Introduction
Recently, the European Commission (EC) proposed amendments to certain farming laws that form the core of Europe’s sustainability and environmental preservation approach. The changes are being heavily critiqued for the potential harm that they may cause to environmental protections in the region.
Green Deal and Common Agricultural Policy
The European Green Deal is an initiative that was adopted in 2019, which proposes a new growth model for the European Union (EU). In this new model, the importance of sustainability and the creation of a green economy is to be put at the forefront. One of the primary objectives of the project was to achieve a climate-neutral European environment by 2050, aiming for a net-zero level of emissions. Another ambitious goal included reducing emissions by 90 percent by 2040. Following the introduction of the Green Deal, the EU adopted its first Climate Law, which provides legal support for the Green Deal.
The Green Deal has promised to support green investment, create stricter emission regulations, improve energy efficiency to reduce dependence on fossil fuel imports, and overall contribute to strengthening the economy. It also set a goal to especially support the workers and “put the people at the core of the transition” (European Commission, n.d.). In particular, it denotes the need to focus on farmers and people affected by climate change.
Another important set of environmental regulations in the EU is the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The policy is put in place to ensure “a stable supply of food, safeguards farmers’ income, protects the environment and keeps rural areas vibrant” ( European Commission, n.d.). CAP is much older than the Green Deal, having been launched in 1962.
The focus of CAP has always been on supporting farmers while simultaneously upholding the environmental safety of the European region. The policy has been ever-evolving since the day it entered into force. The most recent update occurred in 2023, when CAP Strategic Plans came into force in all EU countries. The aim of the Strategic Plans was to push the European agricultural sector towards more green and sustainable farming solutions.
Farmer Protests
As the regulations came into effect, not all affected workers were satisfied with them. A series of farmer protests have been held in most EU countries. Across Europe, farmers used their tractors to block roads and participate in rallies to protest excessive government regulations. In the Netherlands, farmers caused the worst traffic jam in the country’s history by organising a rally of more than 2,000 tractors in the direction of the Hague (The Guardian, 2023).
Their “last straw” in the battle with the government was the new directive on reducing nitrogen emissions. The measure implied that, to achieve the intended amount of nitrogen emissions, some farms will need to close down or downsize. The policy was formulated in a way that left the farmers wondering if they would be forced to close down, which led to increased disagreement with green regulations.
In France, farmers embarked on a similar rally and threatened to block access to Paris’s main fresh food market. They claimed that the EU regulations were “strangling” them, demanded fairer prices for their produce and increased government subsidies (The Guardian, 2024). In Germany, farmers blocked roads and city centres while protesting against cuts to agricultural subsidies. Similar protests were held in Italy, Portugal, Poland, and other countries.
Recent Loosening of the Rules for Farmers
The EC recently proposed loosening some of the environmental regulations that were part of the Green Deal and the CAP Strategic Plans. In particular, in line with the new regulations, farmers will be subject to lesser checks and will have to comply with fewer regulations. At the same time, they will have to fulfil fewer environmental obligations to obtain financial aid.
By lifting some of the regulations, the EC hinders some of the key ideas of the green regulations. For example, farmers will no longer be required to set aside land that is not being used for agriculture in order to promote biodiversity. Another measure that will no longer be compulsory is in minimising tillage of land, which will lead to a higher risk of land erosion.
New measures will result in a broader pool of farmers becoming eligible for government subsidies, which contradicts one of the core principles of the CAP: conditionality. Conditionality refers to the set of rules established to ensure the equal distribution of government aid to farmers who comply with green standards and strive to make their production more sustainable. By expanding the pool of eligible farmers, the EC takes away the incentive to comply with regulations and recommendations.
The implementation of environmental protections will also be made voluntary for some farmers. More than two-thirds of CAP beneficiaries own less than ten hectares of land, which, according to the new proposal, will exempt them from all the regulations required to receive CAP. The EC claims that the reforms will not undermine environmental legislation. It justifies the loosening of regulations by stating that new rules will be more realistic and easily achievable for farmers. They also state that previous legislation was overly focused on the environment and that, to achieve sustainability, it is also important to develop the economy.
