By Rodrigo Barnuevo Fernandez

The European Union’s (EU) Green Deal initiative and Farm to Fork strategy have ignited widespread fury across the bloc, leading to protests sweeping across Europe’s major capitals. In Brussels, farmers have taken to the streets, blocking motorways and gathering in front of the European Commission, demanding immediate policy changes. Meanwhile, thousands of Spanish farmers staged a powerful demonstration last Monday, parading through the streets with their tractors and rallying at the Agricultural Ministry, coinciding with a crucial meeting of all EU agriculture ministers. In Paris, farmers have also resorted to blocking motorways, runways, and urban streets, with many also depositing manure at the entrances of major supermarkets, compounded by bold protests against President Macron. But what are the reasons and drivers of these drastic measures taken by European farmers?

The EU’s Green Deal initiative strategy aims to transform European food systems into fair, healthy, and environmentally sustainable models. These policies advocate for standardising sustainability criteria for products within the EU, as well as regulating deforestation to ensure products are not contributing to environmental degradation. Additionally, the initiative advocates to reduce the environmentally harmful and unhealthy effects of chemical pesticides. However, certain aspects of these policies have sparked outrage among farmers, as they perceive them to be burdensome and detrimental to their livelihoods. The requirement to cut chemical pesticides and antimicrobial use by 50% is seen as financially unfeasible and likely to result in losses for farmers. Moreover, farmers argue that existing EU subsidies, particularly through the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), disproportionately benefit larger agricultural enterprises, leaving smaller-scale farmers at a disadvantage. The CAP, which allocates funds primarily based on land size, favours industrialised farms, further marginalising smaller producers. As a result, small-scale farmers find themselves trapped in a cycle of increasing production costs, longer working hours, and mounting expenses. They lament the bureaucratic hurdles they face, often spending as much time on paperwork as they do in the fields. This situation leaves them feeling isolated by the Union, which they believe fails to provide adequate support to its agricultural sector. With misguided subsidies and inadequate regulation, farmers are left with a stark choice: either compromise their sustainability goals or risk bankruptcy.

These protests are exacerbated by European farmers’ perception that international competition is creating unequal conditions within the EU’s free market, particularly through free trade deals that undermine their competitiveness. The disparity in environmental and social standards required for products outside of the EU has incited anger, as these products, despite their unsustainable nature, are allowed to compete with EU products. These concerns were underscored by the bloc’s consideration of a trade agreement with Mercosur, South America’s free trade bloc, a move opposed by leaders such as Macron. Such a free trade agreement could not only jeopardise the position of EU farmers but could also be counterproductive due to the lack of adherence to the safety and environmental standards upheld by the EU. For instance, products such as beef from Brazil have been directly linked to deforestation, a critical issue that the Green Deal aims to combat. The allowance of such goods has sparked protests across Europe, with farmers feeling unfairly treated and aggrieved by the perception that farmers outside the Union are benefiting unfairly. These farmers are accused of making greater profits by using pesticides and fertilisers banned within the EU as well. Farmers argue that it is unjust for them to bear the burden of climate transition. Furthermore, international imports have led to frustration among farmers as they drive down prices for their own products. For example, the elimination of tariffs on Ukrainian exports, precipitated by Russia’s invasion in 2022, has resulted in a significant drop in grain prices that European farmers strongly oppose. In Poland, farmers have resorted to blocking borders in protest against the impact of Ukrainian exports on grain prices. These protests reveal a larger issue of polarisation within Europe, one that threatens to undermine efforts toward climate transition and the unity of the bloc.

In response to the widespread protests and mounting pressure from farmers across the continent, Union lawmakers and many of its leaders have swiftly made concessions and implemented measures aimed at diffusing tensions over stringent regulations and the escalating production costs faced by farmers. Notably, the Union has withdrawn the bill aimed at halving the use of chemical pesticides by 2030, effectively abandoning one of the key initiatives within the Farm to Fork strategy. Furthermore, proposals to reduce other pesticides by 50% have also been shelved, marking a significant reversal in the EU’s climate policy and signalling a shift towards mitigating potential damage to centrist parties in the upcoming European elections in June of 2024. European leaders have also taken proactive steps to quell protests and mitigate potential domestic fallout. As aforementioned, Macron advised Brussels against signing the long-awaited trade agreement with Mercosur which had been in the works for over two decades. By doing so, Macron sought to redirect farmers’ anger away from domestic politics and government and towards the EU. However, concerns about competitiveness have not been confined to France alone, as evidenced by calls from the Polish government to restrict Ukrainian grain imports into the EU. Nevertheless, these concessions and the apparent abandonment of the climate agenda may alienate pro-EU voters who turned out in support during the 2019 elections, potentially leading to decreased voter turnout in the upcoming elections. This poses a significant threat to the Union, as disenchanted voters may gravitate towards far-right parties, thus undermining the unity and policy coherence of the Union in the years to come. Moreover, it could also affect Ursula von der Leyen’s popularity, who has signalled her aspirations to run for a second term as head of the European Commission.

Ursula von der Leyen and the EU now face numerous challenges. While many voters remain concerned about climate change and its repercussions, a significant portion now prioritise addressing the increasing rate of inflation and the cost-of-living crisis unfolding across Europe. The discontent of the European populace, coupled with farmers’ opposition to the Green Deal, has spurred a surge in support for Eurosceptic and populist political parties in the polls leading up to June’s European elections. These parties currently hold the lead in eight countries within the Union and rank second in four countries. Much of this momentum can be attributed to far-right parties advocating for the abandonment of the climate agenda in favour of an isolationist approach.

The controversies surrounding the Green Deal, pesticides, and fertilisers underscore the inherent polarisation within the Union. Consequently, the EU is apprehensive about the potential repercussions of not appeasing the agricultural lobby. With the European elections looming, the prospect of a right-leaning parliament poses a significant threat to the Union’s policy coherence and unity regarding its climate agenda and environmental regulation. Far-right parties have opportunistically leveraged these protests to bolster their popularity ahead of the June elections. This trend, coupled with growing support for the hard right, may herald an abandonment of the climate agenda in Europe due to the socioeconomic trade-offs it imposes on the population.

To counteract this alarming trend, the EU and its leaders must prioritise measures to address the root causes of discontent rather than making excessive concessions that could further fuel protests. This could include providing additional subsidies for smaller-scale farmers, streamlining bureaucracy in the agricultural sector, and implementing safeguards to protect the industry against unregulated foreign exports that fail to meet environmental and safety standards. Additionally, the EU must adopt a proactive stance in advocating for global compliance with environmental regulations and ensuring fair treatment for its farmers. Only by adopting such measures can the EU maintain its leadership role in the global climate transition and safeguard its unity and policy coherence in the face of mounting challenges.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own, and may not reflect the opinions of The St Andrews Economist.

Image: Le Monde https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/02/27/eu-leaders-call-for-targeted-review-of-cap-to-calm-farmers-protests_6563655_4.html