It has become quiet in Brussels. Now at the start of August, it is peak vacation season. Nevertheless, there are some issues that won’t give us a break over the summer (or long beyond for that matter). The climate crisis is one of them. The EU wants to reform the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) so that agriculture can do its part in addressing the climate crisis. But the German strategic plan has not gone over well – and needs to be revised. Timo Landenberger spoke with agricultural expert Aaron Scheid about the reform plans.
The climate crisis is followed by the gas crisis, that, however, affects the various countries in the EU quite differently. In a letter to German Economic Affairs Minister Robert Habeck (Greens), scientists have warned against individual countries going it alone. Latvia learned recently just how real the danger is that Russia will turn off the gas tap. Gazprom stopped supplying gas to the Baltic state. Meanwhile, Germany continues to debate the future of nuclear power.
As head of NABU’s office in Brussels, Raphael Weyland is working to ensure that nature conservation is not forgotten amid all the crises and economic pressure. In doing so, Weyland promotes not only nature conservation but also Europe: “I try to generate enthusiasm for the EU,” the 42-year-old told Jana Hemmersemeier, the author of today’s profile.
We are on schedule, stressed Cem Özdemir (Greens) at a conference of agriculture ministers of the states on Thursday. The Federal Minister of Agriculture spoke of a “big step to get planning security and an important signal in the direction of Brussels and for the farmers”.
The states supported the course taken by the German government in implementing the reform of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), Özdemir explained. The necessary adjustments to the German strategic plan could now be tackled, and approval by the EU Commission would then only be a formality. However, there was no agreement on Thursday on the particularly contentious issue of exceptions to the planned set-aside. The EU Commission had proposed to suspend environmental requirements provided for in the CAP for one year in order to safeguard production and thus react to the global food crisis.
Özdemir wants to submit the strategy plan to Brussels in September. High time for farmers, because without approval, there is no legal basis for agricultural support, which has always been the largest item in the EU budget. In the coming days and weeks, farmers have to start planning, tilling, and sowing for next year’s harvest.
The Ministry of Agriculture had submitted the strategic plan, which includes EU funding of around €30 billion in the period from 2023 to 2027, to the Commission for the first time in February after a two-month delay. Only slight adjustments had been made to the “heirloom” of the previous government in order not to drag out the process, Özdemir said Thursday. But things turned out differently.
In May, the Commission reacted with clear criticism and called for improvements, especially in environmental and climate protection and organic farming. A circumstance that was quite convenient for the Green politician Özdemir. “In fact, however, no member state submitted a strategic plan that was particularly ambitious,” says Aaron Scheid, an agricultural expert at Ecologic Institute. In most cases, only the minimum requirements were met, if at all.
In order to do justice to the sometimes large regional differences in agriculture, the CAP reform leaves the EU countries a great deal of leeway in its implementation. For this reason, the strategic plan model was introduced for the first time, coupled with the hope that some countries would lead the way and others would follow suit. But the plan backfired.
“Especially the strategic plans of the big countries like France, Spain or Italy are rather disappointing,” Scheid says. The German plan is still one of the most ambitious and contains some innovative approaches, including a focus on results in one of the eco-regulations.
Rewarding the success of a measure rather than its implementation is a promising idea that has received much praise, Scheid explains. In concrete terms, for example, farmers will not only have to maintain and care for grassland areas in the future. They must also provide “proof of at least four regional species of species-rich grassland” in order to receive payments.
Nevertheless, the German strategy plan is not fully developed and contains many ambiguities. For example, according to the coalition agreement, the federal government is aiming for a 30 percent share of organic farming in agriculture by 2030. However, the CAP strategic plan only aims for 14 percent, says Scheid. A difference that has also been criticized by the EU Commission.
The same applies to reducing the use of chemical pesticides. The EU is currently drafting a new directive to halve pesticide use across the EU. On the other hand, the measures envisaged in the German plan would only lead to sustainable pesticide use on nine percent of agricultural land.
