim začetkom pogajanj na tehnični ravni do spremembe v odnosu in pridemo na sestanek, so vsi naenkrat prijazni.

Voditeljica: Menda je bilo nekaj zakulisnega dogovarjanja diplomatskega, da je bila ta prijaznost, da ste peljali celo uradnike iz Bruslja v Slovenijo.

Dr. Emil Erjavec: Tako. In smo jih vozili po hribih, tako da so mislili ...

Voditeljica: Znani triki. Tudi jaz se jih včasih poslužujem.

Dr. Emil Erjavec: Ja. Takrat smo generalnega direktorja direktorata za kmetijstvo peljali v Slovenijo. Samo z Brnika je šel v kamniške hribe, potem pa čez Šentjošt, pa na vrhniško stran čez Polhograjske dolomite, da je imel občutek, da je Slovenija hribovita država in da noben slovenski kmet ne ogroža, bom rekel, evropskih. Ampak bistvo pogajanj je bilo v tem, da smo mi imeli dve liniji zahtev, ki smo jih takrat v tem slavnem pubu napisali po sestanku. Okej, poskušajmo postaviti, kar je maksimalno možno doseči, pa še zmeraj realistično, in minimum. Potem je kolega državni sekretar klical na ministrstvo, če prinese ta listek s temi zahtevami, in smo poslali ministra Buta, da je ta listek prinesel z maksimalnimi zahtevami, in ga niso vrgli ven, ampak so ga prijazno sprejeli. Čez en teden so se začela formalna pogajanja. Vstopimo v pogajalsko sobo in danski predsedujoči začne brati naše zahteve kot njihovo ponudbo. Midva s kolegom Jarcem sva se samo nasmehnila in pogajanja so bila uspešno zaključena. To pomeni, imeli smo srečo, ker smo bili prvi. Ker Poljaki so zelo, bom rekel, grozili, kaj bodo vse naredili. Poljaki in ostali so mislili, ne vsi, da se bo dejansko pogajalo številka na številko. Komisija si tega ni mogla privoščiti. V Bruslju, če nisi Nemec ali Francoz, se ne moreš pogajati s pozicije moči. Moraš se pogajati s pozicije znanja in številk in to smo, mislim, da sorazmerno uspešno izpeljali.

Voditeljica: Nekaj ste že omenili zeleni prehod. Kaj to pomeni za evropskega in slovenskega kmeta?

Dr. Emil Erjavec: Zeleni prehod je nujnost, to se pravi vsi fakti, vsa dejstva govorijo, da ta sistem kmetovanja, kot ga imamo v Evropi, ta prevladujoči, je enostavno proti ljudem, proti naravi, proti podnebju, proti okolju. Lahko se ga da nekoliko prilagoditi, vendar v osnovi zahteva kompletno kmetijstvo radikalne spremembe v načinu pridelave, prireje, v odnosu do hrane, tudi zmanjševanju podnebnih sprememb. Torej delovati proti podnebno, mislim za podnebje, in pa seveda tudi za dobrobit živali. In komisija je to zelo lepo nastavila na tem valu družbenih sprememb, ki ga mogoče v Sloveniji ne začutimo tako. To je ta os Pariz-Bruselj-Berlin, kjer se družbene spremembe dogajajo. Vendar mislim, da je komisija naredila zelo veliko strateško napako, da tega ni znala skomunicirati do kmetov in je šla z radikalnimi zahtevami. Meni so kolegi z direktorata, ki so bili zraven na teh pogajanjih, ko so dejansko ljudje, ki se ne razumejo na kmetijstvo, recitirali, dajmo toliko odstotkov ekoloških kmetov, dajmo znižati pesticide. Ostali gledajo in jasno, da so kmetje šli na ulice. Ne moreš kmeta čez noč prisiliti v nekaj, ne da bi ga prepričal v to, ne da bi videl učinke, ne da bi to pot, to tranzicijo prilagodil. In tukaj mislim, da je Evropska unija precej padla na izpitu in da bo morala v naslednjem valu, kajti če kdo misli, da tega ne bo, je to narobe in za družbo in za Evropo, to bistveno bolj speljati s spremembami vrednot, z novimi tehnologijami in pa tudi s podporami, ki bodo to omogočile.

Voditeljica: Kakšne bi bile te podpore? Bi morali dati, ne vem, kmetu ali pa vsakemu prebivalcu Evropske unije univerzalni temeljni dohodek, kakor je zadnjič rekel dr. Janez Potočnik? Ali rabijo subvencije ali v zameno za zemljo denar? Kaj sploh potrebujemo, da bomo šli gladko v ta zeleni prehod? Ker to je pač neizbežno dejstvo. Ste že sami omenili okoljske spremembe, lanske poplave. Videli smo, kam to vodi.

Dr. Emil Erjavec: Skupna kmetijska politika je stara 60 let, pa se v bistvu ni pomembno spreminjala. Spreminjajo se samo mehanizmi, porazdelitev podpor je pa praktično zmeraj enaka. To pomeni, da tisti, ki so veliki, ki imajo največ in so praviloma tudi najbolj intenzivni, dobijo največji del sredstev. Torej, vse je vezano na površino, več imaš, več dobiš. Evropska unija je mislila, da bo s tem, ko bo vezala subvencije tudi na določene okoljske, naravovarstvene zahteve, da bo s tem rešila okolje, podnebje in naravo. Ni zaradi tega, ker za to rabiš tudi vsakega malega kmeta, tudi vsakega, ki dejansko živi na podeželju in tudi prideluje hrano. In zato je treba spremeniti od kmetijskega tipa subvencij v bolj, bom rekel, socialno usmerjene. Tako da jaz se strinjam, da je neko socialno plačilo. Je to temeljni dohodek? Verjetno da, bi pa seveda taka uvedba prinesla izrazito spremembo. Torej, jaz mislim, da politično, ekonomsko to brez, recimo, 20-letnega prehoda ni mogoče. Obenem pa je treba seveda tudi nagraditi, da vsak kmet, ki dela prav, je za to tudi nagrajen. Danes pa velika večina kmetovalcev ne rabi kaj dosti narediti. Dobiva podpore in kmetje, večina kmetov misli, da so te podpore zaradi tega, ker so nekonkurenčni in da morajo dobiti boljši dohodek. V Sloveniji polovica dohodka izvira iz podpor, kar pomeni samo, da je slovensko kmetijstvo zelo ranljivo. Potem je pa porazdelitev taka, da samo majhen delež kmetov dobi zelo veliko.

Voditeljica: Pred kratkim je predsednica Evropske komisije Ursula von der Leyen oblikovala forum za skupno vizijo o prihodnosti kmetijskega in prehranskega sistema, kjer je poudarjen predvsem pomen dialoga. Si torej želi Evropska komisija dialog ali je to samo nek lepotni popravek, potem ko so kmeti vstali in šli na ulice?

