During the debate on Monday 18 October in Strasbourg on the ‘Farm to Fork’ strategy, several MEPs, especially on the right of the Chamber, criticised the European Commission for having concealed for many months the existence of an impact assessment on the effects of this strategy on agricultural production (see other news).
The Greens/EFA group, for its part, denounced the intense agricultural lobbying on this dossier (see EUROPE 12812/5, 12812/6), and the Italians criticised the ‘Nutri-score’.
Co-rapporteur Anja Hazekamp (The Left, Netherlands) welcomed the ‘Farm to Fork’ strategy presented by the Commission, although she would have liked a more ambitious response from the European Parliament. In particular, she called for a “common food policy” and the abolition of agricultural subsidies for the food industry.
A “mistake” made by the Commission. The other co-rapporteur, Herbert Dorfmann (EPP, Italy), regretted that the other political groups had refused to debate in plenary the problem of the impact assessment on the effects of the strategy on agricultural sectors. He felt that the Commission had made a mistake in concealing the existence of the impact assessment (available in January 2021) from the Joint Research Centre until August. Not everyone in the Commission was happy with the results of this assessment, Dorfmann continued.
Christine Schneider (EPP, Germany) said that Frans Timmermans, Vice-President of the European Commission, had “damaged his reputation” by deciding not to publish the impact assessment from the Joint Research Centre. The trust has been broken, she says.
Norbert Lins (EPP, Germany), chairman of the European Parliament Agriculture Committee, called on the Commission to publish an impact assessment as soon as possible. He criticised the Commission for withholding valuable information, as did Bert-Jan Ruissen (ECR, Netherlands). Zbigniew Kuźmiuk (ECR, Poland) also called for an impact assessment.
Anne Sander (EPP, France) criticised the Commission’s “categorical refusal” to carry out a global impact assessment of the strategy, which undermines the credibility of the proposed objectives.
“Strategy without an action plan is not a strategy”, said Jeremy Decerle (Renew Europe, France). What is missing, according to him, is “a feasibility study”.
Mazaly Aguilar (ECR, Spain) felt that the Commission’s proposals should be realistic. Hermann Tertsch (ECR, Spain) questioned targets that are not based on scientific evidence.
“Impact assessments”. Health Commissioner Stella Kyriakides has promised to publish impact assessments for all “major legislative initiatives”. The strategy’s objectives will be legally binding “when” (and if) the EU institutions legislate, she said.
The Greens/EFA enter the fray. Benoît Biteau (Greens/EFA, France) said that the ambitions of the strategy are generally in the right direction, except on the subject of seeds. “Let’s not be lulled into complacency by the old-fashioned rhetoric of conservative lobbyists predicting the agri-food apocalypse”, he said.
Sarah Wiener (Greens/EFA, Germany) said it was “scandalous” that the farm lobby had managed to convince MEPs to call for ‘split votes’ on certain paragraphs of the draft report.
The report is under attack from the farming industry and this is “unforgivable”, said Tilly Metz (Greens/EFA, Luxembourg).
Martin Häusling (Greens/EFA, Germany) noted that the pesticide industry was protesting against the reduction targets which are however essential.
Trade. Paolo De Castro (S&D, Italy) defended “true reciprocity of standards for products imported into the EU”. He also mentioned the negative effects of a reduction in the EU’s production potential. Manuel Bompard (The Left, France) called for an “agro-ecological revolution” and for “ecological and solidarity-based protectionism”. Mr Häusling criticised in particular the trade agreement with the Mercosur countries.
References to binding targets could be removed from the report. Only one amendment to this own-initiative report will be put to the vote, namely the one tabled by co-rapporteur Herbert Dorfmann referring to the results of impact assessments (thus far tabled) which predict, in his view, “that the implementation of the strategy’s objectives would have a considerable impact on agricultural production in the Union”. These MEPs also call on the Commission to publish “sound scientific ex ante impact assessments” (see other news).
For the rest, the most hostile MEPs want to delete some paragraphs of the draft report agreed in the European Parliament’s Environment and Agriculture Committees, notably on the “binding nature of the reduction targets” for pesticides, on nutrient losses from organic and mineral sources and on the sale of antibiotics. The Commission proposes to reduce the overall use and risk of chemical pesticides by 50% and the use of more hazardous pesticides by 50% by 2030.
One of the paragraphs in the draft report to be voted on supports the target of reducing nutrient losses by at least 50%.
MEPs also want to delete the reference to the EU’s objective of devoting at least 10% of agricultural land to biodiversity-rich landscape features (buffer strips, crop rotation, hedges, non-productive trees, etc.)
The vote on the report by Anja Hazekamp and Herbert Dorfmann analysing the ‘Farm to Fork’ strategy will take place on Tuesday evening and the results will be announced on Wednesday morning. On 9 September, 48 compromise amendments from the EPP, S&D, Renew Europe, ECR and Greens/EFA groups were accepted as a compromise in the European Parliament committees responsible for this ‘European Green Deal’ proposal (see EUROPE 12787/16). (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)