GOVSI podkast: O prihodnosti slovenskega kmetijstva

V novi epizodi vladnega GOVSI podkasta ministrica za kmetijstvo, prehrano in gozdarstvo Mateja Čalušić razkriva ključne izzive in priložnosti slovenskega kmetijstva ter strategijo za prihodnost oskrbe s hrano. 

Ministrica spregovori o ključnih spremembah, ki jih prinaša paket zakonskih predlogov za slovenske kmete, potrošnike in prehransko industrijo, o kmetijski politiki EU, trajnostnem razvoju, vlogi žensk in mladih v kmetijstvu ter izzivih, s katerimi se soočajo slovenski kmetje v času podnebnih sprememb in tržnih pritiskov. 

V pogovoru z voditeljem Zoranom Potičem ministrica tudi pojasni odločitev ministrstva, da umakne predlog reorganizacije kmetijske svetovalne službe, ki bi jo premestil pod okrilje ministrstva. Odločitev je bila sprejeta zaradi močnih političnih odzivov in skrbi na terenu, je povedala. Poudarila je tudi: "Sistem kmetijskega svetovanja potrebujemo, vendar mora biti učinkovitejši in bolje povezan s potrebami kmetov." 

Sogovornika se dotakneta tudi izziva zaupanja v domače kmetijske proizvode, potem ko so se v preteklosti pojavile afere, ki so vplivale na nakupne navade potrošnikov. "Na ministrstvu že izvajamo analize in ukrepe, da bi ponovno okrepili zaupanje v slovensko hrano ter izboljšali njeno prepoznavnost," zagotavlja. 

Vabljeni k poslušanju podkasta na vaši priljubljeni platformi in ogledu! 

[ENGLISH VERSION] 

GOVSI Podcast: The Future of Slovenian Agriculture 

In the latest episode of the government’s GOVSI podcast, Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Food, Mateja Čalušić sheds light on the key challenges and opportunities facing Slovenian agriculture, as well as the country’s strategy for the future of food supply. 

The minister discusses major changes introduced by a package of legislative proposals affecting Slovenian farmers, consumers, and the food industry. She also explores EU agricultural policy, sustainable development, the role of women and young people in farming, and the challenges Slovenian farmers face due to climate change and market pressures. 

In a conversation with host Zoran Potič, Minister Čalušić explains the ministry’s decision to withdraw the proposal for reorganizing the agricultural advisory service, which would have placed it under the ministry’s jurisdiction. The decision was made in response to strong political reactions and concerns from stakeholders, she notes. She also emphasizes: "We need an agricultural advisory system, but it must be more efficient and better aligned with farmers’ needs." 

The discussion also touches on the issue of consumer trust in local agricultural products following past food scandals that have influenced purchasing habits. "At the ministry, we are already conducting analyses and implementing measures to restore confidence in Slovenian food and improve its visibility," she assures. 

Tune in to the podcast on your favorite platform and watch the discussion!

Transcript

Vladni podkast Gov.si. 

Voditelj Zoran Potič: Dober dan, spoštovane gledalke in gledalci, spoštovani poslušalci in poslušalke. Pozdravljeni v novi epizodi podkasta Gov.si, ki ga za vas pripravlja UKOM, Urad vlade za komuniciranje, in tokrat ga vodim Zoran Potič. Pozdravljeni, ministrica. 

Gostja ministrica Mateja Čalušić: Lepo pozdravljeni. 

Voditelj: Namreč gostimo ministrico za kmetijstvo, prehrano in gozdarstvo Matejo Čalušić. In seveda, govorili bomo o zelo pomembni temi. To je hrana. Ne bo nova kulinarična oddaja, ampak v bistvu bova z ministrico skušala pogledati v ozadje sistema hrane, kot pravijo strokovnjaki, od njive do krožnika. In začniva s tem. Evropska komisija je pred kratkim predstavila novo vizijo za bolj konkurenčen in privlačen kmetijski sektor v Evropski uniji. Verjetno ste sodelovali v tem, ste imeli neko vizijo tudi slovenskega aspekta na to temo. Nam lahko predstavite, kaj ta strategija pomeni za slovensko okolje, za slovenskega kmeta, slovenska podjetja v kmetijskem sektorju? 

Čalušić: Jaz mislim, da v neki točki samega kmetijstva, hrane in v našem prostoru je skupna kmetijska politika ali pa prihodnost, kaj nas čaka v naslednji perspektivi, do neke točke pomembna za Slovenijo, še bolj pomembno je pa, da doma v bistvu si predstavimo vizijo, strategijo, ki jo želimo spraviti skozi slovenski prostor, slovensko kmetijstvo in jo kasneje predstaviti tudi kot videnje Evropski komisiji. Glede na pretekle izkušnje smo vedeli, da se osnutek, izhodišče pripravlja. Res je bil objavljen v prejšnjem tednu. Pregledali smo ga. Osnovna izhodišča, stališča, kjer se kmetovalca, se pravi kmeta, postavi v ospredje v odnosu do potrošnika in kako se sklene prehranska veriga, da je to izredno skladno tudi z našo slovensko vizijo. Predvsem pa bomo nestrpno pričakovali naslednje korake oziroma ko bodo razkrivali vsebino dokumenta, na kakšen način so si vizijo zamislili, bomo budno spremljali, sodelovali, bili aktivni kot tudi do sedaj. Pomembno je, da opozarjamo na nacionalne specifike. Pomembno je, da je fleksibilnost skupne kmetijske politike in subvencij, ki jih kasneje tudi Slovenija prejema, ne tako toga, ampak bistveno bolj prilagodljiva, tako kot se moramo tudi samemu podnebju prilagajati. Predvsem pa tudi smo večkrat postavili skupno stališče z ostalimi ministri, da je pomembno, da se ohranja tudi stabilen vir financiranja vsaj v tolikšni meri, kot je bil v zadnji perspektivi ali pa tudi še morda veliko več glede na to, da se želi ekonomski položaj kmeta postaviti bistveno boljši in prehransko verigo opolnomočiti vse do potrošnika, ki bo dobil varno, kakovostno in predvsem dostopno hrano. Se pravi, da bo lahko ta potrošnik kupil hrano, ki bo pridelana morda po višjih standardih. 

Voditelj: Nekaj odzivov na to vizijo Evropske komisije je bilo že podanih. Pravijo takole, da kmetijske subvencije ostajajo še naprej radodarne do največjih proizvodnih sistemov, obratov v kmetijstvu in da ni zaslediti dovolj podpornega sistema, ki bi podpiral kmeta za uporabo teh bolj zelenih, ekoloških praks. Da je tu v bistvu še vedno pomanjkanje podpornega sistema za kmeta. Delite to kritiko? 

Čalušić: Jo razumem, morda tudi iz preteklosti, kako so videli slovensko kmetijsko politiko, kateri smeri je sledila, katere kmete oziroma kmetijska gospodarstva, v kakšni obliki je bistveno bolj podpirala. Pomembno je, da razumemo, da nam skupna evropska politika postavlja okvirje, kaj lahko financiramo, ali so to investicije ali so to okoljski ukrepi, v kakšnih merah, se pravi določa pravila igre, na drugi strani pa države članice relativno same si postavljamo znotraj posameznih subvencij. Trenutno imamo subvencijsko kampanjo, kjer kmetje kandidirajo lahko na različnih razpisih. Si pa sami postavljamo standarde kot država. Mi smo tudi v lanski perspektivi nastavili dve različni obliki kandidiranja za subvencije, se pravi za manjše kmetije, ki imajo določen vir prihodka, in tudi za večje, se pravi, to je Slovenija razmejila, pa ne zato, ker nam je Evropa tako povedala, ampak zato, ker smo se sami tako odločili. In tukaj vidim še veliko morda nejasnosti ali pa nerazumevanja, kaj skupna kmetijska politika je in kaj nam diktira. 

Voditelj: No, pa če gremo, govorimo o slovenskem kmetu kot simbolu. Kje vidite, v kaj ga usmerjati, kaj je perspektiva, kje bo lahko uspeval, živel od kmetovanja? V katero smer naj gre slovenska kmetijska politika v okviru evropske kmetijske politike? 

