National Council against more ecological agricultural policy

class=”sc-97fd9fa8-0 jNFKxv”>

When discussing agricultural policy from 2022, the National Council has so far rejected all applications for a more ecologically oriented agriculture. He does not want a reduction path for greenhouse gases or an expansion path for more animal welfare in the agricultural law.

The Grand Chamber voted unopposed Wednesday on agricultural policy from 2022 (AP22+); Detailed consultations will continue on Thursday. Like the Council of States, the majority of the Economic Commission of the National Council (WAK-N) does not want to set new climate targets for agriculture.

It was already the second attempt to recommend the AP22+. About two years ago, the councils shelved the bill and asked the Federal Council for a report on the outlook for the agricultural and food industries. The Federal Council subsequently re-issued the AP22+. SP, Groenen and GLP were disappointed with the proposal.

“There’s Not Much Left”

“Unfortunately, not much is left of the original agrarian reform,” criticized the reasons for Kilian Baumann (42). SP People’s Councilor Martina Munz (67) spoke of a “stripped-down light version” that the Council of States and the majority of the WAK-N would have further purified.

Munz states that the farmers’ organization has succeeded in getting all the requirements for climate and sustainability off the table. The farmers’ lobby in the federal parliament is doing agriculture a disservice. This proposal does not do enough for the climate or the farmers, adds Samuel Bendahan (42) of the SP.

The GLP determined a delaying tactic. Kathrin Bertschy (43) pointed out that the climate goals cannot be achieved without transformation in agriculture and the food industry. But, “The majority have no solutions to the need for action.”

“Label products already today”

Marcel Dettling (42) of the SVP rejected the accusation that the farmers did not move. He asked councilors if they knew what the councils’ decisions meant for reducing pesticide risks. “This affects the farmers enormously.” A further tightening followed in 2024.

Central National Councilor Markus Ritter (55) recalled the no to initiatives for pesticides, drinking water and factory farming. Those parties that failed at the time with the people now filed minority motions that contribute to the increase in the price of food.

Consumers could already opt for label products today. “The future of organic agriculture is determined at the counter,” says Ritter, chairman of the Boerenbond. The template is not the great revolutionary roll, but it is capable of winning a majority, according to Beat Walti (54) of the FDP.

On the line of the Council of States

Federal Councilor Guy Parmelin (63) refuted the criticism and also recalled the rejected agricultural initiatives. Even the implementation of the agreed guidelines to reduce the risks of pesticides gives farmers something to hold on to.

The National Council already decided on some details of the AP22+ on Wednesday, and it remained with the Council of States. SP, Groenen and GLP wanted to explicitly embed a reduction path for greenhouse gases in the agricultural law. However, the Council rejected this request by 107 votes to 81.

Such intermediate goals already exist, and therefore do not need to be mentioned separately, FDP National Councilor Olivier Feller (48) justified the negative attitude of the majority.

“No further provisions on animal welfare necessary”

Munz applied for an extension program for animal welfare, but was also defeated. Consumers want animal-friendly food, she said. Further provisions on animal welfare are not necessary, Ritter countered. The Swiss standard is already very high.

SP, Grüne and GLP also wanted to take climate and animal-friendly production into account when promoting sales, but were unable to do so. Other motions to limit sales to plant-based products or to abolish them altogether did not stand a chance. (SDA)

Source:Blick