Because the European right wants to prevent Brussels’ green return

The European right is determined to undermine some of the key points of the green change Brussels wants. Paradox: Those who oppose this are the MPs of the same political group, the European People’s Party (EPP), including the female Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, who made the Green Deal, the European environmental pact. flag. Europe’s largest political party, after backing the project, decided in recent months to cut its support for reversal in agriculture in the name of environmental protection, considering it a threat to food production and farmers’ livelihoods. But there is also an internal conflict between German conservatives behind the election.

Controversial laws

The EPP, which boasts the largest number of elected representatives in Strasbourg (176 out of 705) and whose key parties are in power in nine European countries, will seek the repeal of two of the most important laws: a law that plans to halve the use of pesticides by 2030 and damage harm in the same period. Law aimed at reviving one-fifth of the natural habitats that have been seen. It was von der Leyen himself who made two ambitious proposals. The decision will be made on Friday (May 5th), when EPP delegates are expected to support the initiative during their ongoing political meeting in Monaco. In the resolution leaked to the Financial Times, “We reject the proposal on pesticides … because the reduction targets chosen are simply not viable and the proposal does not provide viable alternatives to farmers.” “Unsustainable cuts in crop protection products without realistic alternatives mean significant reductions in yield,” the party document states.

Behind the camera

The right position has been in the air for a while. In December, under pressure from member states’ heads of government and agriculture ministers, the Commission agreed on a new impact assessment. The main fears are the decline in crop yields and the lack of viable alternatives in the field of biological plant protection products. According to EPP Lawmakers, the plan will not encourage investment in agriculture. The choice is certainly under pressure from two major influence blocs: agrochemicals multinationals such as Bayer-Monsanto, Syngenta and BASF on the one hand, and large agricultural corporations on the other. At a press conference just a few days ago, Copa-Cogeca president Christiane Lambert reiterated that she said “no” to radical reductions in the use of synthetic pesticides: “There is no ban without resolution,” summed up in a slogan. Another important point of the mandate of this Commission is the proposal for the law on the restoration of nature. The draft text of the EPP also rejects this rule, arguing that the current legislation already “creates a bureaucratic nightmare and a planning block, putting food security, renewable energy production at risk”. [e] critical infrastructure”. Brussels will cut 10% of its agricultural land out of production by implementing the plan, according to the critics.

regain fertility

Herbert Dorfmann, Italian MP from South Tyrol and spokesperson for the EPP’s agriculture in Strasbourg, assures that these two plans will “make a big hole in the already very meager budgets of the farmers, jeopardize the European food availability and further increase”. The Commission and much of the scientific community disagree. Restoring biodiversity will help farmers in the long run. With less degraded and more fertile soils, they would save on fertilizers and chemicals needed today to stay productive. Brussels so far, 1990 to 2030 On the other hand, the plan on chemical plant protection products, after European authorities rejected parts of the regulation from Member States, the Commission has brought to the fore on plant protection products in public spaces and nature reserves. agreed to narrow the scope of the total ban.

shadow candidate

The right’s decision will also be the result of the political crisis within the conservative group. In addition to von der Leyen, eight other commissioners are members of the EPP. His work is primarily opposed by the German party chairman, Manfred Weber, and has been openly criticizing his fellow countryman at the top of the European Commission for months. Officially, Weber argues that the change of course was due to the war in Ukraine, which increased inflation and lowered the European production level. Therefore, at this stage of the crisis, farmers must be free to maximize production. It has been rumored for months in the corridors of Brussels that Weber was actually aiming to replace von der Leyen. Either by nominating as a candidate, as he did in 2019, or by supporting Roberta Metsola, the current Maltese president of the European Parliament and also a popular member, in the next election. By undermining two key points of the Green Pact, it would show that von der Leyen failed to achieve results despite the vast majority of seats.

Villagers who revolted

Other support may come from the strong influence in some countries of farmer-led countermovements angered at national plans to reduce methane emissions and the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. A key example is the Netherlands, where the Peasants’ and Citizens’ Movement triumphed in the last state election, taking a surprisingly high number of seats in the Dutch Senate. The situation is similar in Poland, where the government led by the conservative PiS party has been challenged by farmers outraged by the measures taken to help Ukrainian wheat reach global markets. As such, conservatives fear that this and other populist parties linked to peasant movements may “steal” the consensus of right-wing parties that have traditionally received more votes in rural Europe.

Balanced votes

The right’s vote is indispensable to join the 128 of the far-right in parliament, which includes Giorgia Meloni’s Brothers of Italy. Assuming some divisions among conservatives, a key role could be played by the liberal group Renew. While officially supporting the bill, about 30 of the 101 lawmakers were able to vote against it, according to the Financial Times. This would eliminate the possibility of passing the two laws as they are currently outlined. With all due respect to bees and biodiversity.