Inefficient and insufficient. This is the feeling that professionals in the field convey about the assistance received by the Government during 2022, when the manufacturing sector was shaken by the effects of the war in Ukraine, the energy crisis and the shortage of production. The government has provided €851.5 million in direct assistance to farmers and ranchers to resolve the situation and alleviate last year’s situation; However initial price staples such as beef, lamb, pork, chicken, potatoes, onions, rice or butter, among others, increased by an average of 62.7% if we compare February 2022 with the same month in 2023, according to the Ministry of Agriculture agriculture, fisheries and food.

“Investments in the agricultural sector may have contributed to the succession of companies that experienced difficult moments, but what is clear is that those who were really at risk were left out. A drop of farm closures is a fact, ”says the Young Farmers Association. In May, it became known that the Government would allocate 127 million euros in emergency adaptation assistance to offset the economic difficulties associated with the war in Ukraine, as well as another 64.5 million, which corresponded to Spain from the crisis mechanism activated by the European Union. Commission. In December, Moncloa announced a €660 million direct aid package to compensate farmers, ranchers and fishermen for higher fuel and fertilizer costs.

The COAG (coordinator of farmers and ranchers organizations) states that the reality of these contributions is that “as an oxygen balloon it is worth it, but the truth is that in many cases it is not enough. They are valued, but you don’t live on help.”

The increase in the cost of agricultural inputs is not the only factor undermining producers, as there are other circumstances, such as a drought that destroyed crops and caused food prices such as oil or vegetables to rise due to their supply. and demand. “From a meteorological point of view, the last campaign was very bad. Everything comes together in a bunch of things that downplay all the help given, which is welcome, but won’t change the reality we have on the field. The supply of everything needed for the harvest has decreased and the cost has increased,” explains Arturo Hernangomes, technician in charge of livestock and olive groves at ASAJA.

The field qualifies the help as “patches”.

An ASAJA technician claims that the cascade of millions that came to the countryside from the government did not have the desired effect: “Prices have gone up a lot because the aid is band-aids. It’s like an additive that they gave us to try to influence the price a little, but in the end they came not to solve anything, but to counteract the influence that the farmers had to endure.”

Agricultural organizations highlighted the difficulties faced by farmers, who have less room to maneuver to adjust to the perfect storm that has shaken producers. “In some products, the increase in costs may be more significant than in others. For example, livestock farmers don’t have the ability to raise the price significantly because they keep cows, and every day they’re on their land, they lose more money,” says Hernangomes, who emphasizes that, as a general rule, “ crops offer alternatives that livestock do not have. You can change the percentage of land you leave fallow from year to year or suggest alternatives; however, in the case of animals, sometimes the only way out is to downsize and sell the meat.

COAG sources insist it’s not just a matter of aid: “They’re good to have liquidity at certain times, but you have to try to get the network to pay the producer and make sure the prices you get are higher than the cost of production. . In some cases it seems that the price has skyrocketed, but sometimes it has produced at a loss. Just look at the example of dairy cattle, ten years ago there were about 50,000 producers, and now there will be about 11,000″.

ASAJA reports that the measures sound grand but are watered down in the moment of truth. “We have calculated and, for example, compensation for fertilizers is equivalent to filling a fertilizer spreader. It is valued but leads nowhere,” says Hernangomes. The Young Farmers Association also laments the lack of solutions to solve the problem at a general level: “As we say, help is always welcome, and although it seemed insufficient to us, help cannot fix the general situation. One notable example is the reduction of VAT on basic foodstuffs. If you go from 4% to 0%, or from 10% to 5%, and the costs have risen the same as they … the result is inefficient, ”they conclude.