European agriculture is not on track to meet the European Green Deal objectives, according to an INRAE study commissioned by the European Parliament and presented to the European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture on Monday 30 November.
The authors of the study made recommendations for the CAP to achieve the objectives of the European Green Deal, such as applying more strictly the ‘polluter-pays principle’, which underpins cross-compliance, with “payments for climate and environmental services”.
In particular, the study suggests a strengthening of cross compliance (no derogations and above all new Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions, or GAEC, to reduce pesticides and greenhouse gases).
With regard to ‘eco-schemes’ (ecological programmes under the first pillar of direct aid), the INRAE study advocates in particular a ban on ploughing at plot level and a bonus for legumes (permanent grassland), the restoration of wetlands and peat bogs at farm level, measures to promote crop biodiversity (bonus for small plots and maximum soil cover for arable crops).
Furthermore, additional aid would be granted to farmers who make efforts to reduce pesticides, antimicrobials or greenhouse gas emissions, as well as aid for animal welfare.
According to the authors, three budgets should also be set aside: 35% in the second pillar of the CAP (rural development) for climate-related measures, 20% of the eco-schemes for climate measures and 20% of the eco-schemes for biodiversity (i.e. a target of 40% of climate spending).
MEPs were divided on the study’s recommendations, which would result in a 25% drop in farmers’ incomes by applying the objectives of the European Green Deal. Pesticide reduction would be a problem, said Zbigniew Kuźmiuk (ECR, Poland)
It is more a programme of a political party, regretted Herbert Dorfmann (EPP, Italy).
Isabel Carvalhais (S&D, Portugal) questioned the balance proposed in the study between cross-compliance and eco-schemes. Paolo De Castro (S&D, Italy) expressed concern about the “change in diet” mentioned by the study (less meat) and urged to “stop making a policy only for the rich”.
Ulrike Müller (Renew Europe, Germany) noted that the study suggests a reduction in livestock farming.
Some countries are going to be at a disadvantage when it comes to cutting back on fertilisers and pesticides, said Ivan David (ID, Czech Republic). According to him, there is no real strategy in this study, but rather “communist shenanigans” that threaten the survival of agricultural production.
The study would show that the current CAP proposals under negotiation do not meet the objectives of the European Green Deal, said Martin Häusling (Greens/EFA, Germany). He welcomed the study’s reference to decent prices for farmers and the need to reduce waste. “The train has left in the wrong direction” in the CAP negotiations, Mr Häusling regretted. According to him, this study comes too late.
Luke Ming Flanagan (GUE/NGL, Ireland) said that the CAP and the European Green Deal are “not compatible” as the European Green Deal was presented after the CAP proposals.
The Commission representative said that a Commission assessment of the links between the CAP and the Farm to Fork strategy was “in the process of being finalised” by the Joint Research Centre (JRC).
Link to the INRAE study: https://bit.ly/2VjtCLJ (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)