EU Commission dilutes agricultural climate change goals following farmer protests
09 Feb 2024 --- Environmental and animal protection groups have criticized the European Commission’s (EC) new plans to weaken its agriculture-related GHG emission targets and accused policymakers of favoring discontented farmers over long-term climate change mitigation.
Critics are particularly concerned that The EU 2040 Climate Target final text, which was published this week, no longer mentions a 30% cut in non-CO2 emissions from agriculture, such as CH4 emissions from livestock and N2O emissions from soils.
But, Copa-Cogeca — an organization representing EU farmers and agri-cooperatives — is pleased that “a dialogue with farmers has finally been chosen” and welcomes the EC’s “pragmatic approach” to consider “enabling policy conditions” for GHG reductions.
The EC’s new cross-sector goal is to reduce net GHG emissions by 90% against 1990 levels, which researchers have deemed ambitious but potentially unrealistic, as the plan relies heavily on unproven technologies like carbon removal rather than fossil fuel cuts.
After the European Parliament elections, scheduled for June 2024, the next EC will propose an EU Climate Law revision to make the EU 2040 Climate Target legally binding. This week’s communication starts the process to establish a 2040 intermediary target to support the EU’s 2050 climate neutrality objective.
Farmers on the front lines
Europe’s farmers have protested in increasing numbers against new government measures since 2019. Notably, Dutch farmers opposed policies designed to reduce nitrogen deposits, which included the government purchasing and closing down livestock farms. Meanwhile, German farmers rebelled against plans to cut diesel subsidies for farming vehicles.
Environmentalists claim that policymakers have responded to farmers’ discontent in the new plan by settling on short-sighted compromises and rolling back climate policies rather than adopting necessary long-term measures.
But, according to Marta Messa, secretary general at Slow Food, an organization that promotes local food and traditional cooking, it is not a question of agriculture versus the environment.
“Farmers rely on nature — farming needs a healthy environment to prosper, especially healthy soils. However, more than 80% of habitats in Europe are in poor shape, and yields for some crops have already been hit by poor soils, a lack of water and extreme weather events,” she tells Food Ingredients First.
Marco Contiero, agriculture policy director at Greenpeace EU, adds: “Farmers are nature’s best allies, when the rules, markets and subsidies don’t force them into a desperate choice between industrial production or bankruptcy.”
“Farmers are on the front lines of the climate crisis in Europe.”
Diets and climate change
Environmentalists are also concerned that the new plan no longer recognizes the role of lifestyle changes, including dietary shifts, in bringing GHG emissions down, although it does stress the food industry’s role in making healthy diets affordable.
Eurogroup for Animals, a Brussels-based animal protection lobby group, calls the EC’s “business-as-usual” approach “short-sighted,” especially as the communication has no inclusion of a specific GHG reduction target for the agri-food sector.
“The transition to a more sustainable and high animal welfare agriculture can be an opportunity for family farms and smallholdings. The current system, dominated by price-crunching supermarkets and large companies, does not offer a future to Europe’s family-run farms,” Reineke Hameleers, CEO at Eurogroup for Animals, tells us.
European farmers are forced into industrial farming or bankruptcy by lacking sustainability regulation, say environmentalists.
“The EC’s communication has a sole focus on technological fixes, such as feed additives, instead of recognizing the necessary long-term transition away from intensive animal agriculture toward extensive farming based on agroecology and high animal welfare.”
Meanwhile, Dr. Milka Sokolovic, director general at the European Public Health Alliance, claims that the link between dietary patterns and GHG emissions is now beyond question. She says, “it is beyond understanding that the Commission has deliberately ignored it.”
A recent study from the University of Oxford, UK, found that the vegan diet has just 30% of the environmental impact of a high-meat diet.
“If we want to be serious about the climate crisis, EU policymakers must regulate food environments, and make our food choices healthy and sustainable by default. They must use the One Health approach — in all policies — as a reflex, not a slogan,” says Sokolovic.
Animals sidelined
Eurogroup for Animals also warns that the EC’s new plan will fail to provide a positive impact on animal welfare standards.
“Not rightly acknowledging the role that agriculture plays in reducing emissions could prevent us from moving away from fundamentally unsustainable models of industrial farming that prioritizes production and profit at the expense of animal welfare,” says Hameleers.
“In factory farms, animals are used as tools, unable to exhibit their natural behaviors, while they suffer greatly during transport and slaughter.”
“The external costs of animal-derived products should also be taken into account in order to have a full picture of its impact.”
The animal protection group points out that this is not the first occasion in which EU policymakers have made compromises on animal welfare. Last year, the EC failed to deliver the entire revision of its animal welfare legislation as it had promised.
By Joshua Poole