Dr. Emil Erjavec:  Ta korak je dober, je prvi. Mislim pa, da se dela podobna napaka kot v Sloveniji, ko misliš, da če kmečke organizacije in politike pozoveš, da se bodo oni nekaj zmenili, pa bodo nekaj ukinjali, nekaj malega spremenili, da bo prišlo do resne spremembe. Tako v Evropi kot pri nas manjka zraven stroka, znanost, ki bo pomagala z rešitvami. Ni naloga znanosti in stroke, da dela politiko. Vendar politika brez tega ne more. Tako da jaz upam, da bodo ob tem dialogu, ki je na evropski ravni vzpostavljen, tudi začel razmišljati o temeljitih spremembah. Kajti šele ko ti premisliš celo zadevo na novo in potem tlakuješ novo pot, lahko narediš. Tudi mi v Sloveniji rabimo dialog, rabimo kar nekajmesečno zapiranje ljudi, da se zmenimo, torej ključnih posameznikov iz teh treh skupin. To se pravi politika, interesne skupine, pa ne samo kmetijske, tudi okoljske, pa stroka, da bi na nek način vzpostavili nov reformni kanal in pot. Predsednica države je to poskušala. Prvi forum na to temo je bil narejen novembra. Jaz upam, da bomo nadaljevali s tem. Kar se pa drugače tiče, je pa žal za politične realiste ali pa za politične cinike večina tega, kar se zdajle dogovarja tukaj in v Evropi, je v bistvu samo čakanje, da se kmetje vrnejo na njive in na kmetije. Nobena sprememba ne vodi v neko resno reformo niti v korist kmetov niti v korist okolja. Tukaj smo priča, kako dejansko poskušajo, okej, bomo nekaj odložili za eno leto, bomo poskušali kakšno stvar popraviti, ampak to ni zadosti.

Voditeljica: Bližajo se volitve, zato morda.

Dr. Emil Erjavec: Volitve, pa tudi kmetje so najostrejši partner, čeprav ni zelo velikih razlik med znanstveniki, zdravniki, rudarji in kmeti, ko gre za interese. Ampak kmetje so najbolj radikalni. Kmetje so sociološko gledano izjemno organizirani, imajo zelo enoten interes. In ker gre za usode ljudi, ki imajo vsi neko svojo zgodbo, ponavadi sploh ni to vezano na dohodke, ampak je vezano tudi na družine, na socialna vprašanja, na položaj v družbi in tako naprej. Grejo zelo agresivno na ulico in znajo biti tudi zelo radikalni. Malo kmetov lahko naredi bistveno večjo štalo, kot pa ne vem, 30.000 zdravnikov.

Voditeljica: Vi ste agrarni ekonomist, bili ste prodekan in dekan na Biotehniški fakulteti. Večkrat so vas vabili v ministrske vode, pa nikoli niste pristali. Na univerzi v Skopju so vam podelili častni doktorat. Svetovali ste vladam Srbije, Črne gore in Albanije. Sodelujete tudi z OECD. Kako bi v luči tega, kakšen je vaš življenjepis in znanje, vi ocenili cene hrane, cenovno politiko? Kaj se dogaja na tem področju? Lani je bila izjemna inflacija. Vemo tudi, da je vojna na robu Evrope. Ali to zdaj izvira samo iz tega ali je hrana že do zdaj bila prepoceni in se moramo navaditi na novo realnost, ki jo prinašajo podnebne spremembe? Kako vi ocenjujete ceno hrane?

Dr. Emil Erjavec: Čisto strokovno je treba povedati, da je cena hrane zadnjih sto let ob raznih skokih padala. To je vgrajeno v delovanje trgov s hrano in to je v bistvu velik problem razvoja kmetijstva. Ti ne moreš hrane ob vsem njenem pomenu za zdravje ljudi, za okolje, za naravo in tudi za ohranitev nekega prostorskega ravnovesja, ki ga dejansko pomembno opredeljujejo kmetje, je ne moreš narediti kot tržno blago, da v bistvu cena hrane s sabo prinese urejanje vseh teh eksternih učinkov in seveda tudi družbenih koristi. Zgolj s podporami se tega ne da narediti. In cena hrane v bistvu ne odraža, vem, da bo marsikdo razočaran, ampak cena hrane je prenizka za vse to, kar se kmetijstvu pripisuje, in ker je zelo pomembno, kakšno hrano jemo.

Voditeljica: Če malo tukaj ostaneva. Recimo slovenska hrana je dražja kot recimo iz Italije. Zakaj je temu tako? In kaj bi rekli, kaj naj Slovenci kupujemo?

Dr. Emil Erjavec: V povprečju je cenejša. Vsi statistični indeksi kažejo, da je cenejša. Seveda pa, ko mi gremo na tržnico na severu Italije in kupujemo surovine za slovenske trgovine, je pa to cenejše, ker grosistično kupujemo, in vedno cenejša hrana hodi iz ene države v drugo. Če greste pa na trge po severu ali pa po jugu ali pa po srednji Italiji, pa ima hrana kar dobro ceno. Tako da mi, kar dobivamo sem in pljuska k nam, v bistvu na nek način tudi zelo vpliva na cenovno raven. So seveda te presežne stvari, recimo paradižniki iz ...

Voditeljica: Italije.

Dr. Emil Erjavec: Ne, iz Španije. V glavnem eno celo področje pri Valencii je kot, bom rekel, en rastlinjak z izjemno količino pesticidov. Z uničevanjem naravnih virov, kjer delajo migranti, prekarna zgodba, je ne morete več. Mi potem, seveda smo zelo zadovoljni, če je domač paradižnik dražji. Mora biti dražji, ker tisto je narejeno na netrajnosten način. Ampak večina ljudi kupuje to in to je tisto, kar diktira ceno. Ko se bomo mi navadili, znali ceniti hrano, kakšna je, kupovali tudi dejansko z očmi, da vemo, od katerega kmeta je prišlo. Ko bomo razumeli hrano, da to ni stvar influencerjev in nekih zgodbic, eno, drugo, tretje, ko bo več stroke tudi pri uživanju in potrošnji hrane, bomo mogoče malo bolj. Je pa to zelo zahtevno vprašanje, ker gre za vrednote in kulturo.

Voditeljica: Kako naša intenzivna proizvodnja v Sloveniji vpliva na te cene hrane?

Dr. Emil Erjavec: Mi smo ...

Voditeljica: Verjetno nimamo prekarnih delavcev migrantov.

