zemeunvalsts.lv commentary

The presidential election, disputes between coalition members, the heat and the strawberry season, as well as the destruction of the Kakhovka dam, which has unsettled parts of society, have overshadowed the debates taking place in and outside the European Parliament regarding so-called “green” legislation. If we read the relevant information, we must conclude that “in Latvia, everything happens just like in Europe”, where representatives of one set of interests point fingers at representatives of other interests, calling the latter “lobbies”, while being high-calibre professionals themselves.

A peculiarity of Latvia is that representatives of profit-making and working industries – whose work is often already excessively over-regulated – are insistently and deliberately called lobbies (given the negative connotation of this word specifically in Latvian society), as opposed to those socially active individuals who (being lobbyists themselves) advocate for something understandable to a wider circle of people, but who bear no responsibility (other than responsibility in words) for mistakes, exaggerations, or false information, and who are not criticised for their obvious, not always justified enthusiasm. This is especially important in a situation where attempts are being made in the very diverse and distinct Europe to “standardise” everything, and where many politicians and activists do not hide the fact that they base their activities on very narrow information provided by a few sources or leaders, without grasping the wider field.

For many in Latvia, the creation of “green” laws and the discussions surrounding them are much, much more significant than real problems or catastrophes (such as the aforementioned Kakhovka dam). A naive question – is environmental protection more important, or the pile of documents which, if read carefully, allow for so much (to restrict, to disallow, to complain, etc.)... The problem is clearly visible in a situation that is rarely analysed seriously, namely, that rules, regulations, and requirements are written by those who, in their daily lives, have not the slightest connection to their compliance or implementation. It is not for nothing that in recent disputes about the introduction or change of various rules, very little is said about the situation in nature (or the real situation at all), with more time being devoted to what is “written in rule A, which is required by regulation B, and which might contradict directive C”.

This morning, a great opinion piece by Olavs Cers (partner at the law firm CersJurkāns) was published on the portal Delfi* on “green” e-scooters, which we recommend reading (quoting): “One cannot and should not write rules for every life situation. The law is not an instruction, but a model of behaviour. A sort of social intelligence. We are already drowning in various rules, but it does not help. We need to come to our senses and look around ourselves – hey, hello, reality!”*

As the European Parliament prepares for a vote on key “green” legislation, more than 3,000 scientists are criticising and condemning the “lack of scientific evidence” in the arguments used by opponents.

In an open letter to Members of the European Parliament, 3,339 scientists have rejected claims that European Union plans to limit pesticide use and restore nature will harm food security and farmers.

In recent months, the industrial agriculture lobby and the European People's Party (EPP), the largest right-wing party in the EU, have been at the forefront of the fight against “green” legislation. The EPP has called for a halt to the proposed “green” agricultural reforms. They argue that this legislation will lead to a decline in EU food production and cause widespread economic damage.

In the open letter published on 14 June, 3,339 scientists claim that these arguments are “insufficient” and “contrary” to scientific evidence.

“The greatest risks to food security arise from climate change and the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services,” says the letter, which was sent to all Members of the European Parliament. “We urge policymakers to continue the legislative procedure.”

The letter, in which the EPP is not directly mentioned, has been prepared at a crucial moment for the future of EU agriculture. On 15 June, the Parliament's Environment Committee is set to vote on nature restoration plans, which stipulate that at least 20% of the EU's land, rivers and seas will be protected by 2030. It is expected that from July, Parliament committees will vote on legislation concerning pesticides (The Sustainable Use of Pesticides Regulation (SUR)).

“The EPP's campaign of deception regarding the Nature Restoration Law and the pesticide regulation is extremely worrying,” Claire Bourgin, a representative of Friends of the Earth Europe, told DeSmog. “The EPP wants to pretend it is on the side of farmers, but in reality, it is defending a broken food system.”

One of the letter's authors, Guy Pe'er (Guy Pe'er), explained to Reuters : “If policymakers take very confident steps into a world of disinformation and a process that we now call ‘fake news’, scientists have the right to say ‘Stop!’” Responding to the letter, an EPP spokesperson said: “There is plenty of evidence that the proposals on SUR and nature restoration in general would reduce European food production, potentially turn our exports into imports, and increase food prices. Moreover, the impact on climate change would be minimal.”

The signatories of the letter claimed they want to support an “evidence-based dialogue” in the EU and its Member States.

“Pressure” on nature

Agriculture currently accounts for more than 10% of EU carbon dioxide emissions. It is also the primary cause of biodiversity loss globally. More than 80% of habitats in the EU have an inadequate protection status.

