An agriculture policy reform for farmers, consumers and the environment

The European Union slogan ‘United in diversity’ can be translated in the agriculture sector as ‘one-size-doesn’t-fit-all’. Europe is large and our farms are very different. Reflecting on this variety is what has guided the European Parliament’s work when discussing the reform of the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) over the past few months to adapt it to the challenge of fighting against climate change.

The true picture of the European farming sector is not the one of a huge industrial factory that some famous activists have been portraying. It is the picture of the small family farm, because the average size of the 10 million European farms is less than 17 hectares. Only 3 percent of them have more than 100 hectares of cultivated land and single families run the majority of those. In addition, European food production is already changing and becoming more sustainable.

The reality is that farming can only be sustainable when farmers also have a sustainable future.

The reality is that farming can only be sustainable when farmers also have a sustainable future. Our effort in the reform of the CAP has been to help those taking further steps towards production methods more beneficial for the environment, farmers and consumers alike. The EPP Group is committed to this change and aims to make it real.

We had faced all kinds of obstacles to reach a result because the original proposals from the European Commission were obsessed on fixing new regulatory targets without providing farmers the means to reach them nor explaining the consequences to the consumers. The European Commission Vice-President responsible for the ‘Green Deal’, Frans Timmermans, hid the real impact of the proposed measures for months. Attitudes like this have far from contributed to gaining the trust of farmers in their need to contribute to the global effort of reducing their impact on climate change.

Up to four different studies show the decline in agriculture production, the rise in prices and the part of our carbon footprint moving from the EU to outside as our exports turn to imports as a consequence of his proposals. Less production and an increase in prices wouldn’t be a bad thing if the money went into the farmers’ pockets instead of into those of the chain of food distribution industry.

The proposals also avoided to acknowledge that a shift for food imports would have an impact on Europe’s food safety. The European food industry, which has the responsibility of producing with prices for households of all kinds of income, those with low incomes and those willing to pay more for what they eat, would have opted to import foodstuffs to keep cheap prices, without taking into account the conditions of their production. In Europe, the use of pesticides and fertilizers is highly regulated and monitored. On the contrary, according to the European Food Safety Authority, the presence of pesticides and fertilizers in imported foodstuffs is almost three times bigger.

All these unwanted consequences of what was proposed have focused our job in the European Parliament, until we find a deal that matches the will of farmers, the wishes of the consumers and the need to contribute to the race against climate change. At the end of the day, consumers are the kings and queens and it is up to them to choose what comes onto their table. In the EPP Group, we uphold that Brussels should not master and command on whether Europeans want to eat meat, veggies or organic products.

This message has guided our work in the reform of the Common Agriculture Policy and will guide any future change. Our remit is to always listen to the farmers, find alternatives, measure the impacts and let the consumers decide.