Dr. Emil Erjavec: Nekatere branže počasi imajo že težave s pridobivanjem sezonskih delavcev, predvsem v živilski industriji. Klavna industrija, mesna industrija ima hude težave z delavci, celo razmišlja o robotizaciji. Samo kmetijstvo nima. Slovensko kmetijstvo temelji na družinskih kmetijah, kjer je lastna delovna sila, pa nekaj večjih kmetijah, ki zaposlujejo. In kmetijskih podjetij. Ampak to je v manjšini. Torej prekarcev pri nas ni, problem je pa, da seveda povprečen zaposlen v kmetijstvu dobi krepko, ko obračunaš dohodek, dobi krepko pod minimalno plačo. Imate pa seveda tudi zraven take, ki od tega zelo dobro živijo. Ampak večina v kmetijstvu ne pridobi primernega dohodka in zato kmetje gredo na ulice, ker dejansko ne vidijo perspektive.

Voditeljica: Kje v tej verigi se izgubi dobiček za kmeta? Zdaj smo v tej vladi uvedli spremljanje cen po celotni verigi, torej od kmeta do končnega produkta, ki ga mi kupimo v trgovini. Kje se izgubi, kdo ima največji dobiček? Podatki so seveda tajni, ne vemo, kakšni so, ampak kaj vi kot agrarni ekonomist ocenjujete, kdo ima največ profita v tej zgodbi?

Dr. Emil Erjavec: 30 let prepozno. To je nuja, ker samo na številkah imaš ti lahko jasno zgodbo. Naše agroživilske verige so povezane, ne delujejo pa vzajemno. Zelo hitro so na nasprotnih bregovih tako kmetje proti živilskopredelovalni industriji, živilskopredelovalna do trgovine, industrije in potem sploh nimamo ... Potrošnik je neka, bom rekel, skoraj imaginarna kategorija in na koncu seveda so zaradi tega nihanja cen pri nas bistveno večja kot drugje. Če primerjam z Nizozemsko, Dansko, Irsko, kjer so te verige bistveno bolj stabilne, nimamo enotne zgodbe, kot jo imajo kmetje v Italiji, pa tudi v Franciji seveda, kjer pomeni, da vsi proizvajamo z isto filozofijo proizvode znanega porekla za znano kakovost in tako naprej. Pomemben del surovin ni na slovenskih produktih, čeprav večina je. Če gledamo mleko, ampak že pri pšenici ni tako. Pri mesu ni tako in tako naprej, tako da členi med seboj tekmujejo. Enkrat eden zmaga. Bila so obdobja, ko so kmetje uspešno zvozili. Velikokrat je živilska industrija, na dolgi rok pa v bistvu, saj je logično. Po ekonomski teoriji je ključ tukaj v trgovini, ki ima dejansko tržno premoč in to tudi uveljavi v pogajanjih z oskrbovalci. Afere so bile znane. To so pregledovali tudi razni uradi in tako naprej. Ampak ni to zgodba anomalije, to je zgodba nerazvitosti. Mi dejansko nismo bili sposobni razviti agroživilskih verig, ki bi bile sposobne proizvode pripeljati do slovenskega kmeta, zaščititi s tem slovensko potrošnjo in pridelavo hrane pred tujci. Tisto, kar proizvajamo, pa tudi pri izvozu, redko gremo v izvoz. Počasi to gre, torej plačujemo davek na nerazvitost. Je pa treba biti zelo pošten, da Slovenija ni kmetijska država. 80% so težje razmere in da bi mi bili neki veliki proizvajalci. Ampak več zgodbe bi lahko naredili predvsem preko gastronomije in predvsem preko dobro povezanih verig, ki bi vključevale tudi trgovino. Saj nekatere so to že začele delati. Ampak to so zdaj taki, torej z vidika marketinga čudni poskusi jej domače, lokalno. Imeti moraš zelo jasen, prepoznaven proizvod znane kakovosti, znanega porekla. Sledljivost je tukaj ključna. Če samo pogledate, kaj delajo Italijani, Avstrijci, Švicarji, pa tudi Nizozemci, smo šele na začetku.

Voditeljica: Več kot 17 milijonov ljudi dela v EU v kmetijstvu, povprečna starost kmeta pa je 57 let. Vi ste omenili, v Sloveniji nimamo velikih kmetij. Kam se ti mladi slovenski kmetje zdaj obračajo? Kakšne vrste kmetijstva? Ekološkega ali nadaljujejo tradicijo staršev?

Dr. Emil Erjavec: Ja, nasledstvo je veliko vprašanje evropskega, pa tudi slovenskega kmetijstva. Če smo na kakšen ukrep v Sloveniji lahko ponosni, je to dejansko podpora prevzemnikom. Kar nekaj tisoč, recimo nekaj sto kmetij je tako dobilo s podporami naslednike. Rasteta dva tipa. Eni prevzemajo te kmetije, ki so se iz nekdanjih deset hektarov razvile v bistveno večje, bistveno bolj posodobljene, modernizirane, tudi digitalizirane. Te bi rade tekmovale v obsegu zemljišč, v obsegu dohodkov, pri reji, pridelavi z najboljšimi evropskimi. Nekaterim to celo uspeva, ampak grejo zdaj zelo agresivno proti kakršnim koli spremembam zaradi zelenega prehoda, ker so se naučili, navadili so se nekega sistema, ki je, bom rekel, zelo konvencionalen. Ampak tudi te se bodo prilagodile. Potem imate pa na drugi strani dejansko val ljudi, mladih, ki so se odločili, da bodo živeli na podeželju in je to način življenja in pridelujejo hrano v glavnem zelo, bom rekel s kmetijskega vidika, pogosto na zelo alternativen način. 

Voditeljica: Pustimo vse računalnike in gremo kmetovat.

Dr. Emil Erjavec: Ali pa tudi delajo od doma. Tega ni malo. To ni zelo veliko površin, ampak ni zanemarljivo. Ni nezanemarljivo, koliko je teh ljudi, ampak recimo ti dve skupini sploh ne prideta skupaj. To se pravi, mladi so danes zelo aktivistično nastrojeni. Na eni strani imate te mlade, ki so za okolje, za podnebje, za živali, na drugi strani imate pa mlade, ki dejansko želijo na veliko kmetovati, pridelovati in tako naprej. To je radikalni spoj, ki je danes tudi najbolj v konfliktu. Če se ta mlada skupina ne bo zedinila za enotno zgodbo slovenskega kmetijstva in podeželja, bodo stvari razpadle. Večina obrobnega se bo spraznila, tako kot je to že na Hrvaškem se zgodilo. To lahko čez mejo samo pogledamo in seveda tudi imeli bomo nekaj odličnih kmetov, evropsko primerljivih. Ampak to ni dobra zgodba ne za Slovenijo ne za slovensko podeželje.

