Will the agricultural agreement lead to greening or greenwashing?

Did the European climate ambitions take a hit on Tuesday night? Climate activists and green politicians fiercely opposed a provisional agreement on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) on Wednesday. “This means continuing policies that direct large sums of tax money towards polluting industrialized agriculture,” the World Wildlife Fund said. The Dutch minister Carola Schouten (Agriculture, Christian Union) spoke of an ‘agreement that is good for nature, the environment and climate’.

Also read: Green EU policy difficult without flexible farmers

The crux of the assessment of the plans are the so-called ‘eco-schemes’, which for the first time become part of the European agricultural policy. Advocates, including the Netherlands, see this as the best way to make agricultural subsidies greener. According to critics they are a pure form of greenwashing.

Simply put, ‘eco-schemes’ mean that farmers can ‘earn’ money by devoting themselves to some form of climate- or nature-friendly agriculture. With such a reward system, farmers are encouraged to go green, is the underlying idea. The EU member states agreed on Tuesday night that in the future 20 percent of agricultural subsidies must be reserved for the eco-schemes.

‘A step forward’

The Netherlands had bet on a much higher percentage, Schouten also acknowledged on Wednesday. The fact that eco-schemes are now in any event becoming a mandatory part of the CAP is an important step forward, according to the Dutch minister. However, critics object that 20 percent is far too low to have any effect. The efforts of the European Parliament, which reached 30 percent on Tuesday, are too low, according to nature organizations and green parties. Member states may decide themselves to reserve more money for eco-schemes, but if they give their own farmers a more disadvantageous competitive position, they will not be very keen on this.

More important than the percentage is the question of which requirements will apply to the green money. Agreements about this are currently still vague, and according to climate activists, as soft as it gets. For example, should farmers strongly reduce the use of pesticides or give nature more space, or is it sufficient if they maintain the status quo? In the near future, Member States will themselves come up with proposals for what they want to reward, so it remains unclear for the time being how much ‘eco’ will end up in the schemes.

The ‘ecosystems’ are now called ‘ecoscams’ by conservationists

Schouten acknowledged on Wednesday that “it comes down to what will be included in the eco-schemes and how we assess it”. But according to the minister there are indeed agreements to monitor this closely in order to prevent ‘erosion’. Nevertheless, the first two years count as a transition period, in which countries that do not know how to set up good plans can still channel the money afterwards to ‘traditional’ agriculture.

The ‘ecosystems’ are meanwhile referred to as ‘ecoscams’ by nature conservationists. According to them, the attention to this mainly conceals that the basic conditions for receiving a subsidy will hardly change over the next seven years. The European Court of Auditors also found this year that the existing rules have not actually resulted in greener agriculture in recent years.

Also read: Will the sidewalk in Brussels be full of tractors in 2020?

Italy and Poland objected

The fact that the conditions are not tightened is partly due to the new eco-schemes: Member States such as Italy and Poland objected to too many new green ambitions at the same time. And although the Netherlands made a big effort to earmark 60 percent for eco-schemes, it would prefer to see the basic conditions a bit more flexible for that very reason. Dutch farmers perform predominantly well in Europe. If the basic conditions become stricter, especially with regard to stimulating biodiversity, they would have to jump very high in order to still qualify for an eco-scheme.

Does that mean it anyway business as usual with regard to European agricultural policy? Not quite. The Green Deal has made the European Commission much more focused on green policy. Officials express the hope and ambition to do much better control of whether the money actually ends up properly and green.

In addition, the Commission is preparing new legislation, for example stricter standards for pesticide and antibiotic use, and for the conservation of Natura 2000 sites. The fact that Brussels also exerts influence on farming practice in other ways than through subsidies is evident from the enforcement of nitrogen standards in the Netherlands.