The European Commission has proposed a review of the common agricultural policy in a way that will make farming easier for European farmers. A group of non-governmental, green organizations expressed their opposition to the planned solutions. In a letter to the head of the European Commission, they call for the withdrawal of the proposal.
Proposals for farmers
February and March were spent by the authorities in Brussels looking for answers to the demands made by farmers during the protests. The result of this work was presented by the European Commission on March 15, 2024, in the form of a draft of legislative changes to the Common Agricultural Policy. The ideas concerned changes in, among others, GAEC standards, on-farm inspections and penalties imposed on farmers. The goal is clear: to make farmers’ lives easier. As we read in the document prepared by the European Commission:
“In the first year of implementation of the CAP Strategic Plan, it was clearly stated that adjustments were necessary to ensure effective implementation of the plans and reduce bureaucracy. (…) Although the causes of widespread farmers’ protests in EU Member States are complex and varied, the above-mentioned reasons constitute an important part context. (…) Adjustments focus on changes that benefit farmers in terms of reducing administrative burdens, flexibility enabling national administrations to adapt implementation to farmers’ situations, changes in the balance between conditionality requirements and voluntary schemes that encourage the use of organic practices , and to reassure beneficiaries about policy stability over the period of validity of the strategic plans.
Representatives of the highest EU authorities assured that they were taking action to respond to farmers’ problems as quickly as possible. However, it turns out that not everyone is happy with this.
Letter from environmental organizations to the European Commission
On March 25, 2024, a group of non-governmental organizations related to environmental protection, climate protection and animal welfare sent an open letter to Ursula von der Leyen, Maros Sefcovic – executive vice-president for the European Green Deal, and commissioners for agriculture, climate, health and environment: Janusz Wojciechowski , Virginijus Sinkevicius, Stella Kyriakides and Wopke Hoekstra.
In their appeal, ecologists call on the European Commission to withdraw its legislative proposals for farmers. Their three main objections are as follows:
- lack of involvement in creating proposals from all interested parties;
- no assessment of the effects of introducing legislative changes has been carried out;
- no real answers to farmers’ problems.
In the prepared document, the Commission explained that a comprehensive impact assessment was not carried out “due to the urgent political need to submit this proposal, which aims to respond to the crisis situation in EU agriculture.” Additionally, the EC informed that “the urgent nature of this application did not allow for a normal consultation process” with stakeholders.
Environmental organizations consider this unacceptable and this time they want to throw the Commission’s proposal into the trash. As you can read in a letter to Ursula von der Leyen:
We call on you to withdraw the CAP legislative proposal and to respect EU law and the Better Regulation guidelines, which were designed to ensure that any future EU agricultural initiatives are undertaken in a transparent, participatory and evidence-based manner. (…) All decisions that may affect farmers, the environment and human health should be made with full consideration of the interests of society as a whole. With this legislative proposal, the European Commission has given in to a false narrative that contrasts the environment with agriculture, when the evidence shows that they are interdependent. The proposed measures will only undermine the jobs that the CAP is intended to support in the long term.
The authors of the letter further believe that the Commission’s legislative proposal cannot be called a simplification of environmental requirements, but rather a “withdrawal from them”. They emphasize that abandoning the CAP requirements, which were supposed to limit the negative effects of agricultural intensification, will lead to a loss of biodiversity.
Ecologists point out that when designing changes in the law, only the voice of agricultural organizations was taken into account, and meanwhile changes in the CAP will affect environmental and health protection issues, which is the interest of the entire society.
The Commission is ignoring the latest scientific evidence showing that agriculture’s transition towards sustainability should be seen as a priority in the EU’s efforts to combat climate change, say the authors of the letter.
Another allegation in the letter concerns the fact that the CAP survey prepared by the EC is addressed only to farmers.
Finally, the authors of the appeal accuse the Commission that the proposal addressed to farmers is dictated by political interests in the spirit of the upcoming European elections.
The prospect of upcoming elections cannot justify such significant departures from the rule of law and democratic principles. At a time of climate and environmental crisis and the socio-economic difficulties that many farmers face, the EU cannot decide in a few weeks that around one third of the EU budget will be spent without clear restrictions and outside the control of citizens. By prioritizing electoral issues, the Commission has broken with years of progress on the EU Green Deal and citizens’ democratic rights, the letter says.
The letter was signed by the following organizations:
- Agroecology Europe,
- BeeLife,
- European Consumer Organization BEUC,
- BirdLife International,
- CEO,
- ClientEarth,
- Compassion in World Farming,
- European Environment Bureau – EEB,
- Eurogroup for Animals,
- Feedback EU,
- Fern,
- Greenpeace,
- Institute of Agricultural and Trade Policy IATP,
- Pesticide Action Network – PAN Europe,
- Slow Food,
- WWF.
The entire letter (original in English) can be found in the attachment.
– .