Voditeljica: Zdaj se spomnim teh prizorov. Mislim, da je bil naj kmet izbran v zadnjem mesecu, dveh mogoče. Je imel recimo za krave dobesedno posebna ležišča, ogrevana tla in je bil prepoznan kot eden najboljših kmetov. Je to ta pravi način? Se pravi, da več gledamo na dobrobit živali, da bi to morali vsi upoštevati?

Dr. Emil Erjavec: Torej tehnologije mladi zelo dobro prevzemajo. Zdaj govorimo o teh, ki gredo na večje. In tukaj je nekaj izjemnih inovacij, v bistvu prevzema tujih inovacij. Žal tega nismo v Sloveniji razvili. Ena od teh je tudi verjetno s kmetije v Savinjski dolini, kjer imajo res eksperimentalna tla, posebej ugodna za ležanje. Te kmetije ogromno denarja, znanja in volje. To je del zgodbe.

Voditeljica: In tudi rekel je ta kmet, da potem krava da več mleka, če je zadovoljna.

Dr. Emil Erjavec: Je pa treba povedati, da je ta kmetija majhna, da je veliko podpor prišlo tudi iz javnih sredstev in da je njen dolgoročni obstoj zelo odvisen od tega, kakšne proizvode bo na trgu prodajala, ali bo prodajala surovine, kateri mlekarni in na kakšen način. Tu smo spet pri agroživilski verigi. Ampak to je del zgodbe, potem imate pa seveda inovatorja in kmeta, ki je strokovnjak za prirejo govejega mesa, ki pripravlja steake najboljše kakovosti za najboljše gostilne. Torej inovacijskih zgodb je kar nekaj. Saj to opogumlja. Torej tudi študenti, ko se pogovarjaš, je kar nekaj energije, samo to vse skupaj moramo ... Kar mene skrbi, je ta konflikt med okoljsko bolj navdahnjenimi in tehnološko, ekonomsko bolj navdahnjenimi. Ti dve skupini ne delata skupaj in če ne bosta delali skupaj, potem ne bo slovenske zgodbe.

Voditeljica: Leta 2020 ste bili izbrani za mentorja leta, zdaj ste že malce omenili študente. Radi obiskujejo vaša predavanja. Ko ste se odločali, kaj bi želeli postati, ste razmišljali tudi o igralstvu. Imate zdaj igralske vložke na predavanjih ali ne?

Dr. Emil Erjavec: Ja, to je taka vzporedna kariera. Hecam se. V bistvu dober predavatelj mora navdušiti ljudi, mora biti iskren, mora znati govoriti dovolj razumljivo in vedno težje je to početi. Mladi so zelo zahtevni.

Voditeljica: Ampak vidite upanje v njih, da bi lahko združili to, kar ste rekli, da bi se moralo poenotiti?

Dr. Emil Erjavec: Ni drugega kot upanje.

Voditeljica: Me veseli. Ostala sva pri teh vaših željah, da bi bili igralec. Se pravi, kako to uporabljate pri svojem poklicu?

Dr. Emil Erjavec: Pravim, da biti dober predavatelj je posebno poslanstvo in je zelo zahtevno. Včasih mi uspe, včasih ne. Trudim se biti čim bolj drugačen, čim bolj poln zgodb in teorije, kajti občutek imam, da mladi recimo ne jemljejo teorije kot sredstvo za to, da bi stvari razumeli, ampak kot sredstvo za to, da narediš izpit. To je pa popolnoma brezveze, kajti teoretične osnove, znanstvene osnove so bistvo, da razumeš, kam svet gre, in da potem si sposoben nove stvari razvijati in poskušam to na nek način kombinirati. Koliko mi uspeva, morate študente vprašati.

Voditeljica: Očitno zelo dobro, če so vas izglasovali za mentorja, ki je zelo uspešen.

Dr. Emil Erjavec: Ampak to je individualno delo. Naj mentor sem postal na državni ravni zaradi mojega uspeha z doktorandi. Predlagali so me in izbrali potem zaradi tega, ker to pa je bistvo. Torej, če profesor naredi v svojem življenju 10, 15, 20 odličnih bodočih znanstvenikov ali kmetov, če hočete, je svoje poslanstvo opravil. In dejansko mi to zelo veliko pomeni in tudi vem, da lahko zelo veliko dajem. Njihovi uspehi so tudi moji uspehi.

Voditeljica: Naša sodelavka je bila vaša študentka. Je imela same pohvalne besede za vas. Bova še ostala malce pri ženskah. Danes je 25. marec, materinski dan. V enem od intervjujev pred skoraj desetimi leti sem prebrala vašo izjavo, da je nujen del strukturnega preoblikovanja slovenskega kmetijstva tudi sprememba vloge žensk in otrok na naših kmetijah. Opažate na tem področju že kakšne premike?

Dr. Emil Erjavec: V bistvu je to eden največjih problemov slovenskega kmetijstva, večji kot pa naravovarstvene zahteve in tako naprej. S tem se premalo resno ukvarjamo. Podeželske družine so se spremenile. Mi imamo resen konflikt. Ne na vseh kmetijah, ampak obstaja, in to ne samo pri nas, tudi v drugih državah, med mladimi in starejšimi generacijami. Prišleki na kmetije so ali odrinjeni ali zahtevajo svoje pravice. Imate prav duševne stiske, torej tudi recimo naši mladi kmetje, torej podeželska mladina se je s tem začela resno ukvarjati. Mladi, stari, to je šele na novo odkrito resno vprašanje. V bistvu sem pa šokiran. Če pogledate položaj kmečkih žena, so primeri, ki jih ni malo, ko kmečka žena na koncu svojega življenja nima niti svoje pokojnine, ko nima recimo na kmetijah, ki so vredne tudi več milijonov evrov, kjer je letni prihodek lahko tudi 200, 300 000 € in več, nimajo niti svojega računa niti svojega denarja in so v popolni, bom rekel, oblasti svojih partnerjev. Prisiljene so v neko kmečko žensko vzdrževanje ob potici in nekih igrah, kar je seveda za 21. stoletje popolnoma neprimerno. In to je recimo vprašanje, s katerim se nihče ne ukvarja. Mi smo kot agrarni ekonomisti čisto slučajno v anketah in v neki majhni študiji to odkrili in raziskovali naprej. In potem, ko izveš, kaj se vse na podeželju dogaja, recimo kot so nam razlagali s Karitasa, pa tudi ... Centri za socialno delo in pa tudi kmečke žene same. Ne moreš verjeti, kaj se vse v ozadju dogaja. Danes je verjetno primeren dan, da se ta vloga podeželskih žena nekoliko bolj izpostavi, pa tudi mladih deklet, ki so se odločile, da se bodo poročile na kmetijo. Njihov status ni enostaven. Bo treba še veliko na tem področju narediti. Predvsem pa se ozavestiti. In tako kot pri vsem, kar sva danes govorila, zelo veliko je na kulturi in vrednotah. V nekaterih pogledih smo v tem delu zelo nerazsvetljeni in neke tranzicije duha nismo preživeli. Če to cepiš na današnji populizem, na današnje, bom rekel, razvrednotenje vsega, potem seveda prideš tja, kjer smo zdaj. Potem so samo še črno-bele resnice, ulice in seveda tudi depresije in padci vsega. Ampak mislim, da ni primeren način, da na ta način zaključiva.