Čalušić: Predvsem moramo znati prepoznati profile kmetijskih gospodarstev oziroma na področju slovenskega kmetijstva, da si znamo odgovoriti, kdo slovenski kmet je in v kakšni obliki ga moramo podpreti. To smo tudi skozi vse zakonodajne procese, pogovore, ki smo jih imeli, želeli bistveno bolj ciljno usmeriti ukrepe in kot sem povedala, določene nacionalne specifike, ki jih imamo, kar se je morda zgodilo skozi določene okoljevarstvene ukrepe, ki so bili za nas težje izvedljivi ravno zaradi naših naravnih danosti, pokritosti z gozdovi, da dosegamo morda že nekatere okoljske cilje. Tu vidimo priložnosti, da države same povedo ali pa določene podatke, aplikacije, ki jih morda že imamo razvite, da ni potrebe, da podoben sistem aplikacije vzpostavimo na nivoju skupne kmetijske politike, če država članica že nekaj ima, ampak da se tukaj znotraj teh okvirjev lahko prilagajamo, da se ne podvaja delo kot tako. Opolnomočiti pa kmeta v verigi z ekonomskega vidika, na kakšen način ga lahko še dodatno skozi subvencije prilagajamo k trajnostnemu kmetijstvu, o katerem govorimo v zadnjem času veliko, pa menim, da je v bistvu na naši strani naša dolžnost, da moramo to opraviti doma. 

Voditelj: Ampak preden se lotiva mogoče teh konkretnosti, me zanima čisto ena vaša ocena glede na to, da ste na tem položaju dobro leto in kot ministrica pokrivate zelo široko področje, ki zadeva kmetijstvo in na drugi strani prehrano, potrošnika in vmes je še gozdarstvo. Kako lovite ravnotežje v tem nekem trikotniku, ki je dovolj zapleten? 

Čalušić: Priznam, da je zahtevno, dinamično, zanimivo. Ko so me na začetku mandata tudi različni morda strokovnjaki, ki delujejo že vrsto let na tem področju, opozarjali, pa celo samo kmetje, kmetijske inštitucije, organizacije, da je to pestro področje, je, kako je loviti ravnovesje skozi pogovor, skozi dialog, skozi razumevanje, kje so potrebe in kakšne so in na koncu morda moraš preiti do odločitve, moraš izredno dobro premisliti, kako bo celotnemu sektorju koristilo. Mislim, da tukaj na koncu, da pridelujemo dejansko oziroma ustvarimo osnovno okolje podporno za kmetijsko pridelavo, za pridelavo hrane in za varovanje okolja in naših gozdov, je hrana tisti končni produkt, ki mora priti do potrošnika. Potrošniki smo praktično vsi, ki smo v Sloveniji in nam manjka v bistvu še ta zadnji člen. Jaz mislim, da povezovanje sektorja skozi strukturne inštitucije, skozi strukturo od kmeta do svetovalca do stroke do ministrstva za kmetijstvo, ki izvaja ukrepe in hkrati promovira skozi naše najmlajše, da pride to do potrošnika ta zavest, kaj počnemo in kako zelo pomemben resor je, da se je tudi v tem času izkazalo in to mora biti naše skupno vodilo, da si želimo varno, kakovostno, lokalno, slovensko hrano. Na to moramo biti ponosni in v bistvu je potem ravnotežje loviti bistveno lažje, če samo gledamo proti ciljni ravnini. 

Voditelj: Mogoče je zanimiva ocena, kako so ljudje, potrošniki kot družba, koliko smo zadovoljni s kmetijsko politiko. To je en primer Eurobarometra, ki kaže zadnji podatek, da govorimo na ravni 27, specifično Slovenija, da obstaja veliko zavedanje, da se 70 odstotkov vprašanih strinja, da EU Evropska unija preko skupne kmetijske politike izpolnjuje svojo vlogo, da zagotavlja varno, zdravo in trajnostno hrano visoke kakovosti. Mislite, da je slovensko kmetijstvo na tej ravni? Da podobno dojemamo v Sloveniji pomen in vlogo kmetijstva, da v bistvu zagotavljamo varno in kakovostno hrano? 

Čalušić: Menim, da se je ta pomen morda skozi čas, skozi leta nekoliko zameglil. Verjamem, da če bi tudi naše slovenske anketirance vprašali splošno bi se enako strinjali na nivoju Evropske unije. V slovenskem prostoru miselnost o pridelavi naše hrane, lokalne hrane, ekološke hrane, zaupanja je kar nekaj zmanjkalo. Mi smo konkretno naredili na ministrstvu analizo ravno zato, kam usmeriti, na kakšen način usmeriti promocijo, da pride do slovenskega potrošnika. Tista prava informacija, kdo je ta kmet, kako je pridelal hrano in da se bo res odločil, da bo za tisto ceno kupil pridelek. Pa smo v bistvu ugotovili skozi analizo, da so izgubili zaupanje, da bistveno raje kupujejo tujo, se pravi uvoženo hrano. To so analize pokazale, kar nas je nekoliko presenetilo v odnosu do preteklih, če jih lahko tako poimenujem, afer oziroma prikazanih neskladnosti in nepravilnosti pri kmetijskih proizvodih. Tega je bilo kar nekaj, od jabolk iz Srbije do medu do živinorejskih dogodkov, ki smo jim bili priča. In tu so izgubili ljudje zaupanje v naše proizvode, vseevropsko pa se absolutno lahko strinjam, da imajo enako zaupanje, kot je pokazala analiza. Je kmetijstvo, kot pravimo, od njive do krožnika. Vmes imajo zelo pomembno vlogo te trgovske verige in tu se je v preteklosti izgubila neka vez, se je pretrgalo. Trgovci so se prodali, zamenjali lastnike, vstopili so drugi trgovci iz tujine, ki imajo svoje dobavne linije. 

Voditelj: Se je kmetijska proizvodnja v Sloveniji znašla v teh spremembah po vašem mnenju? Je dovolj slovenskih produktov na trgovskih policah? Kako vidite to situacijo? Tu je prišlo do velikih sprememb. 

Čalušić: Naša strategija sicer od njive do krožnika, ki mi je všeč, se imenuje od vil do vilic, tako da smo jo malo drugače prevedli v tistem času, ampak koncept je enak, predvsem pa menim, da so se strukture in položaj tudi v sami verigi pri dobavi in nakupu spremenile tako, kot so se v bistvu te oblike organizacije trgovin ki jih imamo pri nas. Kmetje so nas večkrat opozarjali, da je težko po pravični ceni zagotoviti odkup oziroma prodajo trgovcu. Na drugi strani pa smo poslušali trgovca, da velikokrat potrebuje večje količine, zato da je lahko trgovec konkurenčen napram uvozu in po tistih cenah, ki jih dobi recimo iz sosednje Hrvaške, Italije, kjerkoli. In tu v bistvu smo se znašli, da je ena vrzel v verigi nastala zaradi našega nepovezovanja in neorganiziranosti. V zadnjih letih se je tudi preko razpisov nekako stimuliralo kmete, da se povezujejo v organizacije pridelovalcev. Kar nekaj jih je nastalo. Potem imajo, ko dobijo status priznane organizacije proizvajalcev, morajo kandidirati, nastopati skupaj na trgu. To je en tak majhen korak k temu, da bi se morali povezati ravno zaradi konkurence, ki jo dobimo napram trgovini in odkupu. Pomembno je pa, da razumemo, zakaj se tako obnašajo, ko dobavijo naše proizvode. In tu bomo pri tej krepitvi prehranske verige še veliko delali. Predvsem pa, ko sem postavila vprašanje različnim organizacijam in sogovornikom, kaj prehranska veriga je, da bi lahko bolje delovala, ker zdaj ne deluje ali pa imamo različne vizije, kaj to je, kaj vse vsebuje. Pri agroživilskih podjetjih od potem prepakirnic, embalaže recimo, kjer kmet ne pomisli na ta trenutek ali pa oni ne pomislijo, kaj je za kmeta prehranska veriga. Tu si želim, da bi v letošnjem letu znali skupaj s strokovnjaki sploh prikazati, kaj prehranska veriga je, kje v verigi je kmet in kje je potrošnik, kaj je vse po poti do samega potrošnika, dokler pride na krožnik in kako sredstva v verigi, se pravi sofinanciranja, drugače porazdeliti, zato da bo tudi potrošnik na koncu občutil najmanj podražitve pri sami hrani. 

Voditelj: No, saj verjetno ni to samo moj občutek, ampak tudi realno stanje. Namreč, tu je verjetno se zgodila največja težava v zadnjih desetih letih, ko se je ta veriga v bistvu pretrgala. V bistvu se sploh ni vzpostavila. To je en večjih problemov slovenskega kmetijstva in prehranske industrije verjetno. 