The decision to soften green regulations may lead to serious repercussions, as outlined in the first European Environment Agency (EEA) Climate Risk Report. The Report stated that to avoid the devastating consequences of climate change, the European region needs to make every effort to halt the rise in global temperatures. The sectors that will inevitably be affected by climate change include food, water, and energy security, as well as financial stability and the health of the population.
There are several reasons for such drastic changes to the EU Green policy. The sheer scope of farmer protests all over Europe compelled the governments of Member States to confront the reality on the ground. It turns out that it is not easy to cut agricultural production when it means that some citizens will lose their livelihoods in the name of saving the environment. The proposed support measures proved insufficient to encourage the compliance of farmers.
Moreover, the EU currently faces numerous social and economic challenges. A majority of those issues require financial resource allocation, and cutting costs by reducing environmental protections may seem like a good idea to some. For example, current developments in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) bloc force Europe to focus on its militarisation and enforcing security measures. After the inauguration of the United States’ most recent president, Donald Trump, America is reluctant to continue its military support of the NATO countries. The current state of international affairs is the reason Europe must develop ways to be independent in the energy sector.
The recent surge in right-wing parties has shown that nowadays, the electorate is sympathising less and less with the green agenda. It would be unreasonable for a politician to run the green agenda when this is not the issue that the majority of the electorate cares about. Consequently, an increasing number of elected officials in European countries are urging the EU to relax its environmental regulations.
Another important aspect is inflation and food price sensitivity. The necessary environmental measures would inevitably lead to a reduction in the productive capacity of the agricultural industry, which would likely lead to higher prices. Considering the current state of the global economy, no government can afford to allow these prices to rise.
Therefore, in order to provide some short-term relief in these spheres, environmental protections may be sacrificed first. All these issues combined have brought about the current state of affairs, wherein environmental protections are pushed farther away from the current European agenda.
Human Rights Repercussions
Amidst the reforms and debates, the unfortunate misstep is the lack of recognition that environmental protections are, in fact, human rights protections. Although the right to a safe environment is not explicitly codified in human rights declarations, it is enshrined in the constitutions of many European countries.
Clean air, water, and soil are the most important components in ensuring the health and life expectancy of the country’s citizens. Global warming is also one of the most concerning and rapidly worsening problems of our times. Unless the regulations are designed to tackle existing issues and prevent their worsening, Europeans’ rights to health and life are inevitably in danger.
However, it is not only European citizens who will bear the burden of a worsening environment. Notoriously, marginalised communities are always disproportionately impacted by any and all kinds of human rights deteriorations. For example, migrants who work low-income jobs will be exposed to excessive emissions without proper regulations or protections.
Moreover, according to the EEA report, climate change poses not only environmental but also societal challenges. Given that it will definitely affect financial stability in the region, it is safe to assume that the most financially disadvantaged people will bear the most costs. In addition to marginalised populations, it is worth noting that Europeans with low incomes may also struggle to access cooling or clean water during droughts.
The implementation of recent amendments to the legislation can also be considered a breach of integrational equity – a principle recognised by the United Nations in General Comment No. 26 (2023) on children’s rights and the environment with a special focus on climate change. It states that environmental degradation endangers both children’s current development and their future opportunities.
Another important aspect is the somewhat limited attention that is paid to NGOs and environmental experts (ICCPR, Article 25). The right to participate in public affairs is a human right, and it is being violated through the disregard of warning signs that those who extensively research environmental issues raise. Civil society representatives have already made claims that it is unreasonable and harmful to reverse the limited progress made in the sphere of green legislation for short-term electoral gain. Evidently, it is also important to hear what the farmers have to say, but not at the expense of the general population’s health and future.
