Farmers are harming themselves
Researchers give farmers a broad side on EU nature conservation law
April 5, 2024, 5:46 p.m
Listen to article
This audio version was artificially generated. More info | Send feedback
Conservatives and farmers have been campaigning for months against an EU law that is intended to build sustainable ecosystems. They claim it threatens food security in Europe. Leading European scientists are opposing this. The opposite is the case, they say.
Leading European scientists are opposing the positions of farmers and Christian Democrats in the dispute over a hotly debated EU nature conservation law. “The law is crucial for food security, biodiversity and the climate,” said the European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC). The science academies of the EU countries, Great Britain, Norway and Switzerland have come together in the organization.
The project offers a unique opportunity to reward farmers for environmentally friendly practices. Sustainable ecosystems are good for both food security in Europe and the economic interests of farmers. EASAC calls on the EU states to adopt the law as quickly as possible. “Europe’s leading scientists question the arguments put forward by opponents of the law,” the EASAC statement said.
The law aims to plant more trees in the European Union in the future and restore moors and rivers to their natural state. The European Parliament had already given the green light for the project in February. However, the project is currently on hold on the part of the EU states. Conservative politicians and farmers’ associations in particular fear a disproportionate burden on farmers. The law had already been significantly weakened due to criticism during the negotiation process.
Critics had previously argued that the law would endanger food security in Europe. The other side saw and sees this as scaremongering. The Green MEP Jutta Paulus said: “To persuade farmers that the protection of drinking water and pollinating insects is to blame for their existential problems is absurd!” Two reports show that it is possible to simultaneously ensure high yields, reduce environmental impact and improve biodiversity, EASAC said. “However, implementing the necessary measures could harm the business interests of some major players in the agricultural industry – such as the sale of pesticides and fertilizers,” said Michael Norton, EASAC co-director for environment.