Icon: enlarge
Tractor with fertilizer spreader in Hessen
Photo: Frank Rumpenhorst / dpa
The agrarian reform, worth hundreds of billions of euros, has been launched.
After the EU states, the European Parliament also agreed on a position on the controversial reform on Friday.
The negotiations are not over yet; after all, the various EU institutions still have to find a common line.
But for environmental activists and nature conservationists, what has been decided so far amounts to a great disappointment.
Harriet Bradley of the environmental organization Birdlife International has long fought the proposals.
In the past few weeks, she dissected the tussle over the reorganization of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), with almost 400 billion euros the largest item in the EU budget, like no other.
Bradley compared the Commission's draft with the amendments proposed by Parliament and the proposal of the Council of Ministers: She documented almost every one of the amendments, often hidden in subordinate clauses or individual figures, that weakened the reform even further, in her tweets.
The German Agriculture Minister Julia Klöckner (CDU) celebrated the system change towards more environmental and climate protection, on the contrary: Above all, the core, the ecological requirements, are sometimes absurd.
To person
Icon: enlargePhoto: Birdlife International
Harriet Bradley
, 30, works for Birdlife International, one of the world's most traditional environmental protection organizations, whose network includes the German NABU.
SPIEGEL:
Ms. Bradley, at the end of this Friday, many Social Democrats even voted against the CAP compromise they had previously supported, which EPP negotiator Peter Jahr described as a "revolution".
Do you know why?
Bradley:
Because they realized that this proposal is anything but revolutionary.
He completely disregards the goals set by Brussels for climate protection and biodiversity and, with the system of direct payments, continues to reward those large-scale agriculturists who are jointly responsible for many environmental problems.
SPIEGEL:
The German Agriculture Minister Julia Klöckner (CDU) spoke of a "milestone" in the direction of sustainability, there are no more payments without environmental considerations.
Sounds like a success, doesn't it?
Bradley:
It would be nice.
We heard the same promise with the last reform, when the greening was also celebrated - for no reason, because the measures were little more than environmental cosmetics.
What we're getting now could be even worse.
SPIEGEL:
Why?
Bradley:
The Commission's proposal was already meager; it dates from 2018, by the then Agriculture Commissioner Phil Hogan.
Despite her ambitious green deal, Commission head Ursula von der Leyen did not have this stale proposal renewed.
It has simply been claimed that the proposal meets the new environmental and climate goals, which pretty much all scientists doubt.
Take the farm-to-fork strategy, for example: according to this, the use and risk of pesticides should be reduced by 50 percent by 2030.
Strangely enough, the CAP, a key lever for reduction, does not contain such goals at all.
They were just ignored.
SPIEGEL:
Has parliament or the Council of Ministers been able to make improvements?
Bradley:
Not at all.
She softened the proposal again.
Here are a few examples: the Council of Ministers turned an "adequate" protection of moors and wetlands into a "minimal" one.
The "compulsory" crop rotation, which is actually good agricultural practice, was not retained and provided with alternative alternatives.
And instead of tying 30 percent of the payments to environmental measures, it should only be 20 percent.
The parliament was in favor of 30 percent, but placed the environmental measures under an economic reservation: They should not impair the economic efficiency of the companies.
SPIEGEL:
Nonetheless, some of the payments are now to be tied to so-called "eco schemes" and subsidies are no longer to simply flow in for the ownership of land.
Bradley:
Well, we had that with the last reform.
30 percent of the funds for direct payments were tied to greening measures, which were quite a fake: they hardly demanded anything from the farmers, they proved to be largely ineffective for nature conservation, such as the cultivation of catch crops on land, which is actually a natural habitat was intended and thus contributed nothing to biodiversity.
Now the whole thing is called "eco schemes".
Again there should be 20 to 30 percent of the funds for this, partly for very similar or non-ambitious measures.
Sometimes it looks as if the copy-paste buttons have been pressed.
SPIEGEL:
At least there is a list of examples of environmental measures in Parliament's proposal.
There is talk of increasing biodiversity and reducing pesticides.
Bradley:
That sounds good, but there is no volume target at all for reduction.
In addition, if the measures do not work and biodiversity - as is currently being observed - declines or the use of pesticides increases, the Commission can hardly hold a member country accountable.
The basic problem is that the term ecological has been completely devalued in this list.
It has been hijacked, so to speak, and it is being ensured that the countries for their part can now fill it with practices that no longer have anything to do with environmental responsibility.
SPIEGEL:
Do you have any examples?
Bradley:
The list includes
"
precision farming", that is, satellite-based spraying techniques.
This may make it possible to apply chemicals more precisely, but that is far from changing the system.
I am not aware of any study that scientifically examined the environmental effects of precision farming.
It can even be detrimental to biodiversity, for example if the technology enables more intensive processing of monocultures.
SPIEGEL:
The list also includes measures that reduce emissions.
This often includes tillage without a plow.
Could member states then also record something like this as "eco"?
more on the subject
Icon: Spiegel PlusSPIEGEL editorial on EU agricultural reform: The nepotism in Brussels is a scandalBy Markus Becker, Brussels
Icon: Spiegel Plus EU parliamentarians criticize agricultural deal: "Ms. Klöckner deceives the public" An interview by Michaela Schießl
Icon: Spiegel Plus Voting on EU agricultural policy: The 387 billion euro deal by Markus Becker, Katharina Fiedler, Maximilian Popp and Jonas Schaible
Icon: Spiegel PlusEuropa's agricultural policy: Cows instead of climateBy Jonas Schaible
Icon: Spiegel PlusGreen Deal of the EU: Von der Leyens CO₂-Zoll turns Europe into a climate fortressA column by Michael Sauga
Bradley:
That would be fine.
However, plowless cultivation usually only works by spraying the plant residues to death with herbicides such as glyphosate.
Under this premise, applications with glyphosate could potentially pass as an eco-measure, absurd.
SPIEGEL:
Animal welfare measures also appear on the list and the management of moorland and wetland areas, what is behind it?
Bradley:
Animal welfare always sounds good, but it's like almost everything else: the goals are way too vague.
There is also no recognizable minimum standard for animal welfare.
And here, too, size counts, because the payments would then be linked to the number of animals.
So one would de facto reward industrial farms for minimal improvements and promote factory farming.
The moors, which are important for climate change, should no longer only be protected as CO2 stores, but should also be processed and drained - all under the heading "eco".
SPIEGEL:
Then there is the point in the parliamentary draft about competitiveness, which should not be restricted by the eco-regulations.
Who came up with this idea?
Bradley:
I'd like to know.
Parliamentarians who are themselves recipients of lavish agricultural subsidies have played a decisive role, above all the German EPP rapporteur.
We are very confused about this point.
The competition of the last decades, the growth or the giving way, that has just led to the current misery, to the extinction of species, to 400 million tons of CO2 emissions.
And this competition to maximize production should now be the guideline for an agricultural reform?
It looks like it has to be reworked.
Icon: The mirror
