Benoît Biteau MEP (Greens/EFA, France) said in an interview with EUROPE on Wednesday 15 September that the European Parliament should vote in November in plenary against the texts reforming the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in order to “rewrite” this policy (Interview by Lionel Changeur).
Agence Europe–You often talk about ‘greenwashing’ in relation to the reform that has been agreed between the EU institutions. Where are you most disappointed?
Benoît Biteau – The current CAP contains cross-compliance rules, conditioning 30% of direct aid, which make it possible to have safeguards on certain agricultural practices (greening of aid). The result of the negotiations on the next CAP is, for example, the abolition of crop rotation. So the eco-conditionality that exists today has been greatly reduced.
Regarding eco-regimes, the French Minister of Agriculture, Julien Denormandie, admitted that almost 80% of farmers will manage to benefit from them without changing their practices! There is nothing in the terms of reference of the eco-regimes to green this CAP.
So, with the new CAP, we would maintain the status quo...
It is even worse. The notion of greening is maintained, but its terms of reference are distorted. These rules were already not ambitious enough to change farming practices and such basic principles as crop rotation are no longer a condition for greening. This is the basis for practices that move us away from the use of pesticides and synthetic fertilisers.
Another example is the High Environmental Value (HVE) (environmental certification of farms: editor’s note). This will be an eco-regime for which it will be sufficient to provide 10% of areas of ecological interest, i.e. a few hundred metres of hedges on the periphery of the plots, and to devote less than 30% of its turnover to the purchase of inputs (pesticides and fertilisers, for example). It is very easy. Without changing the current rules, farmers will be able to access these eco-regimes. And frankly, 30%! I don’t want to be their neighbour... especially since there is no restrictive list for the choice of these pesticides.
You also have concerns about water use.
The only solution proposed to get agriculture out of its difficulties is to store water to mobilise even more of an increasingly scarce resource.
Other issues are highlighted by your group, such as permanent grasslands.
Modern livestock farming uses maize, which is low in protein and whose cultivation has a disastrous impact on the climate and biodiversity, to feed herbivores. And because of its very low protein content, genetically modified soya and the deforestation associated with the expansion of its cultivation area are being imported from America on a massive scale. So we tick all the boxes of what not to do. The right way to feed herbivores is to feed them grass. Preserving natural grasslands is also good for biodiversity and climate change mitigation.
This implies a change of model...
What is the problem? Farmers are not getting by with this model. So why should we want to prevent them from offering profitable farming practices? In reality, the best allies of farmers are environmentalists.
The agreement provides for a form of capping of aid. What are your thoughts on that?
It is a band-aid on a wooden leg. The cause of the problem must be tackled, namely the way in which CAP aid is distributed. Today, CAP aid is distributed per unit area. The biggest farmers, the main users of pesticides, are the ones who get the most money from the CAP. The reform did not touch the core of the reactor. Aid should be paid per labour unit.
Could the European Parliament, as you wish, reject the texts reforming the CAP?
One third of Parliament did not vote in favour of the CAP reform in October 2020. However, the negotiations between the EU institutions that resulted in the trilogues (June 2021) weakened the already bad CAP. I’m going to call for not voting on the CAP and the point of that is to rewrite it incorporating the Parliament vote on the climate emergency, the climate roadmap and the biodiversity strategies, and get it from farm to fork.
This CAP is ineffective in supporting farmers’ incomes, the dynamics of setting up young people, and the renewal of generations, and the challenges of the climate. This is a historic opportunity to change the CAP.