In addition, it is still unclear how to deal with organic farms that are already implementing some of the planned measures but are already receiving subsidies for them elsewhere. “Of course, a double payment must be avoided. On the other hand, organic farms should not be disadvantaged,” says Scheid.
In its reaction to the strategic plan, the EU Commission had also criticized the level of ambition in the planned environmental and climate protection measures of the first pillar as too low. The nine measures for maintaining a “good agricultural and environmental condition” (GAEC) must be implemented by all farmers who wish to receive CAP direct payments. These include, for example, set-aside, which is now under discussion, and crop rotation. But also requirements for the preservation of grassland or the protection of peatlands.
In addition, 25 percent of CAP subsidies must be used by the EU states for so-called eco-schemes. These eco-schemes are to be voluntary for farmers, and implementation is to be rewarded accordingly in order to create incentives. Germany has defined seven such eco-schemes, including the abandonment of pesticides or the cultivation of diverse crops. However, the premiums have been criticized by the Commission and environmental associations as being too low and are now to be increased, at least in part, especially since the German strategic plan has so far earmarked only 23 percent of the money for eco-schemes.
The CAP reform is intended to increase agriculture’s contribution to environmental and climate protection. This is because the sector is still one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases, and although subsidies have actually been increasingly tied to environmental protection requirements in recent years, the balance has hardly improved.
Since 2014, for example, 30 percent of direct payments, and thus many billions, have been linked to so-called “greening“, which was supposed to improve soil quality, increase biodiversity and protect the climate and environment. It has achieved almost nothing, as a study by the Thünen Institute presented at the beginning of July once again shows.
This is now set to change. Environmentalists, however, doubt that the reform, which was only achieved in Brussels in a second attempt after tough wrangling, will really lead to changes. “There is clearly more climate and environmental protection in it than before,” says agricultural expert Scheid. “But I’m skeptical whether it really solves the problems.”
“If you want to work for environmental protection, Brussels is of course a good address,” says Raphael Weyland. That’s exactly what the 42-year-old lawyer has been doing for seven years now. On Twitter, he describes himself as a “world saver”, among other things. As head of the NABU office in Brussels, he wants to ensure that EU laws protect nature and species.
As early as his doctoral studies, Weyland was involved with the Environmental Code, and in Hamburg, he worked as a lawyer for environmental law. What he likes about his work at the EU level is that every project can have a big impact. EU law is more consistent than the laws of individual governments, he says. And: “What is decided applies immediately to a huge legal area,” says Weyland.
That’s why he has high hopes for a new EU renaturation law. The Commission made a proposal at the end of June, which the Council and Parliament must now discuss. For Raphael Weyland, this is a big step; it is the first EU project for nature and species protection in decades. “And this despite massive lobby pressure,” Weyland emphasizes.
When environmental organizations such as NABU, WWF, and others campaign in Brussels for more nature conservation, they have to assert themselves against the agricultural and forestry lobbies, among others. About 70 percent of Brussels lobbyists work for companies and their associations, according to the organization Lobby Control. “We are the antithesis of the business lobby,” says Weyland, “so it is important that we cooperate well.”
NABU is a member of the European Environmental Bureau, an association of 180 organizations. In addition to meetings with parliamentarians and council members, Weyland therefore works a lot on specialist topics, with lawyers, biologists and other experts. The exchange with so many different people is important to him.
In addition, Weyland accompanies visiting groups from Germany, discusses on panels and reports on background information from the Brussels bubble in a blog. He wants to make the EU not only greener, but also more popular: “I’m trying to generate enthusiasm for the EU.” Along with other stakeholders, he also calls for stricter monitoring of member states to ensure that they actually implement EU law. “Otherwise, citizens will eventually lose faith in it,” says the 42-year-old.
