Risks of Response: Climate Security, Climate Policy & Farmer Protests in Europe

Courtney TIllman

February 1

While much climate security analysis focuses on the direct and indirect security risks of climate hazards themselves, there is a third category of risk that receives comparatively less attention but has profound implications for the future of climate action. This category can be termed "risks of response" or the security dynamics of the ways in which governments and societies respond to the challenges posed by climate change. Both positive (policies to curb emissions) and negative (xenophobic policies to block climate-driven migration) responses to climate change can contribute to instability and security risks.

It is this third category of climate security risk that has been playing out across Europe in recent weeks. While European governments have traditionally been at the forefront of the green transition, their climate policies face a growing backlash from a key constituency: the agricultural sector. In recent months, farmers across the continent have taken to the streets in protest against a range of EU and state "greening" policies. French and Italian farmers are the latest to join the fray, blocking main roads with tractors, trucks and loads of manure, similar to actions taken by their German, Belgian and Spanish counterparts. Meanwhile, farmers in Poland, Hungary and Romania are trying to shut down border crossings with Ukraine, amid fears about cheap grain dumping. The exact context and grievance varies by country, but many of these protests are driven by concerns over the removal of diesel or other fuel subsidies, changes to the safety nets in the EU's Common Agricultural Policy, increased environmental regulations and water conservation requirements – many of which are elements of the EU's Green Deal.

Of course, peaceful protest is not inherently a security risk. Just as climate protestors gluing their hands to the floor of an art museum should not be labeled terrorists, nor should such a label be used for farmers dumping hay bales in intersections. Yet governments and security analysts must be attuned to the potential for such protests to result in violence or harm. In 2022 in the Netherlands, multiple government ministers were directly threatened at their homes over climate-related agricultural policies, with a protection vehicle set on fire. In early January, a crowd of hundreds of protesters in Germany tried to storm a ferry on which a key minister was traveling. This round of protests has also seen German politicians burned in effigy, damage to French government buildings, and even the death of a mother and child after a car crashed into a roadblock.

Beyond these acute security concerns, right wing extremist parties whose ascendance poses security risks to Europe are both driving and trying to take advantage of these protests. In the Netherlands, for example, where farmer protests against new regulations aimed at curbing emissions ignited protests in 2019, parties such as the far-right Farmers Defense Force denounced government climate-related agricultural policies as akin to launching a 'civil war'. In Germany, the federal police have warned that right-wing extremists have "infiltrated" the farmer protests to foment rioting in an effort to "overthrow" the government. Meanwhile, the far-right National Rally party in France has aligned with the increasingly violent protests, accusing President Macron of trying to "kill" French agriculture as the farmers promise a "siege" on Paris.

This rhetoric should serve as a warning sign for European policymakers, climate leaders, and security actors alike, particularly in the lead-up to consequential national and regional elections this year. According to recent polling from the European Council on Foreign Relations, populist parties are on track for massive gains in the EU elections, and are predicted to come first in nine member states - and second or third in another nine. The fallout from these demonstrations could slow the green transition on the continent, which will create longer-term security risks not only in Europe but globally if the planet continues to warm. These trends are already impacting national policy, with France reversing their position on diesel subsidies and German politicians rushing to water down proposals to phase out farmers' tax breaks.

It is also important to note that these protests come against a backdrop of climate-driven extreme weather events across Europe that also have affected farmers and agriculture in recent years, in some cases leading to violence. In France, for example, local divisions over the development of new reservoirs for agricultural use in the face of ongoing drought led to clashes with the police and military in March 2023. Such incidents are already eroding the resilience of agricultural communities, likely increasing susceptibility to anger over policy changes that farmers' may perceive as impacting their bottom line. Analysis has found that climate hazards are increasing mental health issues among farmers in many countries across the continent. At the same time, the need to respond to acute climate hazards drains government resources as well, circumscribing their ability to invest in the adaptation measures needed to manage a stable transition away from fossil fuels.

These challenges underscore the reality that there are systemic feedback loops among the different categories of climate security risk (direct, indirect and response) that policymakers must be attuned to as they attempt to manage a successful transition. Patterns seen in Europe - including the nexus between green backlash and democratic backsliding - will likely be reflected in other regions of the world, if citizens increasingly bear the necessary costs of the green transition without ameliorating measures, and as populist political forces exploit misperceptions of the green transition to advance ideological agendas. Governments should integrate such risk assessments, particularly a better understanding of risks of violence and exploitation of grievance by far-right actors, into their planning and communications strategies for climate policies going forward.