Čalušić: Jaz mislim, da se je začela nekako vzpostavljati tako, kot ste povedali, da nikoli ni morda prišla prav do konca. Saj je nekje morda lokalna povezanost, nekje zadružništvo, zadružni sistem imamo relativno dobro vzpostavljen, pa se ni potem ta zgodba zaključila ali pa ko se pogovarjamo tudi z javnimi zavodi, ravno to. Veriga je nesklenjena, v bistvu logistika, kako pripeljati hrano na čim bolj ugoden način do tistih, ki potrebujejo hrano, naj so to zavodi, naj so to trgovci in to je ta veriga, ki se morda v preteklosti je začela sklepati in se je potem nekje zalomilo. 

Voditelj: Živimo v zadnjem obdobju v nekem vedno bolj nestabilnem obdobju, ko prihaja na površje vprašanje samooskrbe s prehrano. To je že neka stara tema, ampak ker smo pač del bili Evropske unije, smo del te zgodbe. Nekako se nismo preveč ukvarjali s tem vprašanjem, je pa ta samooskrba strateškega pomena. Pri govedu smo samooskrbni, na drugih področjih pa ne več toliko. Kaj se da tu storiti? Kaj lahko storimo kot država v tem strateškem smislu? Kaj se sploh počne? Recimo kako govedorejca prestrukturirati v pridelovalca zelenjave, vrtnarstvo? To je verjetno eden ključnih, pomembnih izzivov slovenskega kmeta, kmetijstva in kmetijske politike. 

Čalušić: Vprašanje samooskrbe, na kakšen način smo se z njim mogoče v preteklosti, kar sem opazovala, ukvarjali. V bistvu je bilo bolj kot ne to, želje so bile, da bi prišli do odgovora, kako jo dvigniti, ampak fokus je bil na tem, kako nam pada samooskrba v določenih panogah, nismo pa morda znali dovolj dobro reagirati iz kakršnihkoli vzvodov. Jaz mislim, da prestrukturiranja določenih kmetij, da bi jih prepričevali živinorejske v rastlinske ali pa obratno, da je to utopija, da se pač neka taka ... 

Voditelj: Provokativno sprašujem, da vidimo. 

Čalušić: Ampak predvsem zavestno, zelo hitro strateško usmerjamo določena finančna sredstva, saj se sektorji znajo nekako prilagajati skozi finančne injekcije in naloga države je, kako strateško usmeriti finančna sredstva, ki so bila vrsto let morda po enakih ključih nastavljena. Govorimo o tistih osnovnih subvencijah, na kakšen način, ampak ko vključujemo v osnovne subvencije, če bo šel nekdo v okoljske ukrepe, da se bo vključeval, potrebujemo močno in trdno javno svetovalno službo in tu jih moramo še dodatno opolnomočiti, kako bodo nudili ta servis na terenu in ne prepričevali kmeta v smislu prepričati prepričanega, ampak zakaj je to bolje za nas. Določena sredstva smo že v tej perspektivi namenili tudi zelenjadarjem, se pravi na hektar izplačila, ker vemo, da je sektor, kot kaže, 30, 35 % samooskrben, to pa je bistveno več. Mislim, da je tudi cel spekter kmetijstva, kaj je potrebno storiti, od tega, kako jim nuditi dovolj podporno okolje za vzpostavitev zavarovanih prostorov, rastlinjakov, kjer lahko zelenjadarji pridelujejo zelenjavo, potrebujemo namakalne sisteme, kako jih čim hitreje vzpostaviti, ker vemo, da so to neke lokalne zgodbe, ki trajajo pet, deset, 15, 20 let in več. To so ta osnovna vprašanja, temeljna, ki smo se jih v bistvu tudi skozi zakone začeli lotevati, kaj je tisti akcijski načrt najhitrejši, kjer lahko panogi pomagamo. Jaz mislim, da sektorje, ki so samooskrbni, jih je potrebno nekako ohranjati in pomagati, samo da se prestrukturirajo v trajnostno kmetijstvo, dočim tistim, ki niso zaradi vremenskih vplivov smo začeli tudi spodbujati skozi subvencije trajne nasade z roko v roki, da jih je potrebno zaščititi, se pravi zavarovati s protitočno obrambno mrežo, se pravi nekako pogojevati, če dobimo subvencijo in preidemo v investicijo trajnega nasada, ga je potrebno zaščititi. To je tudi ena izmed razlik, ki se je sedaj začela dogajati. Priznam, da velikokrat so to novosti, ki morda niso najbolje sprejete v okolju in potrebujejo svoj čas, da osvojijo to, zakaj je potrebno, ker to seveda prinese s seboj kar nekaj stroškov dela. Pa so to investicije, za katere se morda kmet odloči pet let pred tem in mi mu postavimo nov pogoj. To je pa pomembno, da imamo komunikacijo s pridelovalci, zakaj je potrebno, da se tako prilagajamo. In ja, zelenjadarstvo, sadjarstvo, vremenske razmere, sezonski delavci, kako lahko tu pomagamo. Vsakodnevno z njimi iščemo rešitve, predvsem pa vem, da so rešitve nujne, prepotrebne danes ali pa včeraj. Ves čas pa imam pred sabo, da moramo res strateško gledati za naslednjih 20, 30 let, ne pa samo gasiti požarov. To je zelo pomembno. 

Voditelj: Pri usmerjanju, vseh teh ukrepih igrajo pomembno vlogo kmetijski svetovalci. Tu je bil ukrep predviden, da bi kmetijsko svetovalno službo premestili v urad, službo v okviru ministrstva. To se je zdelo kot nek strateški premik mogoče, preko tega inštrumenta omogočiti ministrstvu usmerjanje v skladu s tem, kar ste do sedaj govorili. Ampak seveda ste to umaknili. Zakaj? Je pridobilo neke politične konotacije? Zakaj je predlog in potem zakaj umik? Je to napaka mogoče? 

Čalušić: Ja. V bistvu še vedno vztrajam pri tem, da je potrebno reorganizirati. Pot dialoga, izmenjave mnenj, strokovnih pogovorov bomo nadaljevali skozi delovno skupino, ki bo sedaj v kratkem ustanovljena. Ko se je predstavila paketna zakonodaja, se pravi govorimo o šestih zakonih plus eden je prihajal tudi po poti javne obravnave in smo to vedno neposredno komunicirali, je moment javne službe prevzel celotno debato, kaj se sploh na področju kmetijstva dogaja, in to je bil prvi signal, da je ena politika želela izkoristiti to, da se gremo politične konfrontacije. Jaz sem že večkrat izpostavila, da menim, da kmetijstvo ni prostor, da to počnemo, da je veliko več in da se jaz tega ne grem. In na ta način sem razumela, da bodo nemiri, nezmožnost komunikacije, v kolikor tega ne storimo. In na ta način smo stopili korak nazaj, pa vendar smo potem dobili kar nekaj odzivov s terena, tudi ljudi, ki so vpeti v sistem javnega svetovanja ali pa pridelovalcev. Morda je bilo nekaj razočaranja, jeze, nerazumevanja, zakaj smo to storili, ker je to bil tisti pravi korak. Kasneje smo imeli priložnost tudi s kmetijskimi svetovalci se srečati, ki so dobili nekaj dezinformacij, da bodo postali uradniki, bili preseljeni na upravne enote. 

Voditelj: Birokrati. 

Čalušić: Birokrati. 

Voditelj: Ki sedijo za mizo. 

Čalušić: Predvsem se mi ni zdelo pošteno do njih, ker v sistemu je 330 zaposlenih. Govorimo o osebah, da se ne smemo tako pogovarjati, da morda si vzamemo še nekaj časa, pripravimo strokovno podlago zaključno, ki je lahko priložnost za naslednji mandat, za naslednjega ministra. Kar bi si želela, da ne bi obstalo kjerkoli v predalu dejansko tisto, kar bi bile ugotovitve. Mi potrebujemo mrežo na terenu, ki je enako dostopna za vse kmete. Obiske, ki smo jih opravili na terenu po vseh zavodih, vsi smo se strinjali, da mreža je sestavljena, da jo potrebujemo v taki meri, ampak izboljšano s strokovnega vidika. Svetovalci imajo tudi svoje potrebe in samo še en del komunikacije bi morda kot zbornično, če ne bi bila organizirana, bi mi stik z javno službo, ministrstvo, ki jo potrebuje na terenu, bi skrajšali pot informiranja, sodelovanja, prenosa znanja, prenosa informacij, skratka bi optimizirali, v marsikateri fazi bi tudi debirokratizirali v določenih delih. In to je bil osnovni moment. Kmet, ki potrebuje strokovnega sodelavca na terenu, in ministrstvo, ki potrebuje oba s terena, da nas usmerja, kaj sploh potrebujejo od nas, da jim lahko pomagamo, in to pot nadaljujemo skozi delovno skupino. 