Weyland also has his sights set on the next European elections in 2024. He wants to fight to ensure that the European Green Deal remains a priority, even with a new Commission and a new Parliament. He also regularly calls for structural improvements. The EU must become more effective, more transparent, more democratic. “This,” says Weyland, “is what we have to work on every day.” Jana Hemmersemeier
It has become quiet in Brussels. Now at the start of August, it is peak vacation season. Nevertheless, there are some issues that won’t give us a break over the summer (or long beyond for that matter). The climate crisis is one of them. The EU wants to reform the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) so that agriculture can do its part in addressing the climate crisis. But the German strategic plan has not gone over well – and needs to be revised. Timo Landenberger spoke with agricultural expert Aaron Scheid about the reform plans.
The climate crisis is followed by the gas crisis, that, however, affects the various countries in the EU quite differently. In a letter to German Economic Affairs Minister Robert Habeck (Greens), scientists have warned against individual countries going it alone. Latvia learned recently just how real the danger is that Russia will turn off the gas tap. Gazprom stopped supplying gas to the Baltic state. Meanwhile, Germany continues to debate the future of nuclear power.
As head of NABU’s office in Brussels, Raphael Weyland is working to ensure that nature conservation is not forgotten amid all the crises and economic pressure. In doing so, Weyland promotes not only nature conservation but also Europe: “I try to generate enthusiasm for the EU,” the 42-year-old told Jana Hemmersemeier, the author of today’s profile.
We are on schedule, stressed Cem Özdemir (Greens) at a conference of agriculture ministers of the states on Thursday. The Federal Minister of Agriculture spoke of a “big step to get planning security and an important signal in the direction of Brussels and for the farmers”.
The states supported the course taken by the German government in implementing the reform of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), Özdemir explained. The necessary adjustments to the German strategic plan could now be tackled, and approval by the EU Commission would then only be a formality. However, there was no agreement on Thursday on the particularly contentious issue of exceptions to the planned set-aside. The EU Commission had proposed to suspend environmental requirements provided for in the CAP for one year in order to safeguard production and thus react to the global food crisis.
Özdemir wants to submit the strategy plan to Brussels in September. High time for farmers, because without approval, there is no legal basis for agricultural support, which has always been the largest item in the EU budget. In the coming days and weeks, farmers have to start planning, tilling, and sowing for next year’s harvest.
The Ministry of Agriculture had submitted the strategic plan, which includes EU funding of around €30 billion in the period from 2023 to 2027, to the Commission for the first time in February after a two-month delay. Only slight adjustments had been made to the “heirloom” of the previous government in order not to drag out the process, Özdemir said Thursday. But things turned out differently.
In May, the Commission reacted with clear criticism and called for improvements, especially in environmental and climate protection and organic farming. A circumstance that was quite convenient for the Green politician Özdemir. “In fact, however, no member state submitted a strategic plan that was particularly ambitious,” says Aaron Scheid, an agricultural expert at Ecologic Institute. In most cases, only the minimum requirements were met, if at all.
In order to do justice to the sometimes large regional differences in agriculture, the CAP reform leaves the EU countries a great deal of leeway in its implementation. For this reason, the strategic plan model was introduced for the first time, coupled with the hope that some countries would lead the way and others would follow suit. But the plan backfired.
“Especially the strategic plans of the big countries like France, Spain or Italy are rather disappointing,” Scheid says. The German plan is still one of the most ambitious and contains some innovative approaches, including a focus on results in one of the eco-regulations.
Rewarding the success of a measure rather than its implementation is a promising idea that has received much praise, Scheid explains. In concrete terms, for example, farmers will not only have to maintain and care for grassland areas in the future. They must also provide “proof of at least four regional species of species-rich grassland” in order to receive payments.
Nevertheless, the German strategy plan is not fully developed and contains many ambiguities. For example, according to the coalition agreement, the federal government is aiming for a 30 percent share of organic farming in agriculture by 2030. However, the CAP strategic plan only aims for 14 percent, says Scheid. A difference that has also been criticized by the EU Commission.
The same applies to reducing the use of chemical pesticides. The EU is currently drafting a new directive to halve pesticide use across the EU. On the other hand, the measures envisaged in the German plan would only lead to sustainable pesticide use on nine percent of agricultural land.
