Political Hotspot December 2023
With an eye on next year’s elections, the EU institutions have geared up work on many important dossiers. But rushing legislative processes is not necessarily a good thing for food and farming.
This is clearly visible in the sped-up timeline on the Commission’s proposal on New Genomic Techniques (NGTs). Following the proposal, two parallel political processes are ongoing: negotiations in the Council of Agriculture Ministers on the one hand and negotiations and votes in the European Parliament on the other hand.
On Monday 11 December, the Council of Ministers did not agree on the text the notoriously pro-GM Spanish Presidency proposed. So, the Council does not have a position yet. However, we know that the Presidency will keep trying to convince one country to change its position on their proposal from abstention to yes – which would allow them to come to an agreement. If Spain does not manage to convince more countries to agree with their proposal, the Belgian Presidency of the Council of the EU will take over negotiations on the dossier. This would allow for more much-needed in-depth discussions.
Our press conference on 30 November showed that there are many issues with the NGT file still. In his address, Jan Plagge, President of IFOAM Organic Europe, urged Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and Member States to uphold organic farmers’ right not to use NGTs. He specifically, emphasised the need to maintain the ban of NGTs in organic production and the labelling of seed lots as laid out in the Commission’s proposal. To add to this, Bernard Lignon, Board member of IFOAM Organics Europe and sector representative for processing and trade, called on policymakers to include traceability of NGTs all along the production chain and advocated for the right of Member States to take coexistence measures to protect operators who do not want to use NGTs.
Dr. Angelika Hilbeck also vocalised the concern of many scientists that certain NGTs would be entirely exempt from risk assessments and traceability. Over 70 scientists underscored these concerns in an open letter to the Commission. The reductionistapproach associated to breeding with genetic engineering, that focuses on specific genes and traits, neglects the broader agroecological system. The systemic approach to sustainability associated to agroecology is needed to achieve better and longer-lasting resilience of a given farm. Sustainable agricultural production, cannot hinge solely on a single plant variety or trait.
Another dossier with major impact on organic and agriculture in general was voted on 22 November when the plenary of the European Parliament rejected the proposal of the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Regulation (SUR), and voted against sending the proposal back to the parliamentary committee. As a consequence, the future of the pesticides reduction regulation is highly uncertain, even if it was still discussed in the December Council of the European Union. Ahead of the parliamentary vote, sceptics of pesticide reduction amongst members of the European Parliament (MEPs) had tabled a long list of amendments weakening the regulation’s ambition. In the plenary sitting, a majority of MEPs voted in favour of these amendments, so that by the end of the session, not much was left of the Commission’s original proposal and of the compromises reached in the Environment committee –pesticide reduction, biodiversity protection nor rules for integrated pest management. The resulting text was not ambitious enough to garter approval of MEPs who had been striving for a real change in the use of pesticides in the EU. The SUR’s fate highlights, more than ever how important organic farming is for more sustainable agriculture that does not rely on synthetic pesticides.
