After a center-right majority led by EPP/CDA in Strasbourg introduced numerous amendments that weakened the proposal, German rapporteur Sarah Wiener (Greens) attempted to withdraw the diluted proposal for "further consideration" in the ENVI Environment Committee.
However, Christian Democrats, conservatives, far-right members, as well as several Social Democrats and Liberals, did not want to let it go that far. As a result, the watered-down proposal was no longer acceptable to many left-wing MEPs and was rejected with 299 votes against 207, with notably 121 abstentions.
The dividing line between left and right (read: climate-friendly versus agriculture-friendly) had already emerged in recent months when the ENVI Environment Committee sought to strengthen the Commission’s proposal, while the AGRI Agriculture Committee favored delay and reductions.
Key points of contention included the implementation date: the European Commission and environmental side advocated for enforcement in 2030, but many EU countries and agricultural groups wanted it postponed by five years.
There was also controversy over whether each country would have its own binding reduction target or whether there would only be an EU-level obligation, with member states each receiving a "commitment to effort" to cooperate. Critics argued this would undermine the intended effect of the new law from the outset.
It is unclear how EU countries will react to this very unusual rejection by the Parliament. The 27 Agriculture Ministers have the Commission’s proposal on the agenda for their December meeting. Over the past year and a half, they have refused to consider it, preferring first to commission further studies. Most ministers also opposed binding obligations.
In theory, agriculture ministers can still accept the proposal, even in a further weakened form, and adopt a position. Agriculture Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski has repeatedly stated that the Commission is "willing to make concessions," but the opposition from several Agriculture Ministers is so strong that they would rather quietly let the proposal fall off the meeting agendas.
(update: an earlier version mistakenly stated that the Environment Ministers would discuss the proposal)