Voditelj: Namreč v tej vladi oziroma ob nastopu te vlade in ko je koalicija napovedovala svoj program dela in vrsto ukrepov, sprememb, reform, jaz bi govoril rajši o modernizaciji, kmetijstvo ni bilo izpostavljeno, ampak zdaj, po enem letu vašega mandata, mogoče malo prej, se je izpostavilo. Če pogledamo, je tukaj šest zakonov. Zakon o kmetijstvu, ki je neke vrste ustava kmetijstva, kjer so določene res temeljne definicije. V bistvu neka mala revolucija se je zgodila na tem področju kmetijskem. Zakaj se je to zgodilo in kakšen je sploh namen vsega tega? Ker tukaj imamo Zakon o kmetijstvu, Zakon o hrani, Zakon o varni hrani in krmi, Zakon o zdravju in zaščiti živali, kmetijskih zemljiščih in Zakon o gozdovih. To je veliko. To je pretres. 

Čalušić: Sedem jih je, zato ker Zakon o zdravju živali in Zakon o zaščiti živali, tista sta dva. Revolucionarno bi si sama želela, da bi bilo to še veliko bolj. Govorim o vsebini kot taki. Sedaj če naštejemo, da je to sedem zakonov ali pa če bi jih bilo 15 in vsebinsko ne ustvarjajo slabšega položaja za kmeta, za pridelovalce. Ne ustvarjajo reforme, ker reforma res v tej vladi ni bila napovedana in to tudi ne predstavlja reforme. To je v bistvu modernizacija ali pa nek čistopis. Govorim konkretno Zakon o kmetijstvu, se pravi ustava, ki je doživljala samo spremembe parcialno in tudi služba vlade za zakonodajo nas je že nazadnje ponovno leta 2020 vnovič opozorila, da je zakon nepregleden, neprimeren v pravnem sistemu in da ga moramo popravljati. In ko je bila potreba po njem, zato ker imamo določene uredbe iz Evropske unije, ki nas zavezujejo, da jih moramo v zakon zapisati, smo se najprej s strokovnimi sodelavci pogovorili, ali zakon noveliramo. Je bilo opozorilo, da je bil že prevečkrat, da je bolje, da pride nov zakon in da je priložnost, da se moderniziramo tako kot so Italija, Francija, Hrvaška, ki imajo glavni krovni zakon o kmetijstvu in kasneje deljen zakon o hrani. Ta potem pravi o kakovosti hrane, označevanju hrane, ima drugi segment področja, ki ga ureja, ker smo ministrstvo za kmetijstvo, gozdarstvo in prehrano, se pravi zakon o hrani ureja prehranski del. Zakon o varni hrani smo pa tisti zadnji inštitut, ki pregledujemo skozi Upravo za varno hrano, ali je hrana varna. Zato so trije zakoni, ki so preglednejši, jasnejši in kasneje ostali dve področji, Zakon o gozdovih, ki je nekaj časa čakal v predalu na prepotrebne spremembe, smo se ga lotili. Vsak sektor je povedal, kje so potrebe. Jaz sem se zavedala, koliko je moj mandat dolg, zato so bili vsi strokovni sodelavci pripravljeni, so zavihali rokave in na ta način smo se zadeve lotili. Bi pa rada povedala še dodatno, zakaj to ni taka reforma ali pa revolucija. Namreč odziv je že tak bil. Ker se sliši veliko. Ko smo pa vsebinsko pregledovali v odstotkih, smo se res usedli, smo rekli, smo res naredili tako revolucijo, ker mi sami občutka nimamo. Pa bi si res sama želela, da je tega bistveno več, da bi kmet čutil konec leta, ko bodo zakoni sprejeti, sedaj pa je boljše, pa verjamem, da ne bodo v tej fazi še občutili. Vsebine spremenjene je 20 odstotkov. 80 odstotkov je samo lepšega pravnega dela, veliko tehničnega, tako kot mora biti v pravnem redu. 

Voditelj: Kot pospravljanje hiše. 

Čalušić: Nekako tako. 

Voditelj: Vaze, papirje, da to štima, da lepše izgleda. 

Čalušić: Ja, pa tudi tisto, kar je v predalih, mogoče še ni bilo s kateregakoli vzvoda izpeljano. Je zmanjkalo časa kakšnemu ministru, karkoli, se je nekje zaustavilo. Jaz menim, da je prav, da zaključimo določene zgodbe, da rečemo, s tem zakonom gremo naprej, ker ga potrebujemo. Nekaterih ne potrebujemo več, ker vemo, da se to kdaj zgodi, da nekje nekaj obstane. In pregledali smo v hiši in strokovni sodelavci so rekli, da to rabimo, da bomo bistveno bolj moderni. 

Voditelj: Je pa tu recimo kategorizacija kmetij ena tema, ki je povzročila nekaj razburjenja. Zdaj ne vem, če je smiselno, da zdaj tu naštevam, samooskrbna, majhna, razvojna in tržna kmetija, ker to vse potegne za sabo definicije, zneske denarja. Ampak zakaj je to dobro spreminjati v tem trenutku? 

Čalušić: Saj v bistvu niti ne spreminjamo. Vzpostavljamo nek nov sistem definicije organiziranosti kmetij, kmetijskih gospodarstev, klasifikacije glede na njihovo ekonomsko velikost, ekonomski položaj in vprašanja so se odprla, kar nekaj. Ta del mislim, da je najbolj zanimal vse nevladne organizacije, vse resorje, kaj se bo pri tem zgodilo, kaj bo to prineslo za sabo kmetu? Predvsem smo postavili osnovni konstrukt, kako smo si zamislili. Dejansko klasifikacije se lahko tudi drugače imenujejo v samem zakonu. Sedaj so prišle pobude, da bi bila že definicija po ekonomski velikosti kmetije, da bi se že vse to definiralo. Mnenj je kar nekaj. Glavno osnovno vodilo pa je, ko sva prej tudi omenjala in se pogovarjala, kako bistveno bolj strateško usmeriti sredstva, ki jih imamo, javni denar tudi, govorimo o slovenskih in evropskih sredstvih za subvencije kmetijske. Se mi zdi pomembno, zato da vemo, kaj država potrebuje, kaj država lahko da in predvsem komu in na kakšen način bomo to dali. Ali lahko manjšemu kmetu, ki ni v enakem položaju z velikim podjetjem kmetijskim, mu lahko drugače prilagodimo razpisne pogoje, mu lahko na ta način poenostavimo postopke. Mi sedaj smo imeli v preteklosti prakso en razpis, praktično, če lahko zelo plastično poenostavim, za vse enaki pogoji. Sedaj tisti, ki je večji ali manjši, si nekako konkurirajo med seboj. Jaz mislim, da je prav razmejiti, postaviti drugačne pogoje glede na standarde, ki jih imamo, in na ta način tudi država bo bistveno bolj ciljno in usmerjeno znala razdeljevati subvencijski denar. 

Voditelj: Namreč ko govorimo o denarju in subvencijah in tako naprej, to je povezano tudi z birokracijo, čez katero kmetje imajo kar veliko za povedati. A se tu kaj spreminja, se tu poenostavljajo kakšne zadeve? Da je manj tega? Kmetje rajši delajo, kot pa izpolnjujejo obrazce. 

Čalušić: V eni fazi se v zakonu poenostavlja, spreminja. Pokazalo se bo, v kolikor bo v tej obliki sprejeto, ali je to že dovolj velik korak k temu, da bodo kmetje lahko občutili. Namreč, vzpostavlja se enotna podatkovna baza za kmeta, praktično njegova kmetijska izkaznica. Evidenca podatkov, ki jih mi izredno potrebujemo, zato da lahko tudi vse ukrepe naprej nadaljujemo in kako lahko usmerjamo. Se pravi kmetu želimo omogočiti en vnos. To je osnovna ideja in želja, na kar nas opozarjajo skozi vsa posvetovanja, ki smo jih imeli tudi v lanskem letu. In tukaj vidimo velik del poenostavitve. Koliko aplikacij, koliko znanj bi morali osvojiti, to poenostavimo, to, da se pa določeni obrazci, papirji, vloge, da se bo to v celoti ukinilo ali pa se prenehalo, mi pač nekaj moramo voditi za sabo, ko operiramo z javnim denarjem. Je pa moje vprašanje res v letošnjem letu, da bi rada ugotovila, s koliko podatki in papirjem, to govorim prav s praktičnega vidika, ker sem o birokraciji kar nekaj poslušala, koliko tega mora različno kmetijsko gospodarstvo izpolniti in ali so res nekateri nepotrebni in ali jih lahko kot država v bistvu ukinemo. Ampak tega se moramo drugače smiselno lotiti prav skozi delo in delovno skupino. 

