Jenna Teterin, Stanford University
Earlier this year, tractors formed barricades in highways and streets across Belgium, France, and other European Union countries. Blocking traffic with their personal machinery, European farmers protested against policies and decisions made by the EU to promote sustainable practices across industries, agriculture included. Underneath the surface, however, their protests were also shaped by the most basic rule of economics: supply and demand.
As part of the European Green New Deal, approved in 2020, the European Union’s Farm to Fork strategy included the Sustainable Use Regulation, or SUR, which aimed to reduce European use of dangerous pesticides by fifty percent by 2030. While this target was supported by many scientists and EU citizens, it was opposed by the pesticide and industrial farming industries, with lobbyists attempting to reverse and discard this policy ever since its implementation.
Countries like Germany also announced plans to reduce tax relief for diesel, directly impacting farmers’ ability to pay for the fuel necessary for their machinery—the same machinery now lining the streets of Europe.
Combined with regulations on land usage and tillage, this massive movement toward sustainability has often come at the expense of the EU’s farmers. While scientists continue to urge the EU to maintain environmental rules, the European Commission drafted a dramatic reversal of these policies in March, hoping to quell farmers’ anger.
Up until this point, the narrative points to European farmers being staunchly against sustainability. Headlines continue to point fingers, insinuating that the farmers are placing themselves above the well-being of our planet and environment. However, while some policies harming farmers have been passed to promote green initiatives, it’s a lesson taught on the first day of Econ 101 that equally contributes, if not more so, to the protests at hand.
As part of European support for Ukraine during its war with Russia, the EU pledged to waive import duties and quotas for Ukrainian agricultural products entering Western Europe, increasing competition for the very same EU farmers. Moreover, the EU has recently renewed talks surrounding a trade deal with South American countries in the Mercosur bloc, potentially raising supply further and threatening demand for European farmers’ produce. Higher supply and lower prices have meant that many farmers are no longer earning the margins they need.
To respond to the protests, the EU introduced an “emergency break” for sensitive goods leaving Ukraine such as sugar, eggs, and poultry, attempting to stop the surge in Ukrainian imports and give EU farmers a fighting chance. If imports climb above the average levels of 2022 and 2023, tariffs will once again be permitted.
Ultimately, farmers’ frustrations are rooted in the principle of fairness—they believe they’re getting the short end of the stick. While they face quotas and limits on farmland use, their competitors do not. While they are subjected to the strict EU regulations surrounding the sustainability of their produce, the free-trade deal with South America does not ensure that their competitors follow the same rules.
So even as tractors continue to block highways, it’s important to remember that the farmers of the European Union are not against a greener, more sustainable future. They don’t love to use pesticides or burn fossil fuels. They just want everyone to play fair.