The EU announced ambitious agricultural reforms in 2020. The series of measures includes targets to drastically reduce the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilisers and to restore wild nature on land, in rivers, and in the oceans.

However, the relevant legislation has been the target of intense lobbying and has faced growing political resistance. In December, DeSmog revealed that pesticide-producing companies, including Bayer and Syngenta, and influential farming unions such as Copa-Cogeca, are using misleading narratives to delay the adoption of legislation regarding pesticides.

Since then, the EPP has called for the repeal of laws that limit pesticide use and restore nature. In May, the European Parliament's Committee on Agriculture voted against the nature restoration plans.

“When it comes to the collapse of biodiversity, we are literally standing on the edge of a cliff, which is why rejecting the nature restoration law would be a leap into the void,” the EU Commissioner for Environment, Oceans and Fisheries, Virginijus Sinkevičius, emphasised to The Guardian in May. “Rejecting the most ambitious proposal for nature restoration to date would be a dangerous and negative signal to the world that the EU and its Member States are retreating from their commitments.”

“Unfounded attack”

Opponents of the legislation put forward several claims which scientists contest. For example, it is claimed that by setting mandatory pesticide reduction targets for Member States, crop losses would be created. EPP politicians and representatives of the agricultural industry also insist that nature restoration plans would halt land use for agriculture in the EU, believing that both aforementioned measures will harm farmers and food production.

In response to these concerns, the letter, prepared by scientists from universities in Germany, the Netherlands, and other EU Member States, highlights the threats posed by a failure to limit pesticide use and by nature degradation. They cited the significant risks that climate change and biodiversity loss pose to food products and agriculture, as well as the potential for the “green” transition to create more jobs.

Due to drought caused by climate change, German farmers suffered losses of 7–8 billion euros (6–6.8 billion pounds sterling) in 2018. In total, 5.3 million farms (37%) were closed in Europe between 2005 and 2020.

“Nature protection and restoration, as well as the reduction of the use of agrochemicals and pollutants, are essential to maintain long-term production and improve food security,” write the scientists, adding that the proposed legislation “can create new employment opportunities and stimulate innovation”.

The authors pointed to the high social costs of the consequences caused by unsustainable agriculture. The indirect environmental costs caused by all land use (including agriculture) in Germany are estimated at 100 billion euros (85.5 billion pounds sterling) annually.

One of the letter's authors, Leipzig University academic Guy Pe'er, noted in a Twitter post that the attacks on “green” laws are “unfounded” and the arguments “largely rely on misleading information”.

The scientists criticised the claims that green legislation is ill-considered, given the disruptions caused by Russia's war in Ukraine. The short-term price increases in the EU do not reflect “any risk to food sovereignty or a need to increase production,” the scientists stated, assessing the industry's claims. “Europe can promote food security by reducing factors that cause food shortages globally, such as high meat consumption and the use of biofuels.”

Intense lobbying

The letter was prepared after years of intense lobbying by the pesticide, seed, and industrial agriculture sectors. Claims that the laws will affect yields are largely based on five impact assessments funded by the industry. CropLife Europe – a trade association representing Bayer, Syngenta, and other major pesticide manufacturers – paid more than €100,000 (85,000 pounds sterling) in October 2021 for a single study, which predicted that food production would decrease by 10–20%.

DeSmog already wrote last year that industry lobbyists are promoting claims about the harm caused by “green” legislation in newspapers, conferences, and private meetings with policymakers.

The industry-funded studies were widely criticised by campaigners and academics because they did not consider the expected benefits of the green reforms, nor the costs that would arise if measures were not taken in the field of climate change or biodiversity loss.

Last year, DeSmog also revealed that Copa-Cogeca had informed EU officials to review and delay green agricultural reforms at a “critical moment” for food security caused by the war in Ukraine.

Controversial evidence

In response to the letter, the EPP referred to two studies in which a decrease in agricultural production as a result of green reforms is predicted.

Among these was a study commissioned by Grain Club – a German association of grain trade organisations; in the study, large losses were predicted for several types of agricultural products, including cereals.

In another study shared by the EPP, existing studies on the impact of reforms were reviewed, predicting losses in agricultural production. However, this study concluded that the results of the existing studies reflect “the narrow scope of the analysis performed”, and found that the claims that the reforms will harm the agricultural sector are “not substantiated”.
* https://www.delfi.lv/news/versijas/olavs-cers-kurs-varenaks-skuteris-vai-saprats.d?id=55665690