Voditeljica: Ne. Poskušajva optimistično. Če boste imeli čez deset let vnovič intervju, ali bo drugačen, menite, da bo na področju kmetijstva veliko sprememb v zvezi s tem, kar sva danes povedala?

Dr. Emil Erjavec: V bistvu, če sem čisto pošten, človek mora biti pošten do sebe in do drugih. Izgledi niso najboljši. Torej vse gre v pesimizem, tako kot pri družbi. Zakaj bi bilo v kmetijstvu boljše? Kar pa me veseli, je dejansko ta renesansa razumevanja pomena podeželja, narave, tudi pridelave hrane in vsega. Jaz upam, da bo to kljub vsemu Slovence na nek način ohranilo na zemlji. Po moje Slovenci brez zemlje težko funkcioniramo. Ko bomo zgubili do konca, precej se je že izgubilo te povezave, potem ne vem. Identiteta gre nekam. Tukaj sem zelo konzervativen.

Voditeljica: Najlepša hvala za ta pogovor, gospod Erjavec, in veliko sreče.

Dr. Emil Erjavec: Hvala tudi vam za interes in da ste se me spomnili.

Voditeljica: Hvala. Hvala vsem, ki ste bili z nami. Vladni podkast lahko spremljate na vseh portalih, na YouTubu in vseh kanalih, kjer spremljate podkaste, lahko pa se nanj tudi naročite. Hvala in nasvidenje.

Dr. Emil Erjavec: Nasvidenje.

[ENGLISH VERSION]   

The Government Podcast, Gov.si.

Host Petra Bezjak Cirman: Hello to our viewers and listeners. Welcome to the fourth episode of Gov.si, the government's podcast, which is produced by the Communication Office. I'm Petra Bezjak Cirman, and my guest is here to mark the 20th anniversary of Slovenia's EU accession. We're joined by agricultural economist Dr Emil Erjavec. Hello.

Mr. Emil Erjavec: Hello.

Host: We invited you because you were a part of the core negotiating team for agriculture and fisheries during Slovenia's EU accession. You're an agricultural economist, a professor at the Biotechnical Faculty, and an expert on agricultural policy. Looking back 20 years, what were Slovenia's hopes and fears in your field?

Mr. Emil Erjavec: We need to go back another decade. The process began in 1994. In the decade of our EU accession, there was a lot of hope. Our farmers were hoping for comparable policies, prices, and support as those received by their Italian and Austrian counterparts, while the state was hoping for more modern agricultural policy. We had to establish one from scratch after independence. This happened alongside the accession process. Milk quotas were the key issue at the time. Would Slovenia receive an opportunity to produce enough milk to take advantage of every opportunity? Later, the question was whether the status of Slovenian farmers would be equivalent to the status of Western European farmers. Those were the two key issues.

Host: We know little about the background of that process, but you've been frank about that. The political environment was different then. You were trusted; you were an expert, the driving force behind the group. What was the relationship like between politicians and the negotiators?

Mr. Emil Erjavec: We were essentially a technical group. Two of us oversaw agriculture. I oversaw strategy and was joined by a state secretary from the Agriculture Ministry. The two of us tackled everything. This was the only sector that involved a state secretary. He was also the only politician in the group. The rest of us came from just about everywhere, from the Bank of Slovenia, business, ministries... There were also a few professors. Our core negotiating team enjoyed a favourable status. It was said that while the governments would change, the core negotiating teams would remain to make sure that our course wouldn't change, and that Slovenia's interests would be unchanged. Politicians treated us well. Our relationship was mutual. In some fields, the policy originated with the ministries, while in others, it came mostly from the negotiating team. Most of our effort was about getting everything confirmed by the Assembly, by the government, and so on. We had strong political backup. All the Prime Ministers and some ministers... At first, EU Minister Igor Bavčar, whose role was not particularly emphasized, played a key role. Key things took place in that first phase, in 1998 and 1999, when we essentially reconstituted the country, using legislation and our institutions. We adapted everything to EU demands. The Prime Minister was also very responsive. As the scope of our work grew, the head of the negotiating team had an ever-greater role. That was my colleague, Dr. Janez Potočnik. What has been somewhat forgotten but was a major topic of conversation at the time was not allowing diplomats to negotiate about our EU accession. Why not? A few diplomats did play an important role, but if you allow the Foreign Ministry to run everything, you deal with details instead of historic shifts. You have a hard time talking about money, law, and institutions. Slovenia was exceptional and successful in negotiations because form, and diplomacy represents form, was never more important than function. Unfortunately, this was no longer the case later on.

Host: You mentioned that you were essentially a technical government, and you were quite bold in Brussels. You said that the negotiations were quite successful. What did the Brussels negotiations look like behind the scenes?

Mr. Emil Erjavec: Now that we're older, we can admit that this wasn't a technical government with a democratic mandate, but we had an important informal role. Our views were heard. If someone from the core negotiating team said or wrote something, we could get that approved by the government much easier. These days, it's unimaginable that a technical group could have such a role in the legislative process. There was enthusiasm, a country where everyone worked for common goals. As for Brussels, negotiations regarding agriculture were always just icing on the cake. It's the most complicated part. You have farmers in the streets in every country, and the expectations were huge, so you also see a lot of emotion but also a lot of knowledge. We quickly decided that as a small country entering the process in the last position... The Poles and the Hungarians were far ahead of us. We decided to approach the process as professionally as possible, based on facts rather than power politics. This turned out to be the right approach. For instance, when we negotiated over quotas, we brought our statistics and proved that their data wasn't accurate. When negotiating over funds, we used serious analyses to justify each of our demands. At one stage, the Commission kept rejecting everything.

Host: Apparently, you even explained how Welsch Riesling is made.