Voditelj: Tu bi verjetno bil smiseln pristop digitalizacije kmetijstva. Imamo že nekaj dobrih praks, recimo v zdravstvu, področju zdravstva, kartotek in baz podatkov. Davčna uprava, kjer se kot fizična oseba v bistvu že vse je nastavljeno, ti samo potem preverjaš in klikaš, če je to možno doseči v kmetijstvu. Verjetno bi bilo dobrodošlo, ampak to je že druga tema. Namreč, ko smo pri zaščiti živali, zakonu o živalih, tukaj spet naletimo na dva pola. Nevladne organizacije za zaščito živali neke standarde uveljavljajo, pridelovalci druge standarde. In tukaj naletimo na ta zadnji primer teh baterijskih kletk. Kaj se bo tu zgodilo? Bo Slovenija tu pospešila ukinitev tega? Bo Slovenija tu hitrejša od Evrope ali bo počakala, da se celotno okolje spremeni, da ne bi povzročili kakšne škode pridelovalcem, ker potem cenejša jajca, ker so pridelana po nižjih standardih, prihajajo na slovenski trg in smo si zadali udarec v koleno. 

Čalušić: Jaz mislim, da pristop, kakršen je bil tudi po odzivu širše javnosti, dejansko na posnetke baterijske reje, da je bilo jasno povedano z vseh možnih koncev in strani, da si tovrstnih praks ne želimo več, da želimo bistveno bolj delovati v duhu dobrobiti živali. Družba se je spremenila, miselnost se je spremenila, drugače smo informirani in temu moramo slediti. Pristop je bil tak, da smo se z rejci, ki konkretno imajo še baterijsko rejo, teh je v Sloveniji še za 15 odstotkov, ko govorimo o celoti samooskrbe z jajci. To pomeni, da ostalih 85 odstotkov se je že samoiniciativno prilagodilo drugačnim oblikam reje. To je en pomemben moment. 

Voditelj: To je veliko, 85 odstotkov. 

Čalušić: Imamo že prilagojenih. To pomeni, da je ta del manjši, kar je za nas kot državo, kako lahko tovrstnim rejcem pomagamo, bistveno lažje. Dovolj dolgo prehodno obdobje, ker smo preverili, ali imajo kakršnekoli obveznosti z vidika pridobivanja sredstev iz preteklosti, da so morda investirali in da imajo do leta 2030 morda, da bi se križala prehodna obdobja. Tudi to smo se preverili, rejcem predstavili, omogočili izredno visok vir sofinanciranja, to je 80 odstotkov, da se lahko prestrukturirajo. Kdaj pa bo Evropa določila, ker je zelo proaktivna tudi na tem področju, da se pospeši ukinitev popolna, takrat pa bo tudi vprašanje, kakšna sredstva bodo na razpolago, v kolikšni meri. Jaz mislim, da je sedaj priložnost, da si gremo naproti, to pa da bo uvoz nižje kakovosti, baterijske reje, cenejših jajc, je bilo moje osnovno vprašanje, koliko jih danes iz Slovenije izvažamo tovrstnih jajc in kakšen je uvoz, koliko takih izdelkov dobimo. In tukaj praktično statistike ne beležimo, zato težko govorim o posledicah ali pa se opredelim, če osnovnih podatkov nimam in ne vem, kaj lahko to prinese s sabo. Vemo, da na trgovinskih policah teh jajc ne moremo več kupiti, ker se je trgovinska veriga tako organizirala. Na evropskem nivoju, se HoReCa sistem, se pravi gostinstvo, že organizira, kdaj se bo to zgodilo. Da niti oni ne želijo več tovrstnih jajc in je vprašanje, ali nas bodo potem določene odločitve na evropskem nivoju presenetile. Jaz mislim, da je prav v tem trenutku, da smo pripravljeni, smo prisluhnili in šli maksimalno naproti in ne vidimo večjih težav, zakaj do tega ne bi moglo priti do konca leta 2028. 

Voditelj: Da se ne bomo samo o kmetijstvu in kmetih pogovarjali. Resor kmetijstvo je tudi prehrana. To v bistvu pomeni varna hrana. Kako vi ocenjujete to varnost hrane? Je potrošnik dovolj zavarovan? Lahko zaupa prehrani, ki jo dobi na police v javnih servisih, menzah in tako naprej? Namreč vsake toliko časa se pojavljajo neke afere, problemi, med, pa potem meso, tam se pojavi uvoženo od ne vem, kod, z zastarelimi datumi in tako naprej. Je ta služba, ki je odgovorna za nadzor, za preverjanje, usposobljena, dobro vodena? Ima dovolj sredstev na voljo za to, da izvaja monitoringe in tako naprej? Kako ocenjujete ta položaj? 

Čalušić: Jaz mislim, da možnosti za izboljšave, da se nikoli ne nehajo, da bo vedno čedalje več priložnosti, da bi lahko bilo bolje, kot je. To, da je varna hrana v Sloveniji. Tudi ko smo imeli kar nekaj vprašanj s strani, kaj se je dogajalo z medom, s ponarejanjem, baterijska reja in tako naprej, da nam to ne sme biti osnovno vodilo, tista slika, ki nam daje občutek predstave, kakšno hrano lahko jemo v Sloveniji. To so primeri, ki se dogajajo. To so primeri, ki jih tudi morda prezrcalim v druge panoge, v druge branže, da, vedno se nam zgodi, da lahko vseeno pride, kljub vsem pravilom, do črne gradnje ali pa do prometne nesreče na cesti kljub cestnoprometni predpisom, pa ne zato, da bi se za tem skrivala tudi kot odgovorna ministrica, ampak da razumemo, da noben sistem ne more biti 100-odstotno brezhiben. Sem pa zgrožena nad tem, da se tovrstne prakse dogajajo, ker je hrana bistveno bolj resna in bi morali se drugače obnašati. Organ uprave, ki nadzoruje skozi redne letne programe in preglede in skozi vse prijave, bodisi anonimne ali pa znane, reagirajo, izdajajo ukrepe skozi tista orodja, ki jih pač imajo. Morda boljše informiranje, tu imamo še veliko prostora tudi s strani države, ministrstva za kmetijstvo, kaj pomeni objava na spletnih straneh, kako do njih preiti in kaj nam v bistvu tisti podatki povedo. Vemo, da imamo nov način informiranja javnosti, tudi ko se dogajajo določene neskladnosti ali nepravilnosti, da potrošnik lažje razume, kaj to pomeni, da to ni nevarna hrana za človeka, zdravju škodljiva ali pa celo smrtonosna v tistem primeru, ampak da je neskladno, ker nekdo morda nekih postopkov pravil pri pridelavi ni upošteval in da imamo tudi določene korektivne ukrepe. Pa morda tudi na teh spletnih straneh, ko obveščamo, da bi bilo to za potrošnika lažje razumljivo, pa naj bo to skozi barve in semaforje ali kakršnekoli znakovne simbole, zato da ta komunikacija, ki poteka, jo tudi mi izboljšamo. Predvsem pa, kot pravim, mislim, da imamo varno hrano, ampak vseeno moramo na vsakem koraku biti pozorni, kako lahko sistem še dodatno izboljšamo. 

Voditelj: Pred zaključkom najinega pogovora še dve kratki temi. Prihodnost kmetijstva, slovenskih kmetij z vidika prevzemanja mladih naslednikov, kmetov. To je večna tema. Je tu kakšen napredek se zgodil? In druga tema so seveda ženske. Vloga žensk v kmetijstvu in jutri bo dan, 8. marec. Če imate kakšno sporočilo v tem primeru. 

