[ad_1]
Land reform in Europe
“Accelerated ecological destruction”: Thunberg and Neubauer react to the decision of the EU Parliament
Greta Thunberg (left) and Luisa Neubauer at a demonstration of “Fridays for Future” in Hamburg
© Christian Charisins / dpa
There it is now, the majority in favor of the controversial compromise on EU agricultural reform. Environmental activists such as Luisa Neubauer and Greta Thunberg had warned in advance and, following a decision by the EU Parliament, react disappointed in an open letter.
The European Parliament has agreed on a position for the planned multi-million dollar EU agricultural reform. Most of the deputies accepted a compromise that had been debated for weeks. The decision establishes that in the future 30 percent of direct payments will be reserved for organic regulations. However, with so-called Eco-Schemes, parliament still lags behind the position of the EU states, according to the German Union for Conservation of Nature.
Parliament’s proposal also states that four percent of the direct payments will be used to help young farmers. According to the draft, anyone who does not comply with the EU requirements should be punished more severely: it should be allowed to reduce up to ten percent of claims. So far it is five percent. The parliamentary agreement also states that the EU states themselves cannot set higher standards, for example in the protection of animals and the environment. This is to ensure a level playing field.
Neubauer and Thunberg with open letter
In an open letter written in English, five climate activists, including Luisa Neubauer and Greta Thunberg, criticize the decision of the parliamentarians, which, “in short, is accelerating ecological destruction. This was only possible thanks to countless pressure groups, as well as news publishers and media companies who didn’t notice. ” they have to do their job, that is, inform the population about the consequences of the decisions. ”
The president of the European Parliament’s Environment Committee, Pascal Canfin, said the reform package was a good compromise. “The European Parliament has considerably improved the text.” Norbert Lins from the CDU said: “The position of the European Parliament for agricultural reform is contemporary and innovative.” However, several deputies complained about the chaos in the digital vote on the 1900 amendments. The schedule was changed several times on short notice.
Almost € 400 billion in agricultural subsidies
Agricultural subsidies are the single most important element of the EU budget and account for a large part of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions. EU states have allocated around 387 billion euros for the next seven years. The amount of agricultural subsidies still depends on the cultivated area on the farm. Nabu criticized the failure to take into account the “farm to plate” concept or the biodiversity strategy. These include pesticide and antibiotic reduction targets by 2030.
Greenpeace agriculture expert Lasse van Aken said: “Europe’s greatest opportunity to make agriculture fit for the future has been neglected by the European Parliament today.” Under the #VoteThisCAPdown (German for: “reject this GAP”) Thunberg and Neubauer asked people to vote against the position. Above all, they criticize that this is not a change towards sustainable agriculture and promotes the extinction of species. Now, later, they write: “MEPs have shown that they do not understand what an ecological emergency means. Empty words, empty advertisements, empty promises are nothing new.”
“The fight is not over yet”
EU states want a two-year “learning phase” for eco-regulations, in which the money could eventually go back to farmers as lump sum payments. There are no specific requirements for eco-regulations yet. Luisa Neubauer, who also works regularly for the Stern writes and Greta Thunberg announce that they want to continue fighting agricultural reform in its current form: “If our political leadership takes over the reform, we have no chance of achieving the Paris climate targets. But: the Commission can still come up with alternatives to these resolutions The fight is not over yet. ”