Mr. Emil Erjavec: The issue of assigning Slovenia to different viticultural zones was a major issue because at the time, before such significant climate change, Slovenia was in Zone B. This meant that adding sugar to wine was allowed. It was harvesting time, so we told them to go to Slovenia, to Štajerska or Dolenjska or Prekmurje, and tell producers they shouldn't add sugar to their wines. Their wines were very acidic with low sugar content. This was incomprehensible to them because one member state didn't want our producers from the Primorska region to have better conditions, because adding sugar means better conditions.

Host: Which country?

Mr. Emil Erjavec: Our neighbour. We even had to negotiate in Rome. At the end, our producers who lived on the border went to Brussels and asked the commissioner to be included in the same zone as the Italians because they had vineyards across the border. In the end, we found a healthy compromise by dividing Slovenia into two zones. Nowadays, this is irrelevant because climate change has altered wine-growing conditions to such an extent that virtually no one adds sugar. It's also not done due to quality standards, but we lived in a different world. It was 30 years ago.

Host: Are you satisfied with the results of your negotiations?

Mr. Emil Erjavec: You've got to ask farmers that. As for results from the negotiations themselves, and this may seem cynical from a historical perspective, the most important thing was that we were able to rely on our own funds in the first year to part-finance direct payments to a level comparable with Western European countries. The EU had decided, because it lacked sufficient funds and Eastern Europe lacked the budget resources, to start this at a low level, 25 percent. The only country that was problematic in this regard, beside Malta and Cyprus, was Slovenia. They wanted to brush us off by saying: "You'll survive." The unprofessional nature of their political negotiators was apparent, so we had to be tough. In the end, we were successful when they realized that we were different. Our second big achievement was the scope of the funding. In the period from 2004 to today, we ensured about €6 billion in EU subsidies, which is remarkable. The farm sector wouldn't have received this much from Slovenian funds, and it enabled the survival and development of many farms. There may even have been too many of these funds, as people got too used to direct payments and other forms of support and neglected the key element, which is producing and selling food on the market.

Host: We mentioned fears, headlines from 2000, 2004 about agriculture in Portugal and France. These fears were not justified in Slovenia, right?

Mr. Emil Erjavec: Yes, we closely studied other countries then and it was very clear how successfully Portugal negotiated but sacrificed its agriculture. A similar thing happened here, but not as radically, and with a positive impact. What happened in Portugal is that large concerns came and their whole food processing industry fell apart, because stores brought their own suppliers, etc., and the Portuguese farmers lost. Our farmers not only kept the production, but also got an option, which economically isn't good for Slovenia. For instance, more than a third of our milk and more than a fifth of our beef is exported to Austria and Italy. So they can sell on other markets, and it is bad that we are selling raw material, not end products.

Host: Before we move on, one more from that period. What does The Wild Geese pub in Brussels mean to you?

Mr. Emil Erjavec: The Wild Geese is a famous Irish pub under the Directorate-General for Agriculture, where we always went to and even had some more informal meetings. It is historically very important to us because that is where we wrote the negotiation demands on a piece of paper. I mentioned earlier how long they kept rejecting our demands and refused to consider the characteristics of Slovenian agriculture. So, before the formal negotiations started, that is where a change in attitude on a technical level happened, and we came to the meeting, and everyone was suddenly nice.

Host: That niceness was supposedly a result of some backroom deals, you even took some officials on a tour of Slovenia.

Yes, we have just been driving them through the more hilly parts of the country. …

Host: I use the same tricks sometimes.

Mr. Emil Erjavec: We took the Director-General to Slovenia and straight from the airport to the Kamnik hills, then across Šentjošt and towards Vrhnika over the Polhov Gradec Dolomites ... He got the impression that Slovenia is a mountainous country, and that no Slovenian farmer is a threat to European ones. But the point of the negotiations was that we had two lists of demands, which we wrote in that famous pub after this meeting. On one we tried to set the most that could be realistically achieved, and on the other the minimum. Then the State Secretary called the Ministry asking if we can bring this piece of paper with the demands. So, we sent Minister But there with the list of maximum demands and they didn't throw him out but received him kindly. A week later the formal negotiations started. We entered the negotiating room and the Danish Presidency started reading our demands as their offer. My colleague Jarc and I just smiled, and the negotiations were successfully concluded. We were lucky because we were the first. The Poles were threatening this and that. They and some others thought that they would be negotiating. The Commission could not afford that. In Brussels, unless you're German or French, you cannot negotiate from a position of power, you must use knowledge and numbers and I think we did that relatively successfully.

Host: You already mentioned the green transition. What does it mean for European and Slovenian farmers?

Mr. Emil Erjavec: The green transition is necessary. All the facts show that the prevalent system of farming in Europe simply goes against people, nature, the climate, and the environment. It could be modified, but that requires radical changes in all of agriculture, in methods of food production, cattle farming, attitude toward food, as well as reducing climate change, meaning working in favour of the climate and of course for animal welfare as well. The Commission set this up nicely with the wave of societal changes, which are maybe not felt as much in Slovenia. These societal changes are happening on the Paris-Brussels-Berlin axis. But the Commission made a very big strategic mistake, as it didn't know how to present it to the farmers and just listed radical demands. My colleagues from the Directorate, who were at the negotiations, were baffled. People who know nothing of agriculture just recited: "Let's have this percentage of organic farmers, let's reduce pesticides to this level ..." Of course, the farmers took to the streets. You cannot force a farmer into something overnight without convincing him first, without seeing the impacts and without adapting the transition. I think that the European Union very much failed in this regard and in the next wave, which would be bad for society and Europe if it didn't happen, it will have to do this much better, through changes in values, new technologies and support that will make this possible.

Host: What sort of support? Should perhaps every farmer or every EU citizen be given a universal basic income, as Dr. Janez Potočnik said? Or maybe subsidies or money for land? What do we need for a smooth green transition? It is an inescapable fact. Environmental changes, last year's floods ... We saw where all this is going.

Mr. Emil Erjavec: The Common Agricultural Policy is 60 years old, but it hasn't changed significantly. Only the mechanisms change, but support distribution basically stays the same. This means that those who have the most and generally farm most intensively, get the most funds. It is all tied to acreage, the more you have, the more you get. The European Union believed that by also tying subsidies to certain environmental and nature conservation requirements, it would save the environment, the climate and nature. It didn't, because for that you need every smallholder and everyone who lives in rural areas and produces food. That is why we need to move away from agricultural-type subsidies to far more socially oriented ones. I agree with some sort of social payment, most likely a universal basic income, as implementing it would bring about a significant change. I think that politically-economically it isn't possible without, say, a 20-year transition period. At the same time, every farmer that works right should be rewarded. A vast majority of farmers now do not have to do much, while they are receiving support. Most farmers believe that the support exists because they aren't competitive, and they need a better income. Half of all income in Slovenia comes from support, which only means that Slovenian agriculture is very vulnerable. And the distribution is such that only a fraction of farmers gets very much. 