Čalušić: Mladi in ženske je izredno pomembna tema v kmetijstvu in meni ljuba. V bistvu skozi zakon, kjer umeščamo prostor za akcijski načrt prav za mlade. Jaz bi si res želela določenih hitrih ukrepov skozi nek program dela, ki si ga skupaj z mladimi določimo, kaj moramo še storiti. Morda, pa ne napaka ali pa kritika vsem nam kot osnovno izhodišče, kaj se dogaja z mladimi in da v bistvu ni želje več po kmetovanju, je en merilec, koliko mladih prevzemnikov imamo, a na drugi strani, čedalje več se mi poraja vprašanje, ali smo vzpostavili dovolj dobre pogoje za vse mlade, morda tudi za tiste, ki jim ni položeno v zibelko, da imajo kmetijo doma in so se odločili za kmetovanje. Pa teh je tudi kar nekaj v Sloveniji in to je področje, na katerem mislim, da lahko naredimo velik napredek. Kako lahko izboljšamo sisteme, kako lahko dobijo zemljišča v zakup kot mladi nadobudni kmetovalci. Kako lahko dobijo dodatna posojila kot osnovni kapital morda, ki ga nimajo. Ali lahko država odkupuje kmetijske komplekse in kasneje daje v zakup mladim? To so zame splošna vprašanja, na katera nismo začeli v preteklosti odgovarjati ali pa smo šli do neke točke. Tukaj lahko mladim pomagamo in na kakšen način. Tako da to je izredno pomembno in bomo kar nekaj delali tudi v letošnjem letu z mladimi tudi izobraževanja skozi zelo nizko stopnjo izobraževalnih, se pravi vrtci, šole. Tu želimo kot ministrstvo pristopiti, skozi kampanjo Lepo je biti kmet smo se sedaj aktivirali, obiskovali bomo šole, vrtce, predstavljali poklic kmeta, ki je nekoliko drugačen, kot je bil morda v preteklosti, bistveno naprednejši. Mladi to že sedaj poznajo in to so taki mehki ukrepi, kjer menim, da se lahko pišejo kasneje dobre zgodbe. Kar se tiče žena. Ženske na podeželju, na kmetijah so vedno igrale izredno pomembno vlogo, predvsem njihov status ureditve na kmetiji s socialnega vidika smo se z resornim ministrstvom, ki pokriva to področje, začeli pogovarjati, tudi kar se tiče pokojnin, kar se tiče vdovskih pokojnin, ker vemo, da so bili prej velikokrat pozabljeni v sistemu. Jaz bi si želela, da bi se to področje uredilo. Organizacije žensk na podeželju nas tudi na to področje opozarjajo že vrsto let. 

Voditelj: Je posluh za to pri drugih resorjih? 

Čalušić: Absolutno je, samo pot in način, ker je to prav posebno področje, ki je bilo iz leta v leto v zadnjih 20 letih izredno čudno in drugače urejeno, izvzeto iz vseh ostalih sistemov kot neka izjema. In ravno to izjemo danes tudi skozi pokojninsko reformo, kako jo umestiti, smo se na nivoju vlade začeli resneje pogovarjati. Jaz menim, da korak v boljšo smer bomo tudi naredili in predvsem, kot pravim, so nepogrešljive, izredna dodana vrednost, saj vemo, da z ženskami je svet lepši, nekako brez njih ne moremo. 

Voditelj: Drži, stebre v hiši, verjetno štiri podpirajo na kmetiji zlasti. 

Čalušić: Tako da predvsem res na tej točki mi se bomo maksimalno trudili tudi v njihovem imenu, kar se tiče podeželskega vidika ali pa katerega koli kot ženska in predvsem jim želim en tak lep, prijeten dan žena in da se pustijo razvajati. 

Voditelj: Okej, najlepša hvala. Tokrat je bil z vami Zoran Potič in se vidimo in slišimo do naslednjič. Na svidenje. 

[ENGLISH VERSION]

Gov.si, the Government's Podcast 

Host Zoran Potič: Hello to our viewers and listeners. Welcome to the latest edition of our podcast Gov.si, prepared by the Government Communication Office. I'm Zoran Potić. Hello, Minister. 

Guest Mateja Čalušić: Hello. 

Host: Our guest today is the Minister of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry, Mateja Čalušić. We'll tackle an important topic, namely food. This won't be another cooking show. The minister and I will examine the inner workings of the food production system, from the farm to the plate. Let's start here: The European Commission recently introduced its vision for a more competitive and appealing agriculture sector in the EU. You presumably played a role in that and had a Slovenian perspective on this issue. What does this strategy mean for the Slovenian environment, the Slovenian farmer, and Slovenian agriculture companies? 

Čalušić: When it comes to agriculture and food production in Slovenia, the Common Agricultural Policy and what awaits us in the next perspective are important for the country. It's even more important that we establish a vision and a strategy for Slovenian agriculture and then present that vision to the European Commission. Based on previous experience, we knew that the draft proposal was being prepared, and it was published last week. We analyzed it, including the groundwork establishing the relationship between the farmer and the consumer and ensuring that the food supply chain is in line with our vision for Slovenia. Most of all, we eagerly await their next steps and the documents that will reveal their vision. We'll monitor this, collaborate, and remain active, as has been the case so far. It's vital that we draw attention to country-specific issues, and that we have a flexible common policy and subsidies, which Slovenia receives as well. They should be much more adaptable, just as we need to be adaptable to the environment. Most of all, the other ministers and I presented our joint opinion about the importance of maintaining a stable source of funding in an amount at least equal to the previous perspective or even much more, given that we wish to improve the economic position of farmers and strengthen the food supply chain up to the consumer, who will receive safe, high-quality, and affordable food that will perhaps be produced to higher standards. 

Host: We've seen some reactions to this vision from the EU. They say that the agricultural subsidies remain generous to the largest production systems and facilities and that the support system for farmers is insufficient, mostly one that would encourage of eco-friendly processes, that there's too little support in that area. Do you share that criticism? 

Čalušić: I understand it. I also understand it based on how Slovenia's agriculture policy was seen in the past, how it was shaped, and which farmers and ag companies received the most support. It's important to realize that the common EU policy sets a framework regarding what we can fund, whether these are investments or environmental measures, as well as the amount of funding, the rules of the game, but the EU members themselves set up subsides mostly by themselves. We're currently running a campaign where farmers can take part in various competitive tenders. We define those standards ourselves. In last year's perspective, we established two different forms of competitive tenders: for small farms with a certain income and for large ones. Slovenia made this distinction not because the EU told us to, but because we made that decision. 

Host: I see plenty of misunderstandings about what the Common Agricultural Policy is about and what it dictates to us. If we look at the Slovenian farmer in theoretical terms, how would you direct him and how do you see his future? How will he make a living from farming? What direction should Slovenia's agricultural policy take within the EU framework? 

Čalušić: First of all, we need to recognize the categories of agricultural producers. In the context of Slovenian agriculture, we must know who the Slovenian farmer is and what kind of support he needs. We used various legislative processes and discussions to target our measures more precisely. There are some country-level specifics, such as environmental measures that were more difficult for us to realize because of our natural features and the amount of forest land, and we had already reached some goals. This gives an opportunity for countries to decide what they want to do for themselves or use already-developed data and applications, eliminating the need for such applications on the CAP level. We can adapt to each country's needs within this framework, so we don't get any duplication of work. We need to empower the farmer economically and see how we can use subsidies to encourage sustainable agriculture, which we have been taking about quite a bit lately. I believe we have a responsibility to take care of that at home. 

Host: Before we look at the specifics, I'm interested in your assessment, given that you've had this position for just more than a year. As a minister, you're covering a very broad area with responsibility for agriculture, food, the consumer, as well as forestry. How do you find a balance within this rather complex triangle? 

Čalušić: I admit that's challenging, dynamic, and interesting. At the beginning of the term, various experts with significant experience in this field, as well as farmers and agricultural organizations, warned me that this is a lively sector. Balance can be found through conversations, dialog, and understanding of all the needs. When you reach the decision-making phase, you need to consider the benefit for the entire sector. In the end, we create a supportive environment for agricultural production, the production of food, and the protection of the environment and our forests. Food is the final product that comes to the consumer, and we're all consumers. What we're missing is the final link. I believe that connecting the sector by setting up a structure that ranges from the farmer to consultants, experts, and the ministry, which carries out various measures and uses promotional campaigns among the young to make consumers understand what we do and how important the sector is. This must be our common goal: to ensure safe, high-quality, local, Slovenian-produced food. We should be proud of this. Finding a sense of balance is much easier if we keep our eyes on the prize. 

Host: It's interesting to look at how much we consumers are satisfied with our agricultural policy. We have the latest data from Eurobarometer polling, covering the EU-27, not specifically Slovenia. There is great awareness. 70% of those surveyed agree that the EU is fulfilling its role through the CAP. It provides safe, healthy, sustainable, high-quality food. Do you think Slovenian agriculture is at this level? Do we have a similar view on the importance and role of agriculture to provide safe, high-quality food? 

Čalušić: I think that this meaning got a little muddled over the years. I believe that, if we were to ask Slovenians in a survey, they would share the consensus regarding the European Union. In the mentality surrounding the production of our own food, local, organic food, there was quite a lack of confidence. We conducted a specific analysis at the Ministry to see how to target marketing so the Slovenian consumer would get real information, who is this farmer, how do they produce food ... So that they would actually buy the product at that price. The analysis showed that consumers have lost confidence and prefer buying foreign, imported food. We were quite surprised by the results of the analysis. This was due to past scandals, if I can call them that, or rather discrepancies and irregularities shown in agricultural products. There were quite a few, apples from Serbia, honey, events surrounding cattle farming ... That is why people lost confidence in our products. But I agree that they have the same confidence at the EU level, like the analysis showed. 

