Lady justice blending in on top of an aerial view of a monoculture with a tractor spraying pesticides.

Legal ground: the growth of agriculture litigation

What do Lake Vico in Italy, the pesticides authorisation process in France, and the river Ems in Germany all have in common? They are all linked to industrial agriculture, the impact of which has been the subject of recent court cases across the European Union. Laura Hildt explores the role of litigation in shaping a brighter EU food and farming system.  

In courts across the EU, governments are increasingly found in breach of their obligations to ensure clean and healthy water, proper risk assessments of pesticides, stable habitats and adequate greenhouse gas emission reductions. While these cases highlight local issues, they are part of a broader picture of litigation which showcases the systemic problems with the EU’s approach to agriculture.  

The EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) – Europe’s dedicated farming budget – is not working for farmers or the environment. Countless reports, studies and recent protests have demonstrated that beyond doubt. In fact, by looking at what is happening in the courts, we see that the CAP – by funding business as usual – funds a system that is leading EU governments to breach the law. 

The CAP on paper 

On paper – or rather, in law – the CAP has multiple objectives, including reducing greenhouse gas emissions, halting biodiversity loss and effectively managing natural resources such as water, soil and air. It is, after all, a third of the EU’s budget.   

When national governments implement the CAP, they must show how their plans to spend CAP money at national level achieve those objectives, including long-standing environmental obligations. Makes sense to not give out vast amounts of public money in a way that pollutes drinking water and makes governments fail their legal obligations to ensure that same water is safe and clean. Right? And yet, that is what is happening with the CAP.  

The reality 

Governments are spending public money on a system that leads them to breach the law – which results in them spending even more of the public’s money to clean up the mess. More and more courts across Europe are finding governments in breach of the Nitrates Directive, the Water Framework Directive, the Habitats Directive and even their climate obligations. All fuelled by the continued funding of intensive agricultural practices such as the excessive spreading of manure on our soils, heavy pesticides use and industrial-scale animal rearing.  

Taking action 

Who wins in this? Well, no one really. Except, those with vested interests, like Big Agri and the 20% of industrial ‘farms’ which receive 80% of the CAP budget. They make short-term profits by clinging on to the status quo, at the expense of the public – who pays the price to clean up the mess afterwards. Farmers themselves are amongst the first to be hit by the impacts of the climate, biodiversity and pollution crises – which is why they too are turning to the courts. Hugues is a Belgian farmer who is suing TotalEnergies for its contribution to the climate crisis and the impact it is having on his farm and his livelihood. Extreme weather events, such as heat waves, droughts and extreme rainfall have harmed his crops, his ability to feed his animals, and his income and workload. This has pushed Hugues to take action by turning to the courts to seek an order that TotalEnergies, one of the most-polluting companies in the world, repairs the damage inflicted and to phases out fossil fuels to prevent further damage. And this is far from the only example.  

Over at Lake Vico in Italy, the surrounding area around the lake is covered with intensive hazelnut plantations that are subjected to large amounts of pesticides and fertilisers, which ultimately run-off the land into the lake. The result: the local inhabitant’s water supply has become undrinkable due to eutrophication (excessive plant growth due to nutrient run off, in this case red algal blooms which release toxins) and overall degradation of a protected habitat. Following action from ClientEarth and Lipu (BirdLife Italy), Italy’s court ordered the region to take appropriate measures to fix the situation.   

A similar case exists for the Ems river, located in a region at the centre of meat production in Germany. To protect drinking water sources, EU law establishes a 50 mg/l limit of nitrates in groundwater. In the Ems region this figure is dramatically exceeded, and many even call for the limit to be lowered  to protect human health. German NGO, Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) took to court, which ruled in their favour and ordered the regions of Lower Saxony and North Rhine-Westphalia to take effective measures to reach the limit value of 50 mg/l in all Ems ground water bodies as quickly as possible, and to reverse the harm done.  

An essential tool 

It should not require going to court to get safe drinking water, healthy ecosystems and agricultural climate targets that align with international, EU and national legal obligations and the science. Yet, it seems like these cases are necessary, particularly while there is a broken CAP that continues to lock our agricultural system into paying to pollute rather than making the polluters pay.  

That is why we are gathering cases related to agriculture, like that of Hugues, Lake Vico and the river Ems, to demonstrate the systemic failures that sit behind these local problems, as illustrated in each court case. With more and more courts finding governments to be in breach of their long-standing obligations, the pressure is rising to move away from this woefully failing CAP and toward a brighter future of EU food and farming

Discover more

Have a look at our litigation page and check out the many different case studies to learn more!