“Farmers have been heard,” said David Clarinval, Belgium’s agriculture minister, last month after EU countries approved a recent proposal by the European Commission to relax environmental conditions in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) — the EU’s billion euro agricultural subsidy.
However, despite the council’s quick approval, protesting farmers clashed with the police on the streets of Brussels as they expressed their dissatisfaction with the state of EU agricultural policy, raising doubts about whether the measures truly address their concerns.
The proposal, which was met with widespread criticism from Green MEPs and environmental NGOs, signifies a gradual reduction in environmental ambition for the CAP, despite growing concerns about the industry’s negative impact on nature. Sixteen NGOs penned an open letter urging the commission to withdraw the proposal, condemning the opposition between the environment and agriculture as a “fake narrative” and criticizing the rapid approval as a violation of democratic principles.
The commission has defended the proposal, claiming it will enhance the CAP’s flexibility and simplicity. Key measures include relaxing environmental conditions (GAEC), granting member states greater discretion to apply exemptions, and exempting smaller farms under 10 hectares from controls entirely. Commission officials insist this targeted amendment will not compromise the CAP’s environmental goals.
However, critics argue that the move further weakens a policy that was already lacking in ambition. Faustine Bas-Defossez, a campaigner from the European Environmental Bureau, expressed concerns about the regression in environmental progress, stating that the reform does not support a transition to more sustainable practices.
Flexibility?: a race to the bottom
The current CAP, proposed by Commissioner Phil Hogan in 2018 and negotiated by the Von der Leyen Commission in 2021, aimed to enhance efficiency and flexibility through CAP Strategic Plans (CSPs), granting member states more autonomy in designing subsidy schemes.
Despite these plans being assessed against various CAP objectives, the reform’s increased flexibility seems to have led to unintended consequences. Bas-Defossez criticized the use of flexibility as a means of reducing environmental standards, rather than promoting ambition.
A 2023 study commissioned by the European Parliament echoed these sentiments, highlighting the prioritization of economic objectives over environmental goals in the CSPs and the lack of binding targets linking the CAP to the Green Deal.
Agri-exceptionalism
The commission’s failure to establish binding targets aligning the CAP with the Green Deal during reform negotiations underscores the EU’s ‘agri-exceptionalist’ governance, which isolates agricultural decision-making from broader policy coherence. The lack of integration with the Green Deal raises questions about the CAP’s environmental impact.
Experts suggest that the mismatch between legislative terms and CAP reform limited the potential for change. Wojciechowski’s perceived weakness as a commissioner, coupled with the absence of strong advocacy for agricultural reform, has left the CAP vulnerable to criticism and the challenges posed by recent crises.
As Europe grapples with the impact of the pandemic, inflation, and the war in Ukraine, the agricultural sector faces uncertainty, with opponents of the green transition using these crises to undermine environmental measures. However, experts argue that self-reliance in most crops makes these arguments unfounded.
Delaying the shift towards sustainability poses a significant threat to our food security,” argued Candel, emphasizing the impact of climate destabilization on agricultural yields.
Incentives
Despite ongoing farmer protests and the approaching European elections, member states have shown support for easing regulations proposed by EU commission president Ursula von der Leyen. The European People’s Party, led by von der Leyen, has been advocating for flexibility and resistance against key green policies in the European Parliament to protect farmers’ interests.
Regarding the Council agreement, an EU diplomat described it as a “good compromise”. The diplomat acknowledged concerns about a race to lower regulations but noted the need to address the immediate challenges faced by farmers without making their lives overly difficult.
Commissioner Wojciechowski recently suggested focusing on incentives rather than strict environmental conditions given the crises affecting farmers. He highlighted the importance of encouraging farmers through voluntary eco-schemes.
However, with the fundamental structures of the CAP remaining unchanged, such as uneven direct payment subsidies, it remains uncertain if relaxing environmental conditions and promoting voluntary incentives will meet the needs of most farmers.
Bradley criticized the rushed changes to the CAP, noting that they were primarily discussed with a limited number of farming groups and did not adequately address the issue of low prices that concern protesting farmers.
She argued that emphasizing incentives is costly and may not effectively address the problem, especially considering the varying quality and budget of eco-schemes. Some argue that the CAP itself serves as an incentive, providing subsidies with conditions attached.
In the long run, farmers will be the ones most affected by a failure to promote the transition to sustainable agriculture, warned Bas-Defossez. She emphasized the need for consistent agro-economic practices across the EU to combat climate vulnerability, citing reports of significant yield losses in Greece due to extreme weather events.
Implementing short-term solutions without addressing the root issues will only exacerbate the situation, she added.