Host: We say "from farm to plate" regarding agriculture, but in between, there are distribution chains, which play a very important role. In the past, a connection was broken here. Retailers sold out, ownerships changed, and foreign merchants entered, bringing their own supply lines. Did agricultural production in Slovenia cope with these changes? Are there enough Slovenian products on store shelves? How do you see the situation? 

Čalušić: There have been significant changes. The "from farm to plate" strategy is actually "from farm to fork", we translated it a little differently back then, but the concept is the same. Mainly, I believe that the structures and positions in supply chains and purchasing have changed, just as the forms of organisation of our stores changed. Farmers have alerted us many times that it is hard to ensure fair-price sales to merchants. On the other hand, merchants have often said that they need larger quantities so they can compete with imports and the prices they can get from, say, neighbouring Croatia or Italy. Here we found that a gap in the chain emerged because of our lack of connecting and disorganisation. In recent years, tenders have been used to incentivise farmers to join producer organisations. Quite a few of them emerged. Once they obtain the status of a recognised producer organisation, they must apply and operate together in the market. This is a small step towards the need for cooperation, driven by the competition from retailers and buyers. But we must understand why they behave this way when supplying our products. We still have much work ahead of us in improving the food chain. When I asked various organisations and counterparts what the food chain is, so it could work better, as it now doesn't, we have different views on what it is and what all it entails in agri-food companies, or repackaging facilities, which the farmer may not consider, nor they what the food chain means to the farmer. I hope that this year we can show, alongside experts, what the food chain is, where the farmer and the consumer are in it and every step before the product reaches the consumer and the plate, and perhaps how to redistribute funds in the chain, so co-funding, so that the consumer would feel food price increases the least. This is probably not just a feeling of mine, but the actual situation. This is where the biggest issue arose in the past ten years, the chain got broken or rather it never even got established. That is probably one of the larger issues of Slovenian agriculture and the food industry. I think it started being established, but, like you said, maybe never finished. There may be some local connections, cooperatives, our system of cooperatives is relatively well established. But the story never actually concluded. We talk about this with public institutions as well, the chain is incomplete. The logistics of how to bring food as cheaply as possible to those who need it, be it institutions or stores. The chain may have started forming, but something went wrong along the way. 

Host: Lately we have been living in an increasingly unstable period where the issue of food self-sufficiency keeps coming up. This is an old topic, but since we became a part of the European Union and this story, we never paid much heed to this issue. But self-sufficiency is of strategic importance. We are self-sufficient in cattle farming, but in other fields not so much anymore. What can we, strategically speaking, do as a state? What are we doing? For instance, how do we restructure a cattle farmer into a vegetable producer? That is probably one of the key challenges of Slovenian farmers, agriculture and agricultural policy, no? 

Čalušić: Regarding how we tackled the issue of self-sufficiency in the past ... There were hopes to find answers on how to raise it, but the focus was on how our self-sufficiency is dropping in certain sectors, but we were unable to react well enough, for some reason or other. I think that restructuring certain farms and convincing farmers to go from cattle farming to producing vegetables or vice versa is utopian. The question was intentionally provocative. But, when we strategically allocate funding, sectors have the ability to consciously and very quickly adapt, so, through cash injections. It is the state's task to strategically allocate funding, which have, for years, been distributed according to the same criteria. We are talking about basic subsidies and methods. But, to include someone in basic subsidies through environmental measures, we need a strong, solid public advisory service and give it additional power for how it offers this service in the field, not to sway farmers, but convince them why this is better for us. In this regard, we have also already allocated certain funds to vegetable farmers, with per-hectare payments, as the sector seems to be 30 to 35% self-sufficient, which is significantly more than others. There is a whole spectrum of what needs to be done in agriculture, such as how to provide support mechanisms to establish protected areas, greenhouses, where they can produce vegetables, how to set up irrigation systems as quickly as possible, as there are local stories about that taking up to 20 years or more. These are fundamental issues, which we started tackling through legislation and action plans that would help sectors as quickly as possible. I think self-sufficient sectors need to be maintained and helped to restructure into sustainable farming, while those unable to do so due to weather factors, we started incentivising through subsidies for permanent crops, going hand in hand with requirements, like protecting them with hail netting. So, we set conditions. If the subsidy transitions into a permanent crop investment, it needs to be protected. This is one of the differences. I admit that a lot of times there are novelties which aren't well received and people need time to understand the need for it, since it brings a lot of costs, work. Maybe the farmer decides for these investment five year ahead and we give him another condition. We need to communicate with them, why we have to adapt. Vegetable, fruit production, weather conditions, seasonal workers. How can we help here? We are searching for solutions daily. I know that the solutions are essential, the sooner the better. But I can't forget that we have to look 20 years ahead strategically, we can't only be putting out fires. 

Host: With directions and all the measures farm advisors play a big role. Was this measure provided to move the agricultural advisory services in the office within the Ministry? This seemed like a strategic move to give the Ministry a possibility to guide it in accordance with what you've said. But you withdrew. Why? Was it gaining political connotations? Why the proposal and later withdrawal? Was it a mistake? 

Čalušić: I still insist that it's necessary to reorganize. With a dialogue, an exchange of opinions and professional discussions we will continue in a workgroup that will be established soon. When a packet legislation was introduced, namely six laws and one was in public consultation, we communicated about it directly. A momentum of public service has taken over a discussion what is going on in agriculture. This was the first sign that politics wanted to turn this into political confrontations. A lot of times I've stressed that agriculture isn't a place for this and that I don't want to do it. I understood that this will turn into unrest, incapacity to communicate. That's why we took a step back, although we got quite a few responses from the field, from people in the public consultant service or producers that they were a bit disappointed, angry, they didn't understand why we did it. Later we had an opportunity to meet with agricultural consultants who were misinformed that they will have to move to administrative units. To become bureaucrats, sitting at the desks and filling out papers. It didn't seem fair, because there are 330 employees in the system. These are persons and we need more time to make a scientific basis, which can be an opportunity for the next tenure, for the next Minister. I wish that it didn't stay in some kind box. We need a network in the field, available for all farmers. We made many calls and all institutions agreed that the network is there and we need it, but it should be better from a professional point of view. Only one part of communication, if it wasn't established, we could be the link with the public service and we could shorten the way of information, cooperation, transfer of knowledge, information. We could optimize it, de-bureaucratise it in certain parts. This was the base. A farmer who needs a professional in the field and the Ministry that needs both from the field to guide us what they need and how can we help them. We are continuing this with the workgroup. Namely ... 

Host: When this government took office and when the coalition announced its work programme, measures, changes and reforms, I would rather say modernization, the agriculture wasn't emphasised. But after one year of your tenure or a bit earlier, it revealed itself. There are six laws, law on agriculture is some kind of fundament in agriculture, where the basic definitions are established. This is a small revolution in the agricultural field. How did this happen and what is the purpose of all this? Here, we have a law on agriculture, a law on food, a law on safe food and fodder, a law on animal welfare, on agricultural land and forests. This is quite a lot. 

Čalušić: There are seven of them. The animal health law is separate from an animal protection law. 

Host: Okay. 

Čalušić: I would like it to be even more revolutionary, as far as the content is concerned. There are seven laws or if there were 15 and they don't make a worse position for a farmer, producers, they don't make a reform, because it wasn't announced in this tenure and it's not a reform. This is modernization or some kind of clean copy, here I mean a law on agriculture, which went through partial changes until now and the Government Legislation Office has warned us again in the year 2020 that the law is non-transparent, unsuitable for the legal system and that we have to amend it. When this was needed, because we have certain decrees from the EU that are legally binding, we discussed it with the experts if we should amend the law, but it was done too many times and it was better to create a new law and seize the opportunity to modernize like Italy, France and Croatia. They have the umbrella law on agriculture, which later divides to law on food that established the quality, labelling of foods and other parts that are being regulated, since we are the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food. The law on food is regulating the food part, the food safety law is the last institute that inspects if the food is safe. That's why we have three laws that are more transparent and clear. And later, we have the forest act that was put on hold, but needs a few changes. We are working on it. Every department expressed its needs and I was aware of the fact how long is my tenure. All experts were ready and we started working like this. I would also like to say, why this isn't such a big reform and a revolution. A response was like it is. 

Host: Because it sounds big. 

Čalušić: When we were checking the content in percentage, to see if we really created something revolutionary. I wish more of this, so at the end of the year farmers could feel that this is better. But I think they won't feel it yet. 20% of the content has been changed. 80% of it is just embellished, organized like it should be in the legal order. 