Conclusion
It is essential to find an approach that takes into consideration all the aspects of this complex issue that Europe is facing. On one hand, farming and farmers should be supported and provided with opportunities to conduct their agricultural activities. Whilst on the other hand, environmental regulations should not be set aside as if these problems will resolve themselves over time.
Instead of viewing environmental protections as an optional policy that can be addressed when other sectors are performing well, Europe should prioritise addressing global warming and environmental degradation as a security threat that requires immediate attention, alongside other pressing policy issues.
Bibliography
Brzeziński, B. (2024, March 13). EU takes the ax to green farming rules. Politico. <https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-takes-the-ax-to-green-farming-rules/>. Accessed 2025, June 2.
European Environment Agency. (2024, March 11). European Climate Risk Assessment. <https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/publications/european-climate-risk-assessment>.
Fortina, G. (2025, May 14). Commission unveils major plan to simplify EU’s agricultural rulebook. Euronews. <https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/05/14/commission-unveils-major-plan-to-simplify-eus-agricultural-rulebook>. Accessed 2025, June 2.
Guillot, L., Mackenzie, L. & Weizman, J. (2025, May 9). EU farm plan: More cash for disaster relief and looser green rules. Politico. <https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-farm-green-rules-enviornment-green-deal/>. Accessed 2025, June 2.
Henley, J. & Jones, S. (2024, February 10). ‘They’re drowning us in regulations’: how Europe’s furious farmers took on Brussels and won. The Guardian. <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/feb/10/theyre-drowning-us-in-regulations-how-europes-furious-farmers-took-on-brussels-and-won>. Accessed 2025, June 2
Henley, J. & Oltermann, P. German farmers block roads with tractors in subsidies protest. The Guardian. <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/08/german-farmers-block-roads-tractors-subsidies-protest>. Accessed 2025, June 2.
The European Commission. (n.d.). Agriculture and rural development. CAP Strategic Plans. <https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/cap-my-country/cap-strategic-plans_en>. Accessed 2025, June 6.
The European Commission. (n.d). Agriculture and rural development. Conditionality. <https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy/income-support/conditionality_en#gaec> Accessed 2025, June 6.
The European Commission. (n.d.). Common agricultural policy. <https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy_en#:~:text=The%20common%20agricultural%20policy%20(CAP,and%20keeps%20rural%20areas%20vibrant.>. Accessed 2025, June 6.
The European Commission. (n.d.). European Climate Law. <https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/european-climate-law_en>. Accessed 2025, June 6.
The European Commission. (n.d.). The common agricultural policy at a glance. <https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy/cap-overview/cap-glance_en>. Accessed 2025, June 6.
The European Commission. (n.d). The European Green Deal. A growth strategy that protects the climate. <https://ec.europa.eu/stories/european-green-deal/>. Accessed 2025, June 2.
The European Commission. (n.d). The European Green Deal. Striving to be the first climate-neutral continent. <https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en>. Accessed 2025, June 2.
The United Nations. (2023, August 22). CRC/C/GC/26: General comment No. 26 (2023) on children’s rights and the environment with a special focus on climate change. < https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/general-comments-and-recommendations/crccgc26-general-comment-no-26-2023-childrens-rights>
The United Nations. (1966, December 16). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. <https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights>
Tullis, P. (2023, November 16). Nitrogen wars: the Dutch farmers’ revolt that turned a nation upside-down. The Guardian. < https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/16/nitrogen-wars-the-dutch-farmers-revolt-that-turned-a-nation-upside-down>. Accessed 2025, June 2.
Willsher, K. (2024, January 29). France warns farmers that blocking Paris market will be red line in protest. The Guardian. <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/29/french-farmers-drive-tractors-towards-paris-in-blockade-threat>. Accessed 2025, June 2.Weise, Z. (2024, March 11). 5 things we learned from the EU’s big (and first) climate risk report. Politico. <https://www.politico.eu/article/5-things-we-learned-eu-first-climate-change-risk-report-eea/>. Accessed 2025, June 6.