Host: Ursula von der Leyen, President of the EC, recently formed a forum for a shared vision for the future of the farming and food system with an emphasis on dialogue. Does the EC want dialogue or is this just a cosmetic fix after the farmers took to the streets?

Mr. Emil Erjavec: This is a good first step, but I think that the same mistake is being made as in Slovenia, where you think that getting agricultural organisations and politicians to come to an arrangement and make some small change, it will have a big impact. In Europe and in Slovenia we are missing scientific involvement, that would help by providing solutions. Policymaking is not the scientists' job, but politics cannot do without them. I hope that with this dialogue at the European level they will also start thinking about profound changes, because you must first consider the whole thing anew, before you are able to pave a new path. We also need dialogue in Slovenia. We need to confine people for a few months to discuss... Well, key individuals from these groups, politics, interest groups from agriculture and environment and professionals to build a new channel and way. The President of the State tried to do this. The first assembly on this topic was in November and I hope we will continue with this. Otherwise, unfortunately for political realists or cynics the majority of what we are talking about here and in Europe is just waiting that farmers return to their farms and fields. The changes don't lead to a serious reform. Not to benefit the farmers or environment. We witness here how they are trying to postpone something for one year or they are trying to mend something. But it's not enough.

Host: The elections are near.

Mr. Emil Erjavec: Yes, and farmers are the roughest partner. There isn't such a difference between scientist, doctors, and farmers, when interests are in play, but farmers are the most radical. Farmers are very organized from sociological point of view, and they have uniform interests. It is about the fate of people with their own story, the income is usually not so important, there are families, social issues, and position in society. That's why they are very aggressive, when they rally, and can be radical. A few farmers can make a bigger riot than 30,000 doctors.

Host: You are agricultural economist, you were vice-dean and dean of the Biotechnical Faculty, you were invited to be a Minister, but you never accepted it. At Skopje University you were awarded an honorary doctorate. You counselled the governments of Serbia, Montenegro, and Albania. You are cooperating with OECD. Considering all this, how would you asses the food prices and pricing policy. What is happening here? There was extreme inflation. We know that there is a war at the edge of Europe. Is this the reason or was food too cheap and we must get used to the new reality of climate change? How do you see the food prices?

Mr. Emil Erjavec: Professionally, we have to say that food prices were falling for the last hundred years. It is installed in the functioning of the food markets. It is a big problem of the agricultural development. Food is very important for health, environment, nature and for conservation of spatial balance, which is defined by farmers, and you can't turn it into commodity. The food prices carry all these external effects and societal benefits. You can't do it with subventions only. The prices don't reflect the food. I know people will be disappointed, but food prices are too low for everything that is attributed to agriculture. And it's very important what kind of food we eat.

Host: We can stop here for a while. Slovenian food is more expensive than Italian. Why? What would you recommend we should buy?

Mr. Emil Erjavec: In average, it is cheaper. All statistical indices show that it's cheaper. But when we go to the market in Northern Italy and buy staple for Slovenian shops, it's cheaper, because we are buying wholesale. Less expensive food is always moving from one state to the other. If you visit markets on the north, south or in central Italy, the food there has a good price. What comes here and influences the price levels are surplus items. For example, tomatoes from ... 

Host: Italy.

No, mainly from Spain. An area near Valencia is like a greenhouse with an enormous amount of pesticides, destroying the natural sources, where the migrants work. It's a precarious story, which can't be ... We are satisfied if local tomato is more expensive. It must be. The other option is very unsustainable. But a majority is buying this, because of the price. When we will know how to appreciate the food, the quality of food and will buy it with eyes, to know, which farmer it's from, when we'll understand the food and that it's not a domain of influencers and some stories ... When experts will be included in consuming and expenditure for food, we might get better. But it's a very difficult question because values and culture are involved.

Host: How does our intensive production impact the prices?

Mr. Emil Erjavec: We are ...

Host: We probably don't have precarious workers, migrants... 

Mr. Emil Erjavec: In some branches, it's difficult to get seasonal workers. In food industry, meat industry has big problems with workers. They are thinking about robotisation. Slovenian agriculture doesn't have these problems. It is based on family farms with its own working force, there are a few bigger farms with workers and a few agricultural undertakings, but they are outnumbered. There aren't precarious workers, but the average person, employed in agriculture is being paid a lot less than minimal wage. Of course, there are some people that earn a good living. But most people in agriculture don't get a proper income and that's why people go to the streets. They don't see the future.

Host: Where in this chain does the profit for a farmer get lost? We have implemented price monitoring through the whole chain. From a farmer to the final product that we buy in a store. Where does it go? Who profits the most? The data is confidential, we don't know it... What do you think as an agricultural economist? Who profits the most?

Mr. Emil Erjavec: 30 years too late. It's imperative, because only numbers can tell you a clear story. Our agricultural chains are connected, but they don't work hand in hand. They quickly find themselves on opposite sides. Farmers against food-processing industry, the industry against trade. We don't include industry input here, a consumer is an imaginary category and because of this the price fluctuation is much bigger, if we compare ourselves with the Netherlands, Denmark, Ireland. We don't have a uniform story as farmers in Italy do or in France, of course. It means that we are producing with the same philosophy, products are of known origin and of known quality. An important part of raw materials is not from Slovenia, although majority is. Milk is, for example. But wheat or meat are not and so on. The links are competing. Sometimes one wins, there were successful cases with farmers or food industry. But in the long term, it's logical, the key element is trade, which has market supremacy here and it can assert it when negotiating with suppliers. There were some incidents. Different offices were inspecting it. But it's not a point of anomaly, but of underdevelopment. We couldn’t develop agricultural chains that would be capable to bring products to the Slovenian farmer and protect Slovenian consumption and food-processing against foreigners, I mean our products, and export as well. We rarely export something, it's going slowly. We are paying for underdevelopment, but we must be honest. Slovenia is not an agricultural country. In 80% of the country the conditions are too difficult for us to be big producers, but we could do more. Mainly in gastronomy and with connected chains that would include trade too. Some trades started to do this. But from marketing point of view these are unusual attempts. "Let's eat homemade, let's eat local." You must have a clear product of known quality and origin. Traceability is the key here. Look at what Italians, Austrians, Swiss and Dutch people are doing. we're only at the beginning.

Host: More than 17 million people work in agriculture in the EU, the average age of a farmer is 57. You mentioned Slovenia doesn't have large farms. What are the young Slovenian farmers turning to? What kind of agriculture? Organic or in the tradition of their parents?