Host: You are cleaning the house. 

Čalušić: Yes, we could say that. 

Host: You are arranging everything. To make it look better. 

Čalušić: Some things weren't done for some reason, maybe there wasn't enough time or it somehow stopped. I believe it's right to complete certain stories and we move forward with this law, because it's needed. We don't need everything. Sometimes things get blocked. The experts assessed that this is necessary for modernization. 

Host: But the categorization of the farms is a topic that made quite a stir. I don't know, if it makes sense to list everything here. Subsistence, small, development, commercial farms. All this means also definitions and certain amounts of money. But why is it good to change it at this moment? 

Čalušić: We're not really changing it, we're setting up a new system for defining the organisation of farms, agricultural holdings, classifying them according to their economic situation. Quite a few questions have arisen. I think this part is of most interest to all NGOs, all the ministries, what will happen, what will this entail for farmers. Above all, we set out the basic construct of how we envisioned ... The actual classification may be called differently. There have been suggestions that the definition should be based on the economic size of the farm. There are quite a few opinions, but the main guideline is ... We've discussed how to significantly more strategically direct the funds that we have, public money. We're talking about Slovenian and European funds for subsidies. I think it's important to know what the country needs, what it can give, and to whom and how we are going to give it. Whether we can adapt the tender conditions to the smaller farmer, who is not in the same position as an agricultural holding, whether we can simplify the procedures in this way. We've had a practice of one tender, if I can simplify, with the same conditions for everyone, the bigger and the smaller ones were in competition with each other. I think it's right to set different conditions according to the standards and in this way the state will also be able to distribute the subsidy money in a much more targeted and focused way. 

Host: When it comes to money, subsidies and so on, it's also linked to bureaucracy, about which farmers have a lot to say. Are there any changes, any simplifications? Will there be less of it? Farmers would rather work than fill in forms. 

Čalušić: The Act is simplifying and changing that. If it's adopted in this form, we'll see whether this is a big enough step. A single database for farmers is being established, practically their agricultural card, a record of data, which we need in order to be able to continue with all the measures and direct them. We want to enable the farmer to have one entry, that's the basic idea and wish, they've been pointing this out throughout all the consultations. There's a great deal of simplification, how many applications, how many skills they would have to acquire. But certain forms, papers, applications can't be completely abolished. When we operate with public money, we have to keep records. But this year I would like to find out how much data and paperwork, from a practical point of view, because I've been hearing a lot about bureaucracy, do the agricultural holdings have to fill in, and are some of them really unnecessary and can we as a country abolish them. But we have to do this in a meaningful way in a working group. 

Host: A digitisation of agriculture would probably make sense here. We have some good practices, for example in health care, in tax administration, where everything is set up, and we can just check it. This would probably be welcome in agriculture. But that's a different topic. When it comes to the Animal Protection Act, there are again two opposing sides. Animal protection NGOs enforce certain standards, producers others. The latest example of this are battery cages. What will happen? Will Slovenia speed up the abolition? Will Slovenia do it faster than the rest of Europe? Or will it wait for the whole environment to change in order not to cause damage to producers, because cheaper eggs, produced to lower standards, will enter the Slovenian market, and we will have shot ourselves in the foot. 

Čalušić: The approach that has been taken after the reaction of the general public to the cage farming footage, when all sides have made it clear that we don't want this kind of practice anymore, that we want to work much more in the spirit of animal welfare. The society and the mindset have changed, we are informed differently, and we have to follow that. We've talked to breeders who still use battery cages, they amount to 15% of the whole of Slovenia's egg supply. Which means that the other 85% have already adapted to other forms of farming on their own initiative. That's important. 

Host: 85% is a lot. 

Čalušić: Which means this part is smaller, and it makes it significantly easier for us to help them. A sufficiently long transition period, because we've checked whether they have any obligations in terms of obtaining funds from the past, they may have invested, and the transition periods might cross. We've presented this to the breeders, we've provided an extremely high source of co-financing, 80%, so that they can restructure. When Europe decides, because it's very proactive in this area, to accelerate the total abolition, it will also be a question of what resources will be available, to what extent. I think we can meet each other halfway. When it comes to importing cheaper eggs, I wanted to know the amount of Slovenia's export and import of such eggs. We have practically no statistics on this, so it's difficult for me to talk about the consequences if I don't have the basic data and I don't know what it may entail. We can no longer buy these eggs in shops, because that's how the market chain is organised. At European level, the catering industry is already planning this. They don't want these eggs any more either, and the question is whether we will then be surprised by certain decisions at European level. I think it's right that we're ready, we've listened to the farmers and tried to meet them halfway. We don't see why this can't happen by the end of 2028. 

Host: Let's not just talk about agriculture and farmers. Agriculture is also about food, food safety. How do you rate it? Is the consumer sufficiently insured to be able to trust the food they get from shops, public services, canteens and so on? Every now and then "affairs" and problems emerge. With honey, with meat imported from who knows where, expired sell-by dates and so on. Is the service responsible for control, for verification competent, well-managed, does it have sufficient resources to carry out monitoring? What do you think? 

Čalušić: I think there is always space for improvement, there are more and more opportunities to make things better than they are. When it comes to food safety in Slovenia, we've had quite a few questions about fake honey, battery cages and so on. This should not be the basic picture that gives us a sense of what kind of food we have in Slovenia. These are examples that happen, and it's the same in other sectors, other industries. Despite all the rules, illegal constructions still happen, traffic accidents happen despite the road traffic laws. I'm not trying to hide behind this as the responsible minister, but we need to understand that no system can be flawless. But I am appalled by such practices, because food is a much more serious issue, and they should behave differently. The administrative authority, monitoring through regular annual programmes, inspections, and all the reports, anonymous or known, reacts and issues measures through the tools that they have. There could be better information, there is still a lot of room for improvement from the state, the Ministry of Agriculture, what the things published on websites mean, how to get to the information and what it tells us. We have a new way of informing the public when there are certain non-compliances or irregularities, so that the consumer understands more easily what it means, that this is not food that is unsafe, harmful to health or even deadly, but someone may not have followed certain procedures, certain rules in production, and that we have certain corrective measures. And to make the websites easier for the consumer to understand, whether it be through colours or any kind of symbols, so that this communication that is taking place is improved by us. But above all, as I said, I think we have safe food, but we still need to pay attention at every step to how we can further improve the system. 

Host: Two short topics before we end our conversation. The future of Slovenian farms in terms of young farmers. That's an eternal debate. Has there been any progress? And the role of women in agriculture. Tomorrow is Women's Day. Do you have any message on this occasion? 

Čalušić: Young people and women are a very important topic in agriculture and one that is dear to me. The Act is making room for an action plan specifically for young people. I would really like to see some quick action through a programme of work that we set out together with young people. This is not a mistake or a criticism, but a basic starting point. Among young people, there is no desire to farm anymore. Few of them are taking over their parents' farms. On the other hand, the question arises whether we have created good enough conditions for all young people, perhaps even for those who don't come from a farming family, but have decided to farm, and there are quite a few of them in Slovenia. That's an area in which I think we can make a lot of progress, we can improve the systems, so that they can lease land as young aspiring farmers, perhaps they can get additional loans as basic capital, maybe the state can buy agricultural complexes and then lease them out to young people. These are general questions we have not answered in the past, or we have got to a certain point. In what way we can help them. This is extremely important. We will be doing quite a lot of work with young people this year, including education in kindergartens, schools. As part of the It's Nice to be a Farmer campaign we will visit schools, kindergartens, present the farming profession, which is a little different than it might have been in the past, much more advanced. So that young people are aware of this. These are soft measures which can result in success stories. As far as women are concerned, women in the countryside, on farms, have always played an extremely important role. When it comes to their social status on the farm, we have begun to talk to the line ministry that covers this area, including about pensions and widows' pensions, because we know that too often they've been forgotten in the system. I would like to see this area sorted out. Rural women's organisations have been reminding us of this area for many years. 

Host: Do other ministries agree? 

Čalušić: Absolutely, but this is a very specific area, which has been very strangely and differently regulated from year to year over the last twenty years, excluded from all other systems as an exception. We've started talking about this exception being a part of the pensions reform among other things. I think we'll take a step in a better direction. As I said, they are indispensable and extremely valuable. We know that the world is a better place with women, we can't do without them. 

Host: They support three corners of the house, especially on a farm. 

Čalušić: Exactly. We will try our best on their behalf. From the rural point of view or from the point view of any woman. Above all I wish them a really nice Women's Day and to let themselves be pampered. 

Host: Thank you. I've been Zoran Potič. We'll see you next time. Goodbye.