It is not often that the workings of the European Parliament are elevated to such a place of national commentary. Rarer still when agricultural matters are up for consideration.
Fundamental changes to how food is produced, how nature is protected and even the use of the land under our feet is routinely subject to policy discussions among the two European parliamentary sub-committees, Com-Agri and Com-Envi, but it must be exceptional to get any coverage in national media outside of farming- and environmental-focused publications.
However, the recent debates around the nature restoration law (NRL) broke through this barrier.
While the proposal itself is particularly far-reaching, the real reasons for the attention are much more down to the political reality. With elections in 2024, much of the parliamentarians are on an election footing, which will also mean a new college of Commissioners, and the ripples of the Dutch farmers’ party BBB are still being felt across Europe. This comes just as a ‘green wave’ at the previous elections led to a much stronger mandate for action on climate and biodiversity directly leading to proposals like the Green Deal and Farm to Fork.
However, the ordinary citizen’s focus has changed a lot since 2020, the shattering of the longest period of peace in Europe with Russia’s invasion and its impact on food inflation reminded consumers that food production mattered.
Declining species
While the desire to act on climate and protect declining species remains strong, the messages about the impact of these measures on food production are getting far more of a hearing among the general population.
The key spokesperson of the Farm to Fork is, of course, European Commission vice-president Frans Timmermans, a man controversial in agricultural circles both in Brussels and his native Netherlands.
His origin is particularly fitting as Netherlands really is ground zero for much of this conflict.
The Netherlands, as one of the most intensely farmed landscapes in Europe, is perhaps ahead of the rest of Europe in this conflict.
It is also a battleground where we are seeing new tactics being worked out. Frustrated with the inaction of their government, environmentalists really showed the power of their new strategies here.
The key spokesperson of Farm to Fork is European Commission vice-president Frans Timmermans. \ EP
The successful challenge on the basis of nitrogen emissions worked using legislation governments had long accepted but sought to circumvent only for the courts to side with the environmental arguments.
This brought not only livestock farmers’ plans crashing down but spread far beyond that. Roads had their speeds limited, busy airport Schipol had its expansion shelved and harbours and industry found themselves buried under new restrictions. All entirely legally with little the government could do.
In response, we saw the rise of a political party focused heavily on these issues especially on impacts on farmers. However, farmers’ votes alone would not be enough to elect as many as BBB did.
Instead, it showed a public support for the farmers that few, including BBB themselves, expected. Some have speculated the same might be possible here and across other European countries. However, the political situation there is far more complex, with the the previous extremely successful populist party imploding, leading to an exodus of elected officials.
All of this leads directly to the recent fight over the NRL, where EU political party EPP, containing Fine Gael MEPs, positioning themselves as supporters of the farming community, campaigned hard for the law to be abandoned in its entirety. This resulted in the committee’s total rejection.
The major objection, however, seems not to be the impact of NRL directly but rather the unknown.
Into this vacuum of knowledge any claim about the impact could not be disproven.
Whether farmers along the western seaboard would be evicted or whether their existing practices would be sufficient seems unanswerable.
While the Government here has assured farmers of no or a minor impact on farmland, the reality is trust has fundamentally been undermined.
Whether restrictions seen under Natura 2000 would become even more severe remained unanswered.
Like much of Farm to Fork, the impact of these wide-reaching directives and proposals leaves farmers afraid for their future.
In this new political reality, it will only become more and more difficult to pass environmental regulations.
It is not often that the workings of the European Parliament are elevated to such a place of national commentary. Rarer still when agricultural matters are up for consideration.
Fundamental changes to how food is produced, how nature is protected and even the use of the land under our feet is routinely subject to policy discussions among the two European parliamentary sub-committees, Com-Agri and Com-Envi, but it must be exceptional to get any coverage in national media outside of farming- and environmental-focused publications.
However, the recent debates around the nature restoration law (NRL) broke through this barrier.
While the proposal itself is particularly far-reaching, the real reasons for the attention are much more down to the political reality. With elections in 2024, much of the parliamentarians are on an election footing, which will also mean a new college of Commissioners, and the ripples of the Dutch farmers’ party BBB are still being felt across Europe. This comes just as a ‘green wave’ at the previous elections led to a much stronger mandate for action on climate and biodiversity directly leading to proposals like the Green Deal and Farm to Fork.
However, the ordinary citizen’s focus has changed a lot since 2020, the shattering of the longest period of peace in Europe with Russia’s invasion and its impact on food inflation reminded consumers that food production mattered.
Declining species
While the desire to act on climate and protect declining species remains strong, the messages about the impact of these measures on food production are getting far more of a hearing among the general population.
The key spokesperson of the Farm to Fork is, of course, European Commission vice-president Frans Timmermans, a man controversial in agricultural circles both in Brussels and his native Netherlands.
His origin is particularly fitting as Netherlands really is ground zero for much of this conflict.
The Netherlands, as one of the most intensely farmed landscapes in Europe, is perhaps ahead of the rest of Europe in this conflict.
It is also a battleground where we are seeing new tactics being worked out. Frustrated with the inaction of their government, environmentalists really showed the power of their new strategies here.
The key spokesperson of Farm to Fork is European Commission vice-president Frans Timmermans. \ EP
The successful challenge on the basis of nitrogen emissions worked using legislation governments had long accepted but sought to circumvent only for the courts to side with the environmental arguments.
This brought not only livestock farmers’ plans crashing down but spread far beyond that. Roads had their speeds limited, busy airport Schipol had its expansion shelved and harbours and industry found themselves buried under new restrictions. All entirely legally with little the government could do.
In response, we saw the rise of a political party focused heavily on these issues especially on impacts on farmers. However, farmers’ votes alone would not be enough to elect as many as BBB did.
Instead, it showed a public support for the farmers that few, including BBB themselves, expected. Some have speculated the same might be possible here and across other European countries. However, the political situation there is far more complex, with the the previous extremely successful populist party imploding, leading to an exodus of elected officials.
All of this leads directly to the recent fight over the NRL, where EU political party EPP, containing Fine Gael MEPs, positioning themselves as supporters of the farming community, campaigned hard for the law to be abandoned in its entirety. This resulted in the committee’s total rejection.
The major objection, however, seems not to be the impact of NRL directly but rather the unknown.
Into this vacuum of knowledge any claim about the impact could not be disproven.
Whether farmers along the western seaboard would be evicted or whether their existing practices would be sufficient seems unanswerable.
While the Government here has assured farmers of no or a minor impact on farmland, the reality is trust has fundamentally been undermined.
Whether restrictions seen under Natura 2000 would become even more severe remained unanswered.
Like much of Farm to Fork, the impact of these wide-reaching directives and proposals leaves farmers afraid for their future.
In this new political reality, it will only become more and more difficult to pass environmental regulations.
SHARING OPTIONS