For Ursula von der Leyen, the so-called Green Deal is one of the most important projects of their tenure. Immediately after your inauguration as President of the EU Commission promised to make Europe with this ambitious program to be a pioneer in climate protection. To achieve these objectives, the agriculture in the EU, much greener and more climate-friendly. In the process, farmers benefit from huge subsidies: In the Seven-year budget of the EU for 2021 to 2027, almost a third of the Euro should be invested in agriculture, a total of 379 billion euros. But now, a new study shows how little this system of Aid is suitable to achieve the Brussels goals. Researchers of the Swedish and Dutch universities of Lund and Utrecht, have for the cash flows of the last years lights.
According to the researchers, the main barrier for green reforms in agriculture is the so-called direct payments, which is the biggest part of the aid to farmers. The Problem here is that The amount of the sums is coupled to the surface of the enterprises and hardly requirements to be made. Some large farms, the stand anyway, mostly better than average, can obtain each year, subsidies in the millions – no matter how sustainably they operate. As much too low, the researchers criticise, however, the aid payments, the farmers, if they contribute to the preservation of biodiversity, the environment and climate protection. The show the data from the past few years, the the researchers analysed the sustainability researcher Murray Scown.
They found that in regions with high species diversity and a low emission of greenhouse gases, little payments flow, while in regions with high average incomes and intensive agriculture, the greater part arrives. Of the 54 billion Euro in subsidies paid every year to farmers, were thus only four per cent, expressly for the climate – and environmentally-friendly production methods.
Environmentalists have seen their long-standing criticism confirmed: “This study proves that the EU’s agricultural policy destroyed not only the biodiversity and the climate, it also increases the injustice in agriculture”, says Konstantin Kreiser from the nature protection Federation of Germany. The EU needs to change the agricultural subsidies dramatically. “However, the lobby pressure of the current profiteers is still stronger,” he feared.
Actually, the EU wants to reform its agricultural policy. According to the will of the member States and the European Parliament, the existing rules will apply until the end of 2022, after which new ones will enter into force. Until October, the Council of Ministers, the decision-making body of the States, and the EU Parliament from time to time to your Position, and want to – then negotiations between the two law can start the donors on the Reform. However, the discussed adjustments to the view of many climate – and environmentalists are totally inadequate. This Sunday, opponents of the current agricultural policy want to demonstrate in Koblenz. There was a Meeting of the EU agriculture Ministers begins on this day.
For years, the high will be criticized direct payments paid per hectare. Controversial is also the question of whether farmers is entitled at all subsidies, but it is. “Farmers in the EU get a lump sum of direct payments, although it is not scientifically proven that agricultural households is actually at a disadvantage socially,” says Sebastian Lakner, a Professor of agricultural Economics at the University of Rostock. “This is curious, because we put in the other incomes policy is rather strict standards at the household level, and carefully check whether someone meets the criteria for social assistance.” Lakner came in a study by 2019 to a similar result as the Dutch and Swedish researchers.
In addition, Lakner considers the basis for the calculation of direct payments for not more timely. “A current justification for these payments is missing.” In fact, the hectare amounts for each of the EU countries are based on historic values, which were determined in the fundamental agricultural reform of 1992. At that time, the farmers in the EU were not able to compete due to high costs with world market prices. So you got until then, price compensation payments, which led to the fact that the farmers supplied milk, Butter and sugar. To fix the error is to put the EU at the beginning of the nineties, on area promotion. “In the meantime, have changed the basics, and also the world market prices in the last ten years, partly at a much higher level,” says Lakner.
He also criticized the strong slope of the subsidies among the countries. While a Greek producer 420 euros per hectare, receives, gets a German 260 Euro, a Portuguese 159 Euro and Romanian new 156 Euro. “If the goal is the promotion of income – or structurally weak regions in the EU, these amounts are determined does not make sense,” says Lakner. Although the individual amounts had been adjusted over the years, such as the Eastern European and Balkan countries arrived. This is not, however, be done on the Basis of facts, but politically been negotiated.
CDU-agricultural politician announces more ambitious proposals
One of the most powerful agricultural policymaker in the EU, the MEP Norbert Lins, defended the policy of Brussels and the reform efforts. The study of the low countries, and Sweden have got it wrong “Yes, in some points,” said the Chairman of the agricultural Committee in the European Parliament. But: “We have such weak points, such as in the case of biodiversity and climate protection, recognized, and want to do this.” The Parliament’s proposals for the upcoming Reform of the common agricultural policy would be more ambitious than the original Commission proposal of 2018, he promises.
At the same time, Lins expresses criticism of this study: So was it a “giant of lack”, that you ignore only isolated on climate and environmental goals look, and other objectives such as food security. It is also problematic to compare income of farmers between member States. Relevant for the individual country to be a host, how he stands in comparison to its neighbors in their own town who are not farmers.
With regard to the announced reforms, the agricultural economist Lakner but skeptical: “Since 2005, it says he gave the reform an attempt to attempt to Reform, however, aims at the achievement of environmental little progress” on: “in fact, we are in need of profound reforms with a Transition period of ten to 15 years, in order to make the agricultural policy from the head to the feet.”
