On Wednesday (22 June), EU proposals to reduce pesticide use by 50% by 2030 in accordance with the Farm to Fork strategy were finally submitted in Brussels.

The Sustainable Use of Pesticides Regulation, which is scheduled to be published after a three-month delay, will be the first binding EU legislative act to require farmers to reduce the use of chemical substances. Many consider this a vital step in addressing Europe's contribution to the global climate crisis; however, agribusiness groups and several member states strongly oppose the stricter rules, and many have lobbied officials to push for the proposals to be softened.

The ongoing war in Ukraine has raised concerns about a food crisis, and the governments and parliamentarians of several member states have joined the opposition.

In an interview with Investigate Europe magazine, European Commission Executive Vice-President and European Green Deal lead Frans Timmermans explains why the legislation is essential for ensuring long-term food security and why it must not be sacrificed for short-term gains.

IE: The long-awaited regulation on pesticides will be submitted tomorrow. Are you worried about what will happen to the overall green strategy?

Timmermans: We are in a very difficult situation due to the war in Ukraine. The war poses a huge risk to food security in African and Middle Eastern countries. But to use these problems as a reason not to implement the “Farm to Fork” strategy would mean killing off the long-term health and survival of our agricultural sectors for the sake of short-term considerations.

So you insist that this is the right time to set targets for reducing pesticides and fertilisers and to make farmers change their farming practices?

When will they have to do it? Not tomorrow, not this year, not next year. We are looking at a 2030, 2040, 2050 perspective. And if we do not defend this perspective now, what will their business model be? Will they be able to continue using pesticides at this level? We cannot afford to postpone the decision. We must take measures to address the real and urgent problems facing farmers. However, the measures we take must not destroy our long-term vision of a healthy and sustainable agricultural sector.

You know, I have been working for 30 years. Whenever we propose something in agriculture, the reaction is always the same: “Postponement, retreat, not for us, but for someone else.”

Meanwhile, 70% of EU soil is currently in an unhealthy state, and 80% of that soil is agricultural land or grassland. These are scientific facts. We are losing pollinators very quickly. This is a greater threat to our long-term food security than the conflict in Ukraine, because 75% of essential food crops depend on pollination. Five billion euros per year in Europe depends directly on pollination. Please, let us separate the immediate crisis from the long-term adaptation that we need!

The regulation will propose a 50% reduction in pesticide use in Europe by 2030 and will introduce binding reduction targets for countries. This is the first time that mandatory targets for pesticide reduction will be introduced. Why are they necessary?

We need binding targets because we have tried to achieve non-binding targets before, but there was no result. Binding targets provide certainty for the industry and the agricultural sector. And, by the way, our citizens are urging us to do this. There is a great and growing awareness that ecological damage is a direct threat to us.

Citing an “emergency war crisis”, the Commission's Directorate-General for Agriculture is preparing to allow more farming in “ecologically significant areas”, giving the green light to pesticide use and not requiring crop rotation. How does that square with avoiding ecocide?

Any deviation, any departure from long-term policy must apply only to immediate problems and emergency situations. Proper treatment is only possible after a correct diagnosis has been made.

The problem is a logistics issue; you cannot get grain and corn from Ukraine and Russia to Africa and the Middle East. That is where we must focus our efforts. A recent plan is to build storage tanks to begin transportation.

And here we must use international tools, particularly the World Food Programme, to secure enough money and projects for Africa. That is our urgent priority. Personally, it makes no sense to me to use protected areas to produce even more raw materials. By the way, one of the consequences of this crisis and the incredible prices of fertilisers is that organic farming has become more profitable because you do not need Russian gas to produce fertilisers.

You are facing strong resistance from the agribusiness industry. How are you addressing these concerns?

The key question is how to involve the whole of society in this discussion. If the discussion only takes place among a group of people who have very clear interests, then of course there will be a debate. In my opinion, we are on the threshold of change. The Common Agricultural Policy has been something “sacred” for the last 30 to 40 years. And now you see that our citizens are waking up, just as they woke up in relation to the climate crisis. We must prove to the farming community that it can make a profit.

Young farmers understand this, they really do. And they want to be part of it. The farming community is not monolithic on this issue. But, of course, the agro-industrial complex is mobilising, and we have very, very confrontational debates, which I feel is happening with them all the time.

I have never attacked any Copa-Cogeca [farmers' lobby in Brussels] representative personally, but the president of Copa-Cogeca attacks me as a person all the time. I wonder why there is such aggression towards me. Is it because I am right? Could that be the reason?

Some member states argue that if Europe introduces stricter rules, the same rules should also apply to other countries. Do you consider this demand to be justified?

Yes, I agree! If we have high standards for the production of agricultural goods in Europe, then those farmers should not face unfair competition from agricultural products that do not have to comply with those high standards. However, we must also be careful not to punish farmers in the poorest countries on the planet.

The EU Commission spends a negligible amount of money on programmes that support changing the traditional agricultural model. Why is that?

It is the same as trying to get the largest oil tanker on Earth to change course. It takes time. The only thing that must be done immediately is to ensure that we do not change back to the old course, even if there are adjustments now. And what you say is extremely valid. If you look at the total budget of the Common Agricultural Policy and then at what is spent to move in the right direction, you can see that it is such a small fraction of the total budget. We need to change that.

But changing course immediately affects a great many European Union farmers. It is necessary for them to get involved. And interest groups are frightening them, making them think that what we are doing will cost them their livelihoods. Conversely, I am deeply convinced that if we do not do what we are proposing, then in 10 or 15 years, the biodiversity issue will be so dire that agriculture in Europe will not be sustainable. And then Europe will genuinely have a food crisis.

Denmark has introduced a tax on pesticides depending on their toxicity, and this has led to the most dangerous pesticides being used less. Could this be a Europe-wide model?

In my opinion, it is an interesting idea. But we must take into account that the differences between member states are so great that what works in Denmark does not always work in Italy or Spain. Therefore, I am a bit cautious, but any good idea is an idea worth exploring.

The proposal for pesticide reform is only the beginning of negotiations with member states and Parliament. Are you ready to fight?

I am fully convinced that the majority of our citizens support us. Political leaders in Europe are cautiously engaging in these debates because they know that it is very easy to lose voters if they are seen not to be helping farmers. I want to help farmers, but I want to help them in a sustainable way, not just for tomorrow, but also in ten years' time and in 20 years' time. And to achieve that, we must become sustainable.