Mr. Emil Erjavec: Succession is a big issue of European, but also Slovenian agriculture. If we can be proud of any type of measures in Slovenia, it's the support for those who take over. Several thousand ... No, let's say several hundred farms got successors because of the support. Two types are on the rise. Some are taking over farms which used to be ten hectares, but are now significantly larger, more modernized, even digitized. They would like to compete in the amount of land, in the amount of income from breeding, cultivation with the best European farms. Some even succeed in doing so, but now they are very aggressively opposing any changes due to the green transition. Because they're used to a very conventional system. But they will adapt. On the other hand, there's a wave of young people who have decided to live in the countryside. This is their way of life. From an agricultural point of view, they often produce food in a very "alternative way".

Host: Let's leave the computers, let's go farming.

Mr. Emil Erjavec: Or they work from home. There's a lot of them. They don't have a lot of land, but it's not an insignificant number of people. These two groups don't see eye to eye. Young people today are very activist-minded. On the one hand, there are young people who are for the environment, for the climate, for animals, and on the other hand, there are young people who want to farm and produce on a large scale. This is a radical combination which has now led to conflict. If this young group doesn't agree to a unified story of Slovenian agriculture and the countryside, things will fall apart. Most of the marginal areas will be vacant, just as it happened in Croatia, we only need to look across the border. We'll have some excellent farmers, on par with Europe, but this is not a good story for Slovenia or for our countryside.

Host: I remember these scenes. In the last month or two, the best farmer was chosen. He literally had special beds for the cows, heated floors, and was recognized as one of the best farmers. Is this the right way? Should they focus on the welfare of animals?

Mr. Emil Erjavec: Technologies are very well taken up by young people. We're talking about bigger farms. There are some exceptional innovations, they're adopting foreign innovations. We haven't developed them in Slovenia. One of them is the farm in the Savinjska Valley, where they have experimental floor, especially favourable for lying. There is a lot of money, knowledge and will at this farm. This is part of the story.

Host: This farmer said that a happy cow gives more milk.

Mr. Emil Erjavec: But it must be said that this farm is still small, a lot of support also came from public funds, its long-term existence depends very much on what kind of products it will sell on the market, whether it will sell raw materials, to which dairies and in what way. We're back to the agri-food chain. But that is part of the story. Then, of course, you have innovators and farmers who are experts in beef production, who prepare best quality steaks for the best restaurants. There are quite a few innovative stories. They give us hope. When you talk to students, there's a certain energy, we just must put it all together. I'm worried about the conflict between the more environmentally inspired and the more technologically, economically inspired. These two groups do not work together, and without that, there is no Slovenian story.

Host: In 2020, you were selected as mentor of the year. You mentioned students, they like attending your lectures. When choosing a career, you were also thinking about acting. Is acting now part of your lectures?

Mr. Emil Erjavec: Yes, it's a similar career. Just kidding. A good lecturer must inspire people. They must be honest, they have to be a good speaker, so people can understand them. This is getting harder and harder. Young people are very demanding.

Host: But you have hope in them? That they could join forces?

Hope in the young is all we have.

Host: That's nice to hear. Let's get back to acting. How do you use it in your profession?

Mr. Emil Erjavec: Being a good lecturer is a special mission and it's very demanding. Sometimes I succeed, sometimes I don't. I try to be as different as possible, as full of stories and theory as possible. I have a feeling that young people don't see theory as a means to understand things, but as a means to pass an exam. That's completely pointless. Theory, theoretical foundations, scientific foundations are the essence of understanding where the world is going, and then being able to develop new things. I try to combine this in some way. Am I succeeding? You must ask the students.

Host: Obviously, if they voted for you as a very successful mentor.

Mr. Emil Erjavec: But that's individual work. I was the best mentor at the national level because of my success with doctoral students. They suggested and then chose me because of that. This is essential. If a professor creates 10, 15, 20 great future scientists or farmers in their lifetime, they have fulfilled their mission. This means a lot to me. I know that I can give a lot. Their successes are my successes.

Host: Our colleague was your student, and she can't praise you enough. Let's stay with women for a bit. Today is 25 March, Mother's Day. In an interview almost ten years ago, you stated that a necessary part of the structural transformation of Slovenian agriculture is a change in the role of women and children on our farms. Have you noticed any changes in this area?

Mr. Emil Erjavec: This is one of the biggest problems of Slovenian agriculture. Bigger than the nature conservation requirements. We don't take it seriously enough. Rural families have changed, there is a serious conflict, not on all farms, but it exists, and not only here, in other countries as well, between the younger and older generations. The newcomers are either pushed to the side or demand their rights. There are mental hardships, the rural youth have started to deal with this seriously. This relationship young-old is a newly discovered serious issue. I'm shocked by the situation of farmers' wives. There are many cases of a farmer's wife who doesn't even have her own pension at the end of her life. Even though the farms can be worth several million euros, the annual income can be 200.000 or 300.000 € or more, they don't even have their own account or their own money and are completely dependent on their partners. They are forced into some kind of farmers' wives socializing around food and games, which, of course, is completely inappropriate for the 21st century. This is an issue no one is dealing with. The agricultural economists stumbled upon this with some surveys and a small study. We researched further, and when you know what's happening in the countryside ... For example, when Karitas spoke to us, when social work centres and even farmers' wives themselves spoke to us, we couldn't believe what's going on behind the scenes. Today is probably a suitable day for this role of rural women to be highlighted a little more, as well as young girls who decided to marry a farmer. Their position is not easy.

Host: Much more needs to be done in this area.

Mr. Emil Erjavec: Above all to raise awareness. As with everything we've talked about today, this is a lot to do with culture, with values. In some respects, we are very unenlightened, we haven't undergone a certain transition of the spirit. Together with today's populism and devaluation of everything, we've gotten to where we are now. To black and white truths, to protests, and, of course, depression. But I don't think this is an appropriate way to conclude this. It's a long story.

Host: Let's try to be optimistic. If you have another interview ten years from now, will it be different? Will there be many changes in agriculture related to what we've discussed today?

Mr. Emil Erjavec: If I'm being completely honest ... We must be honest with ourselves and others. The prospects are not the best. The society is pessimistic, why would agriculture be any different? But I'm happy to see the renaissance of understanding the importance of the countryside, nature, and food production. I hope that despite everything this will keep Slovenians close to the land. I think it's difficult for us to function without it. Once we lose this connection altogether, a lot of it is lost already, we'll lose our identity. I'm very conservative when it comes to this.

Host: Mr. Erjavec, thank you for this conversation and good luck.

Mr. Emil Erjavec: Thank you for inviting me.

Host: Thank you. Thank you for being with us. You can follow the government podcast on YouTube and all podcast channels. You can also subscribe to it. Thank you and goodbye.

Mr. Emil Erjavec: Goodbye.