Cap Agreement Eu Vote

In this context, EEB, Birdlife, Client Earth and Greenpeace invite MEPs to vote in favour of Amendment 1147 in order to totally reject the Commission`s proposal and to vote against the entire compromise, with the exception of 4 articles (Article 13 on farm advisory services, Article 87 on climate monitoring and Article 107 &139 on mid-term revisions) during the vote. It is surprising that the vision of the Socialists & amp; Democrats for the Green Deal promises to “reform the common agricultural policy of […] important instruments for climate and sustainable development, making them fully compatible with renewed climate and environmental ambitions. [2] Despite this, they voted for the opposite. The vote ended what the organization called “a historically bad week for the future of agriculture.” The European Parliament has voted against changes to the proposed new Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and is “burying hope for real reforms” for its nearly $400 billion in funds, Friends of the Earth Europe said. Earlier this week, the President of the European Parliament, David Sassoli, changed the Parliament`s date without warning or reason in order to vote on a natural destructive agreement drawn up by the three main political groups, the Socialists, Renew and the EPP. Birdlife called the joint proposal “the kiss of death” for nature. The scandalous maneuver that preceded the vote unexpectedly and in extremis by a whole day meant that MEPs did not have time to fulfil their democratic duty. Scientists have condemned this greenwashed deal as worse than business as usual. This Friday, MEPs will close a series of natural destructive votes that will shape the future of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). During the week, Parliament hailed the agreements as good for farmers and nature, but they could not be further from the truth in both areas. National agriculture ministers and agreements between different political parties have shattered the dream of a radical change for a genuine ecological transition in line with the Green Deal, which brings us back to a past that we no longer wanted to deal with.

These compromise amendments open up key parts of the green architecture of the common agricultural policy, such as cross-compliance (Article 12, Annex III), ecosystems (Article 28) and agri-environmental programmes (Article 65). Therefore, these compromises must be rejected, either (i) on the basis of the text proposed by the European Commission, or (ii) support other options, such as plans to improve mandatory climate and environmental practices that every farmer must use to receive direct support and financial support for practices that farmers can use voluntarily, are also part of the reform package. . . .