Some would cry hyperbole should one claim that the EU is waging a war on its own farmers.
But is it? Monday’s, November 27th event “The EU’s War on Farming,” organized by MCC Brussels, made a most compelling case that the answer, unfortunately, is ‘yes.’
MEPs on the European Parliament’s ENVI Committee on Wednesday, November 29th, passed the final text of the controversial Nature Restoration Law. Critics say the measure, which seeks to scale back agriculture, poses an existential threat to the farming industry.
After the deprivation wrought by the Second World War, European agricultural policy made securing plentiful and affordable food its key aim. For many decades, not only was the continent self-sustaining, but able to feed a growing global population with the Netherlands being the second-highest global exporter of agricultural products.
Today’s Europe takes a very different view. Now, farmers are required to cut emissions of all kinds to ‘conserve nature and protect water and wildlife.’ Already, hundreds of farmers have been bankrupted by these policies, while thousands more are on the brink. The gulf between the EU decision-makers and those on the ground has never been greater.
For some time now, The Netherlands and Flanders (the northern, Dutch-speaking part of Belgium), have been the canaries in the coal mine.
Revolt is, however, well underway. While farmers’ parties are gaining ground across Europe, in the Netherlands’ last regional elections, the Dutch Boer Burger Beweging won an astounding victory, while in last week’s national election, the eurosceptic PVV party caused one of the greatest upsets in Dutch political history.
Yet, while the local victories are encouraging, the threat emanating from Brussels persists.
More than merely illustrating how detached the EU is from the citizens’ lived experiences, Monday’s event pointed to a more sinister alliance, composed of misguided climate change ideologues, self-interested environmental groups, and big business. Farmers are indeed being singled out.
Ever-changing rules target farmers over industry
Speaking at the event, Daisy and Gunter Klaasen, Flemish poultry farmers (on whom MCC did a video profile) for eight years, related how they, despite their best efforts and costly investments to meet state-ordered environmental rules, discovered these were ever-changing.
“I am a fifth generation farmer,” said Gunter Klaasen, as he emphasized how inherently multigenerational the profession is. “You don’t become a farmer, you are born as one.”
In 2020, Klaasen and his wife Daisy got a new permit and made sizable investments, which required a loan. “We invested a couple of millions into our farm, so we could build two new stables, which would house enough chickens for us to derive an income from,” Klaasen says.
Two years later, however, the Flemish government changed the rules.
While before, the Klaasens had a so-called ‘green’ farm (i.e. one having a minimal impact on the environment), now, they have suddenly turned ‘red.’
“There really is a war going on against farmers,” Klaasen says.As a result of these new rules, they would again have to invest a few hundred thousand euros, which is an impossibility. More importantly, they are now required to bring down their chicken population by 60%, which would make their farm unprofitable.
Klaasen goes on:
An industrial company in Antwerp, I won’t mention the name, emits 18 tons of nitrogen. The government does everything in its power to give them a permit, while we, who only emit 3 tons, have to bring levels down by 60%. It is something I do not understand, it has nothing to do with nitrogen or the climate. The farmers have to reduce so that industry can grow.
Through the creation of Natura 2000 areas [sites selected by local authorities based on the occurrence of species and habitat types that enjoy EU-enforced protections], any nearby farms go from ‘green’ to ‘red’ farms overnight.
According to Klaasen, environmental organizations want the farmers’ land for themselves. For this, they
invented this nitrogen ‘problem’ and lobbied the government so that farmers will not be able to use manure on their land in the future, making that land de facto useless to a farmer.
As a logical result, Klaasen says, farmers who are unable to meet the rules, especially if they are in debt, have to sell their land. With new regulations flowing from the recently agreed upon EU Nature Restoration Law coming their way, a fellow farmer won’t always be able to buy that land.
To make matters worse, environmental groups in Flanders have a leg up on the farmers. In what is a clear conflict of interest, such groups receive subsidies of up to 80% to purchase farm land. “It is a bit like the fox guarding the henhouse. I believe it is illegal, but it is the truth. No farmer, no company, no person has ever received such subsidies,” Klaasen says.
Daisy Klaasen drily notes: “Afterwards, having purchased the land, they again get subsidies to develop it.”
She is not optimistic about what comes next for them and their two children:
At this moment, our situation is really uncertain. We just don’t know if we are going to be able to continue to farm. If we are not, we still have the loans to pay off, so we go bankrupt, not just as a business but as a family. It will haunt us for the rest of our lives, and maybe also our children’s. Instead of giving them a good future, we are destroying it.
