As protests by farmers against the Green Deal press demands across Europe grow louder, a regulation on natural resource recovery was adopted by the European Parliament. This adds another layer of obligation for European agriculture. The goals, both in timeline and cost, appear impractical and burdensome. The proposal also casts doubt on the left-liberal bloc, accused of wavering on set-aside policy while simultaneously pushing for renewed commitments to rebuild natural resources within the EP.
EPP – the party aligned with the Green Deal
Farmers have rallied across Europe for weeks to resist the heavy burdens the Green Deal imposes on the agri-food sector. Attempts to shift responsibility for this policy package, viewed as detrimental to European farming, have been ongoing for some time. Yet, supporters argue that the changes gained momentum from the start, including backing from the European People’s Party. In the EP, the entire PiS and PSL blocs supported the 2020 Green Deal resolution, while PiS members opposed it. Today, political leaders campaign and justify their positions, but facts remain contested.
It is also important to recall that within the European Commission, Frans Timmermans played a central role in shaping and presenting the Green Deal. His influence touched every major environmental act, including reforms to the Common Agricultural Policy, where ambitious climate and environmental targets were pushed, the Farm to Fork strategy, pesticide reduction rules, and the new resource restoration framework that he supervised.
Unrealistic targets without secured funding
The regulation is part of the Green Deal framework, drawing on the Biodiversity 2030 and Farm to Fork strategies. It introduces binding restoration targets for degraded or altered habitats at the member state level. By 2030, nations would need to rehabilitate a portion of poor habitats, with more ambitious goals through 2040 and 2050. The plan also imposes stringent biodiversity indicators for agriculture and aims to restore organic soils in drained peatlands used for farming. The writer expresses opposition, arguing the timelines are unfeasible, national conditions are uneven, costs are prohibitive, and agricultural areas would suffer as a result.
There is a lack of dedicated funding for these activities, and existing national and European funds are unlikely to cover the needed investments. The principle of non-deterioration of habitats, extending beyond Natura 2000 zones, could impact rural economies, forestry, and even urban areas—effectively affecting the entire country. Article 11 introduces tight biodiversity targets for agroecosystems, including pollinator restoration and the management of drained peatlands, with some relaxation from the original draft due to coalition votes.
The European elections as a chance to curb the push
The proposed regulation also touches on social dimensions and private property rights, raising concerns about food and energy security priorities. The goal of restoring river connectivity could be economically questionable, possibly compromising essential functions like inland navigation, water supply, and renewable energy generation. Additionally, the regulation would impose extensive planning, management, monitoring, and reporting duties that many find impractical to implement.
The public discourse has continued in recent months, with critics pointing to the leadership of Frans Timmermans and the broader political coalition that champions the Green Deal as a modern pivot in European policymaking. The June European Parliament elections are viewed by opponents as an opportunity to challenge this direction and potentially stall what they describe as Green Deal excess.