In addition, it is still unclear how to deal with organic farms that are already implementing some of the planned measures but are already receiving subsidies for them elsewhere. “Of course, a double payment must be avoided. On the other hand, organic farms should not be disadvantaged,” says Scheid.
In its reaction to the strategic plan, the EU Commission had also criticized the level of ambition in the planned environmental and climate protection measures of the first pillar as too low. The nine measures for maintaining a “good agricultural and environmental condition” (GAEC) must be implemented by all farmers who wish to receive CAP direct payments. These include, for example, set-aside, which is now under discussion, and crop rotation. But also requirements for the preservation of grassland or the protection of peatlands.
In addition, 25 percent of CAP subsidies must be used by the EU states for so-called eco-schemes. These eco-schemes are to be voluntary for farmers, and implementation is to be rewarded accordingly in order to create incentives. Germany has defined seven such eco-schemes, including the abandonment of pesticides or the cultivation of diverse crops. However, the premiums have been criticized by the Commission and environmental associations as being too low and are now to be increased, at least in part, especially since the German strategic plan has so far earmarked only 23 percent of the money for eco-schemes.
The CAP reform is intended to increase agriculture’s contribution to environmental and climate protection. This is because the sector is still one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases, and although subsidies have actually been increasingly tied to environmental protection requirements in recent years, the balance has hardly improved.
Since 2014, for example, 30 percent of direct payments, and thus many billions, have been linked to so-called “greening“, which was supposed to improve soil quality, increase biodiversity and protect the climate and environment. It has achieved almost nothing, as a study by the Thünen Institute presented at the beginning of July once again shows.
This is now set to change. Environmentalists, however, doubt that the reform, which was only achieved in Brussels in a second attempt after tough wrangling, will really lead to changes. “There is clearly more climate and environmental protection in it than before,” says agricultural expert Scheid. “But I’m skeptical whether it really solves the problems.”
“If you want to work for environmental protection, Brussels is of course a good address,” says Raphael Weyland. That’s exactly what the 42-year-old lawyer has been doing for seven years now. On Twitter, he describes himself as a “world saver”, among other things. As head of the NABU office in Brussels, he wants to ensure that EU laws protect nature and species.
As early as his doctoral studies, Weyland was involved with the Environmental Code, and in Hamburg, he worked as a lawyer for environmental law. What he likes about his work at the EU level is that every project can have a big impact. EU law is more consistent than the laws of individual governments, he says. And: “What is decided applies immediately to a huge legal area,” says Weyland.
That’s why he has high hopes for a new EU renaturation law. The Commission made a proposal at the end of June, which the Council and Parliament must now discuss. For Raphael Weyland, this is a big step; it is the first EU project for nature and species protection in decades. “And this despite massive lobby pressure,” Weyland emphasizes.
When environmental organizations such as NABU, WWF, and others campaign in Brussels for more nature conservation, they have to assert themselves against the agricultural and forestry lobbies, among others. About 70 percent of Brussels lobbyists work for companies and their associations, according to the organization Lobby Control. “We are the antithesis of the business lobby,” says Weyland, “so it is important that we cooperate well.”
NABU is a member of the European Environmental Bureau, an association of 180 organizations. In addition to meetings with parliamentarians and council members, Weyland therefore works a lot on specialist topics, with lawyers, biologists and other experts. The exchange with so many different people is important to him.
In addition, Weyland accompanies visiting groups from Germany, discusses on panels and reports on background information from the Brussels bubble in a blog. He wants to make the EU not only greener, but also more popular: “I’m trying to generate enthusiasm for the EU.” Along with other stakeholders, he also calls for stricter monitoring of member states to ensure that they actually implement EU law. “Otherwise, citizens will eventually lose faith in it,” says the 42-year-old.
Weyland also has his sights set on the next European elections in 2024. He wants to fight to ensure that the European Green Deal remains a priority, even with a new Commission and a new Parliament. He also regularly calls for structural improvements. The EU must become more effective, more transparent, more democratic. “This,” says Weyland, “is what we have to work on every day.” Jana Hemmersemeier