Green policies turn farmland into wasteland
Richard Schenk, a research fellow with MCC Brussels, was present on the panel to introduce his report on the EU’s approach to its agriculture, which was released at the Monday event. In it, he points to the EU’s ambitions as being hugely detrimental to food security, rural communities, and European culture.
The report also uncovers and analyzes the politics behind the fixation with nitrogen, leading to the irrational situation where EU policy becomes about transforming farms from places that produce food to barren wastelands that can be used as bargaining chips by industrial interests to offset their emissions (through the so-called ‘emission trading’ scheme).
The environmental burden the EU has put on our farmers has, over the years, become almost unbearable. We can’t imagine Europe without them. They’re not only a stable source of income as well as food, but their style of living, their identity shapes Europe, and we need to keep them.
One myth his report busts is that farmers are not doing enough to meet the EU’s goals. “In the Netherlands, farmers cut their nitrogen emissions by 60% in the last decade; it is not like they are doing nothing,” Schenck said.
Food security is another area of concern to Schenck.
If you project the EU’s climate goals into the future, to achieve these goals, investment in new technologies is no longer sufficient. Production itself has to be cut. Where will our food be coming from? Well, we would need food imports. On paper, we would meet our climate goals, but in reality, we are not doing much for the climate.
Fellow panelist Fernand Keuleneer, a specialist in EU agricultural law, traces the current madness back to the 1992 Habitats Directive.
The idea behind it was to ask the member states to designate special conservation areas [which would later become known as Natura 2000 Protected Areas]. What we are witnessing now, such as the nitrogen crisis, is mainly the result of judicial decisions by the courts, and less so of political ones.
The Nature Restoration Law, Keuleneer said, “is the next big step,” as it would go far beyond being a mere directive. It will be an EU regulation, which means it will be directly applicable to each of the member states. “What we are seeing now, more than before, is a Europeanisation of environmental law.”
Keuleneer continues:
It expands the scope of the directive, and what has disappeared are the specific territorial protections. Basically, what we now see happening for farmers living near Natura 2000 areas could, under the Nature Restoration Law, apply to any EU territory, whether these are Natura 2000 or not. After all, by 2030, 30% of all land and sea within EU borders has to have protection status.
In addition, Keuleneer notes, the current models used to gauge deposits of harmful components in the soil are unreliable 70% of the time. This means we don’t know who is responsible for concentrations of, for example, nitrogen. “It is certainly not intelligent, nor fair, to make agriculture responsible,” he said.
Keuleneer suspects another motive behind the crackdown on farmers. “Part of the land, once bought from farmers, might actually be sold to big agriculture (Big AG). There are rumors that, starting 2030, when the climate goals are supposed to have been reached, new, ‘more reasonable’ policies will be proposed. If someone really wanted to create great opportunities for Big AG, that is exactly what they would do.”
When asked about whether he hopes for a populist pushback in the upcoming EU parliamentary elections to change things, Gunter Klaasen remains cautious:
It is possible, but it will be very difficult. First, everyone needs to understand the importance of being able to afford food that is healthy. They have to realize where their food is coming from. If protest comes only from the farmers it will be very difficult. We need to reach everyone, make them understand, and come support us. Start by appreciating the farmers who do this with all their heart, producing the food you eat every day.
Not Just the Farmers’ Fight
Some would cry hyperbole should one claim that the EU is waging a war on its own farmers.
But is it? Monday’s, November 27th event “The EU’s War on Farming,” organized by MCC Brussels, made a most compelling case that the answer, unfortunately, is ‘yes.’
MEPs on the European Parliament’s ENVI Committee on Wednesday, November 29th, passed the final text of the controversial Nature Restoration Law. Critics say the measure, which seeks to scale back agriculture, poses an existential threat to the farming industry.
After the deprivation wrought by the Second World War, European agricultural policy made securing plentiful and affordable food its key aim. For many decades, not only was the continent self-sustaining, but able to feed a growing global population with the Netherlands being the second-highest global exporter of agricultural products.
Today’s Europe takes a very different view. Now, farmers are required to cut emissions of all kinds to ‘conserve nature and protect water and wildlife.’ Already, hundreds of farmers have been bankrupted by these policies, while thousands more are on the brink. The gulf between the EU decision-makers and those on the ground has never been greater.
For some time now, The Netherlands and Flanders (the northern, Dutch-speaking part of Belgium), have been the canaries in the coal mine.
Revolt is, however, well underway. While farmers’ parties are gaining ground across Europe, in the Netherlands’ last regional elections, the Dutch Boer Burger Beweging won an astounding victory, while in last week’s national election, the eurosceptic PVV party caused one of the greatest upsets in Dutch political history.
