The EU Commission Sinks its Proposal on Pesticides.

In a period that has shaken the agricultural and political landscape of Europe, Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, announced the withdrawal of the proposed pesticide regulation. This marks a pivotal moment in the debate on the sustainable use of plant protection products in the European Union. The EU Treaty does not obligate a withdrawal, even if the European Parliament voted against the proposal. As it was last November.  Why would the EC President ask her Commissioners to withdraw the modification of the current Pesticides’ Regulation? Is it due to lobby pressure, the opposition of some member states, or political weakness? Some Commissioners are criticizing this decision.

By eEuropa

Brussels, 26 March 2024 – 7 MIN Reading

The withdrawn of a new EU Regulation aimed at reducing the use of chemical plant protection products by 50% across European soil by 2030 was caused by a vote in the European Parliament in November 2023 and a deadlock among EU ministers. Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, the European executive institution, had no choice but to accept defeat and announce to the Strasbourg Assembly the withdrawal of this proposal.

This represents a significant political moment in the EU’s policy-making landscape.

The new Pesticides Regulation was intended to repeal Directive 2019/128/EC and to guide the agricultural sector towards more sustainable practices. However, the proposal became highly polarized, facing opposition from farmers, interest groups, and conservative political factions concerned about its impact on productivity and competitiveness.

Over 200 amendments were tabled by members of the European Parliament (EP) on the text and on 22 November 2023 the EP’s plenary voted to reject the proposal as amended: 299 MEPs voted against the Regulation (right-wing, socialists, and Greens, due to opposing interests), 207 supported it (mostly from the EPP), and 121 abstained (from left to right). The Parliament’s plenary also voted against referring the text back to the ENVI committee for reconsideration, as a strong political sign to the EU ministers and the Commission.

President Ursula von der Leyen‘s response to this controversy highlights the complex interplay of factors that influence legislative decisions within the EU. It underscores the need to listen to and consider the challenges faced by farmers in transitioning to sustainable agriculture. Does it also suggest the Commission’s weakness on the eve of its term ending? It is indeed necessary to note the growing unease among some European countries that are struggling with an approach deemed too ideologically driven regarding the ecological transition, an approach they consider harmful to national economies.

Analysis

Rumors in the corridors of the European Commission suggest that, contrary to appearances, the withdrawal of the proposal by the President of the Commission is intended to save the goal of reducing pesticide use by 50% by 2030. How? If kept, the proposal would have been stalled due to the European elections, also because the new Commission would have found itself with a proposal that was difficult both to complete and to withdraw. Instead, the new Commission will have a clean slate, free from controversies, and will thus be able to present a new proposal to successfully reduce pesticide use.

This strategic retreat can also be seen as a reflection of the nuanced considerations required to navigate the EU’s legislative process, including political viability, stakeholder opposition, and the broader implications for environmental and agricultural policy.

The Commission’s ability to propose, amend, or retract legislation is a pivotal tool for managing the complex legislative environment of the EU. The decision to withdraw the pesticide regulation proposal, driven by lobbying pressures, political considerations, and the goal of maintaining unity across European institutions and member states, highlights the dynamic nature of EU policy-making. It underscores the ongoing challenge of balancing environmental sustainability, agricultural productivity, and socio-economic factors in shaping the future of agricultural and environmental policies in the Union.

This raises important issues regarding the future of the European Union and the balance of power among its main institutions: the European Parliament, the European Commission, and the Council of the European Union, which represents the member states. The rise of member state “sovereignism” and the growing role of the European Parliament could indeed influence how power is exercised within the EU, particularly in relation to the European Commission, which serves as the EU’s executive body.

The European Parliament has gained more powers over the years, especially after the Lisbon Treaty of 2009, which expanded its legislative, budgetary, and oversight competencies. If the European elections lead to a new composition favoring more sovereigntism or EU-skeptical parties, this could change the EU’s approach to various issues, including those related to national sovereignty and the distribution of powers among its institutions.

Elections in individual member states in 2024, such as Austria, Belgium, and Portugal, can also influence the EU’s political direction through the composition of the Council of the European Union. Member states with governments that favor greater national autonomy might seek to limit the transfer of powers to the Commission or the European Parliament, thus influencing policies and decisions on a European scale.

However, it’s important to note that the EU is a complex system of multi-level governance, where consensus among different actors and institutions is key to adopting policies and legislation. The interinstitutional dynamics and relations among member states are continuously evolving, and power balances can shift based on political, economic, and social contexts.

In conclusion, the outcomes of the upcoming European and national elections could indeed be a prelude to a new phase in the power dynamics within the EU, with potential implications for the powers of the Commission. However, the extent and direction of such changes will depend on the composition of the new majorities and the political priorities of the member states’ governments and elected members of the European Parliament.

Read more on EU pesticides’ Legislation