So, what is it that the farmers want?

Farmers across Europe say that the costs of energy, fertilizers and transport have risen, particularly in light of Russia’s war in Ukraine.

Foreign imports, particularly from Ukraine, including grain, sugar and meat, have led to discontent as farmers in eastern Europe say that competing with the lower prices is unsustainable for them.

Eurostat data shows that the prices farmers get for their produce dropped nearly 9% on average between the third quarter of 2022 and the same period in 2023, after a peak in 2022.

And then there is the climate crisis.

Extreme weather events have not only increased in frequency, they are increasingly damaging produce. Heatwaves, droughts, wildfires, floods and storms have ravaged farmland across the world, along with devastating natural systems comprised of bees and other pollinators.

Droughts account for around €9 billion in annual economic losses across the EU and the UK, according to the latest estimates, and this is projected to rise to more than €65 billion per year in the absence of climate action.

Anger has also been directed over the EU’s environmental targets.

Unveiled in December 2019, days after Ursula von der Leyen took over as president of the European Commission, the European Green Deal set a target of a net-zero EU by 2050. That meant that the European economy must no longer add a single metric tonne of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, and thus will have to offset each amount emitted with an equal amount absorbed by biomass and other systems.

An intermediate goal for 2030 would set the EU on track to reduce emissions by 55%, as compared to 1990 levels through its so-called Fit for 55 Plan.

But, agriculture-specific plans irked the farmers.

The Green Deal introduced the “From Farm to Fork” strategy to combine sustainability and economic support for producers. It included targets such as achieving 25% organic farming by 2030, reducing pesticide use by 50% and fertilizer use by 20% by 2030, devoting more land to non-agricultural use and introducing labels that highlight products’ degree of sustainability.

Its proposal also included a ban on the use of pesticides in areas such as public parks and gardens, schools and sports fields, highlighting health risks and water quality issues.

On February 6, the Commission recommended that the bloc slash net GHG emissions by 90% by 2040. But, faced with farmers’ backlash, it removed the stipulation from previous drafts that farming would need to cut non-CO2 (methane and nitrogen) emissions by 30% from 2015 levels. It also scrapped the plan to halve pesticide use, with von der Leyen saying that the proposal had become a "symbol of polarisation".

Why the controversy on non-CO2 emissions?

Farming is known to cause emissions of three greenhouse gases: The good-old carbon dioxide (CO2), its evil twin methane (CH4), and the forgotten GHG nitrous oxide (N2O). And all three have different impacts.

While CO2 is the leading contributor to temperature rise, and CH4 is responsible for nearly 45% of the net warming, N20 is said to be 300 times more potent than CO2 and is a component of acid rain. Nitrogen, or N2, constitutes 78% of the atmosphere and is harmless to life on earth, even essential in its reactive form.

But when compounds like ammonia (NH3), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and nitrous oxide (N2O) are present in high concentrations, it can be highly polluting.

N2O accounted for about 49% of agricultural emissions of greenhouse gases (in carbon dioxide equivalents) in 2021, the magazine Resources for the Future reported.

Nitrous oxide emissions largely come from chemical reactions between the atmosphere and nitrogen applied to the soil via fertilizers, with a much smaller quantity of emissions resulting from animal manure. These emissions may be released directly from fertilizer application to fields, or from water runoff from fields.

With its 'farm to fork' strategy, the EU expected to lead to a reduction in fertilizer use of at least 20%.

And then the pesticides.

While few studies calculate the emissions from pesticides over the full life-cycle (think production, storage, transport, application, breakdown), they are produced, like any other synthetic chemical, through fossil fuels. “Research has shown that the manufacture of one kilogram of pesticide requires, on average, about 10 times more energy than one kilogram of nitrogen fertilizer,” a blog post titled 'Pesticides and climate change: A vicious cycle' published on Pesticide Action Network said.

“Pesticides can also release GHG emissions after their application, with fumigant pesticides shown to significantly increase nitrous oxide production in soils. Many pesticides lead to the production of ground-level ozone, a greenhouse gas harmful to both humans and plants,” it said.

But, as the impacts of climate change intensify, crops become less resilient and higher temperatures enhance insect growth, both situations that prompt farmers to increase pesticide use.

Hence, the protests and the EU’s concessions.

“Many [farmers feel] pushed into a corner,” von der Leyen acknowledged, adding that farmers “deserve to be listened to”. But Europe’s agriculture needed to move to a more sustainable model of production that was more eco-friendly, she said.

The bloc has also announced plans to limit market disruption from Ukrainian products and delayed rules on setting aside more land to promote soil health and encourage biodiversity.

But with or without these concessions, one thing is for certain: All sectors of the economy need to make the switch to more sustainable practices. The challenge is to do that without risking the livelihoods of millions.

Cause and Effect is a weekly column in which Tannu Jain picks climate news from around the globe, and analyses its impact