Yet, while the local victories are encouraging, the threat emanating from Brussels persists.
More than merely illustrating how detached the EU is from the citizens’ lived experiences, Monday’s event pointed to a more sinister alliance, composed of misguided climate change ideologues, self-interested environmental groups, and big business. Farmers are indeed being singled out.
Ever-changing rules target farmers over industry
Speaking at the event, Daisy and Gunter Klaasen, Flemish poultry farmers (on whom MCC did a video profile) for eight years, related how they, despite their best efforts and costly investments to meet state-ordered environmental rules, discovered these were ever-changing.
“I am a fifth generation farmer,” said Gunter Klaasen, as he emphasized how inherently multigenerational the profession is. “You don’t become a farmer, you are born as one.”
In 2020, Klaasen and his wife Daisy got a new permit and made sizable investments, which required a loan. “We invested a couple of millions into our farm, so we could build two new stables, which would house enough chickens for us to derive an income from,” Klaasen says.
Two years later, however, the Flemish government changed the rules.
While before, the Klaasens had a so-called ‘green’ farm (i.e. one having a minimal impact on the environment), now, they have suddenly turned ‘red.’
“There really is a war going on against farmers,” Klaasen says.As a result of these new rules, they would again have to invest a few hundred thousand euros, which is an impossibility. More importantly, they are now required to bring down their chicken population by 60%, which would make their farm unprofitable.
Klaasen goes on:
Through the creation of Natura 2000 areas [sites selected by local authorities based on the occurrence of species and habitat types that enjoy EU-enforced protections], any nearby farms go from ‘green’ to ‘red’ farms overnight.
According to Klaasen, environmental organizations want the farmers’ land for themselves. For this, they
As a logical result, Klaasen says, farmers who are unable to meet the rules, especially if they are in debt, have to sell their land. With new regulations flowing from the recently agreed upon EU Nature Restoration Law coming their way, a fellow farmer won’t always be able to buy that land.
To make matters worse, environmental groups in Flanders have a leg up on the farmers. In what is a clear conflict of interest, such groups receive subsidies of up to 80% to purchase farm land. “It is a bit like the fox guarding the henhouse. I believe it is illegal, but it is the truth. No farmer, no company, no person has ever received such subsidies,” Klaasen says.
Daisy Klaasen drily notes: “Afterwards, having purchased the land, they again get subsidies to develop it.”
She is not optimistic about what comes next for them and their two children:
Green policies turn farmland into wasteland
Richard Schenk, a research fellow with MCC Brussels, was present on the panel to introduce his report on the EU’s approach to its agriculture, which was released at the Monday event. In it, he points to the EU’s ambitions as being hugely detrimental to food security, rural communities, and European culture.
The report also uncovers and analyzes the politics behind the fixation with nitrogen, leading to the irrational situation where EU policy becomes about transforming farms from places that produce food to barren wastelands that can be used as bargaining chips by industrial interests to offset their emissions (through the so-called ‘emission trading’ scheme).
One myth his report busts is that farmers are not doing enough to meet the EU’s goals. “In the Netherlands, farmers cut their nitrogen emissions by 60% in the last decade; it is not like they are doing nothing,” Schenck said.
Food security is another area of concern to Schenck.
Fellow panelist Fernand Keuleneer, a specialist in EU agricultural law, traces the current madness back to the 1992 Habitats Directive.
The Nature Restoration Law, Keuleneer said, “is the next big step,” as it would go far beyond being a mere directive. It will be an EU regulation, which means it will be directly applicable to each of the member states. “What we are seeing now, more than before, is a Europeanisation of environmental law.”
Keuleneer continues:
In addition, Keuleneer notes, the current models used to gauge deposits of harmful components in the soil are unreliable 70% of the time. This means we don’t know who is responsible for concentrations of, for example, nitrogen. “It is certainly not intelligent, nor fair, to make agriculture responsible,” he said.
Keuleneer suspects another motive behind the crackdown on farmers. “Part of the land, once bought from farmers, might actually be sold to big agriculture (Big AG). There are rumors that, starting 2030, when the climate goals are supposed to have been reached, new, ‘more reasonable’ policies will be proposed. If someone really wanted to create great opportunities for Big AG, that is exactly what they would do.”
When asked about whether he hopes for a populist pushback in the upcoming EU parliamentary elections to change things, Gunter Klaasen remains cautious:
READ NEXT
‘Islamophobia’: The Death Knell for Free Speech?
Sources Claim Islamists Preplanned Amsterdam Pogrom
St. Hedwig’s: A Clean, Well-Lighted Place