The European Parliament remains practically, ideologically, and pragmatically hopelessly divided over the new European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). It was approved by 452 votes to 178 (with 57 abstentions) as the ‘most feasible,’ ‘least harmful,’ or ‘for lack of a better option.’
The complete absence of any legal or financial link between the Climate and Environmental goals and agricultural policy is for many the major stumbling block, while for others it is a significant advantage. “How can this Parliament first declare a climate emergency, express ambitions for biodiversity and sustainable food production, and now do exactly the opposite?” Anja Hazekamp (PvdD) wondered.
The intention is that the new agricultural policy becomes more climate- and environmentally friendly and that individual EU countries are allowed more national flexibility in its implementation. One of the major changes is the introduction of so-called “eco-schemes”; payments that will constitute 25% of direct support but will only be granted for agricultural practices beneficial to the environment.
For the first time, the CAP will also contain social “conditions,” meaning that only agricultural businesses respecting the labor rights of their personnel will receive subsidies, voluntarily from 2023 but mandatory from 2025. Furthermore, a portion of the subsidy must be allocated to young farmers.
A major difference is that the new agricultural policy allows room for national strategic plans, giving the EU more authority to defer decisions to individual member states. Most countries are currently finalizing their national programmes to submit them to the EU before December 31.
Critics (mainly within United Left GUE/NGL and the Greens) argue that the EU is handing over the implementation of climate-friendly agricultural policies to national governments. In addition, there are hardly any sanctions on paper, so no one will feel obliged to meet climate goals. Proponents, however, see ‘less centralism, more national’ as an improvement.
Greens politician Bas Eickhout criticized the way this CAP was developed. “The Commission left it to Parliament and the EU countries to green the proposal. However, the ministers want as much freedom as possible to use the money for their own country and therefore impose few environmental rules.
In the European Parliament, agricultural subsidies are seen by many primarily as ‘farmers’ money’ rather than taxpayers’ money. Consequently, a thorough reform did not materialize,” Eickhout stated. However, an amendment to reject the CAP proposal and start over was rejected by 504 to 153 votes.
Bert-Jan Ruissen (SGP), the only Dutch CAP negotiator, believes this agreement is a compromise that deserves support. He pointed out that several unrealistic ambitions of the Commission were scaled back to realistic proportions. He called the 25% shift from income support to eco-schemes ‘well balanced.’
Not only supporters but also hesitators and opponents acknowledge that the new EU policy is less top-down imposed and less determined behind EU office desks in Brussels. Most also recognize that agricultural subsidies will no longer be ‘income guarantees,’ but concrete payments for services and products delivered.
MEP Jan Huitema (VVD), member of both the agriculture and environment committees, ‘is pleased that for the first time in the history of European agricultural policy part of the greening is not directed by generic measures from Brussels.
The objective has become more leading. Part of the budget is now directly linked to actually achieved greening results. The best guarantee for successful greening,’ he called it.