[ad_1]
Minister Klöckner welcomes the agreement on an EU agricultural reform as a breakthrough. Environmental groups speak of false policies and “keep it up.” Because most subsidies should continue to flow unconditionally.
The agreement of the EU agriculture ministers to reform agricultural policy has received strong criticism. Environmental groups criticized the compromise as a clientele policy for big business and the continuation of a destructive subsidy system.
20 percent of payments are conditional
The ministers agreed to keep the amount of agricultural subsidies, but link the payment to additional criteria. Over the next seven years, 387 billion euros will be allocated in grants, which will account for around a third of the EU budget. The novelty is that 20 percent of direct payments will go to farms that use environmental programs.
This has been controversial for a long time. Poland and some other Eastern European countries resisted such environmental requirements for payment. They wanted governments to be able to decide for themselves how the multi-million dollar farm subsidies would be distributed.
Federal Minister of Agriculture Julia Klöckner emphasized that 20 percent of direct payments to farmers would now be spent on environmental programs. The fact that there are conditions for payments from Brussels is a system change, he told Deutschlandfunk. These conditions were based on the common good, “that is: more protection of the environment, more protection of the climate.” She saw the agreement as a milestone.
Two-year transition period
Environmental associations vehemently contradicted this point of view. On the one hand, they criticized the fact that most of the funds should continue to flow as direct payments with no environmental requirements based on the size of the farms. At the same time, they complained that the Eastern European countries had imposed a two-year transition period. Unsolicited funds for environmental programs during this period can, as before, be used unconditionally.
“Most of the agricultural billions of Brussels are still largely ineffectively distributed with the watering can in the fields and meadows of Europe,” said the president of the Federation for the Environment and Nature Conservation of Germany (BUND), Olaf Bandt. The Federal Director General of the German Union for Conservation of Nature (NABU), Leif Miller, spoke of a “huge step backwards for the protection of the environment and the climate”. WWF Nature Conservation Director Christoph Heinrich called the deal a “vague commitment” with no added ecological value.
“Agricultural subsidies should continue to be distributed largely unconditionally, rather than specifically promoting environmental and climate protection in agriculture,” said Lasse van Aken, Greenpeace agricultural expert. The resolutions are “the worst kind of greenwash,” that is, the attempt to make the reform seem only environmentally friendly. The budget for eco-regulations is one fifth lower than that decided by the EU Parliament and only comes into force after a two-year delay.
Difficult negotiations with parliament
The European Parliament had spoken out in favor of linking 30% of direct payments to environmental requirements. Member states and deputies now have to negotiate a common line for the reform to take effect.
Green politicians also criticized the agreement of the agriculture ministers. The resolutions “are not enough to achieve the EU’s self-imposed goals and give farmers security,” said party leader Robert Habeck of the dpa news agency. Green MEP Martin Häusling described the decision as an affront to the head of the EU Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, who had set targets for green change.
Drought summer and low prices
“It’s a step in the right direction, but by no means ambitious enough,” said Elisabeth Fresen, federal chair of the rural agriculture task force. tagesschau.de. “This is not how agricultural problems are solved.” With the commitment made by the agriculture ministers, the fact that increased drought summers, declining biodiversity and low prices of agricultural products are affecting rural areas will continue.
“We have to move away from fixed area-based payment,” says the farmer who runs a farm in Verden, Lower Saxony. It is unfair that the EU’s agricultural policy is particularly beneficial for large farms. Therefore, it is necessary to limit area payments. All direct payments must also be linked to actual farm performance, that is, concrete measures to preserve biodiversity, protect the climate or animal welfare, according to Fresen.
The German Farmers Association (DBV) spoke of an acceptable compromise. The agricultural payments would be “changed significantly” by the resolutions of the ministers, according to the president of DBV, Joachim Rukwied. In Germany, the association assumes that funds for agri-environmental measures will more than double up to 1.8 billion euros. “The nature conservation criticism that ‘business as usual’ is being conducted is therefore completely unfounded.”
