Regarding the environmental strategy, ministers and MEPs seem to speak a different language.
There are two opposing points of view in the negotiations currently taking place in Brussels, around the new CAP (common agricultural policy).
So after three days, “a number of critical issues remain unresolved.
It was decided to postpone the discussions until the next meeting of agriculture ministers in June, ”the Council (body representing the States) indicated on Friday.
MEPs are calling for a more ambitious CAP, states speak of "pragmatism".
MEPs want to define a strict framework, with precise objectives, the States answer that "farmers should not be buried in bureaucracy".
The file is not moving forward, but environmental organizations are already denouncing the “greenwashing” of a new CAP that is not demanding enough.
Read alsoThe 27 European states agree on a greener common agricultural policy, NGOs see red
The main sticking point?
The key issue of "eco-regimes", bonuses granted to farmers participating in demanding environmental programs.
MEPs initially demanded that they represent at least 30% of direct payments to farmers.
States have said they are ready to accept a 25% threshold.
See also Common agricultural policy: proposals that France considers "unacceptable"
They also propose to reallocate unused funds on this percentage, to the chagrin of parliamentarians, who fear that this mechanism will lead to less endowment of eco-regimes.
"The ministers are only worried about unused funds, without imagining for a moment that they could prove insufficient in the face of strong demand from farmers", annoys MEP Peter Jahr.
States also want to remain free to define the content of eco-regimes, but MEPs are calling for a strict framework and the alignment of national policies with the climate objectives of the Green Deal and the EU's environmental strategies (objectives of organic crops, reduction of pesticides, biodiversity, etc.).
But for Peter Jahr, "one cannot give the impression that there are no constraints in the first years".
A deal, but not at any cost
However, the 27 countries of the EU must come to an agreement with the European Parliament.
This failure "harms European institutional balances, farmers and the environment", regretted to the press Norbert Lins (EPP, right), Parliament negotiator.
His green colleague Martin Häusling denounces a “radicalization of the position” of the ministers.
For their part, the Twenty-Seven put forward their "pragmatism": "We want to conclude an agreement, but not at any price", explains the Portuguese Minister Maria do Céu Antunes, who negotiates on behalf of the States.
“Farmers should not be buried in bureaucracy (…) We want to reward environmental practices, but it must be financially feasible,” warns German Minister Julia Klöckner.
Ministers "above ground"
States also refuse to make subsidies to farmers conditional on compliance with social standards, as demanded by social democratic MEPs.
Other issues are the subject of debate: amount and management of the crisis reserve, targeting of subsidies according to the size of farms with a redistribution mechanism for the benefit of small farmers, etc.
"Everyone must demonstrate responsibility, without economic sustainability (guarantee of farmers' income), no environmental and climatic sustainability", pleads French MP Anne Sander.
For Celia Nyssens, of the European Environment Bureau (EEB), “the week ended in a pile-up.
Agriculture ministers are above ground, ignoring science and society.
It is time to invite the environment ministers to the table ”.