Misinformation surrounding the Nature Restoration Law: the importance of involving farmers in decision making processes

Generation Climate Europe’s Project Leads Sarah Gangl and Sebastian Salcedo presented their latest report on Misinformation on the Nature Restoration Law (NRL) among European farmers.

At the 13th BAE Roundtable, Sarah Gangl and Sebastian Salcedo presented the “Farmers Misinformation Project”. This project aimed at analyzing the relationship between misinformation, farmers in the EU and the Nature Restoration Law. For a bit of background, the NRL was voted in June 2024 and entered into force in August 2024. This regulation was adopted in the context of the EU biodiversity strategy for 2030, published in 2020. It notably set the goals to expand protected areas to 30% on land and 30% on seas, and to restore degraded ecosystems by 2030.

Farming plays a central role in the climate and biodiversity crises. Sarah Gangl reminded that the agri-sector represents a large part of the EU’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In 2020, agriculture was responsible for 11% of the total domestic GHG emissions[1]. The generalized use of pesticides on crops also plays a large part in biodiversity loss. On the other hand, the sector is also particularly vulnerable to climate change and dependent on functioning ecosystems (pollinators, water…) which puts EU farmers in a cornerstone position of the green transition.

In 2024, groups of farmers demonstrated against EU policies and sets of obligations, particularly against environmental measures. Some expressed resentment against the Nature Restoration Law. Sarah even mentioned an “EU farm policy crisis”. They raised concerns regarding food security, economic losses, uncertain funding and stricter land use regulations. The public debate became polarized, and misinformation was spread in traditional and social media. With the use of AI, content could spread even more rapidly.

Misinformation and false statements have two main effects: undermining trust and aggravating ongoing concerns. This poses a threat to the EU democratic system which cannot function without trust in policymakers. The objectives of the project were to bring the farmers’ perspective into the discussion, to bridge the gap between misinformation and policy but also to showcase the need of transparent communication strategies as well as to offer a youth driven critical lens.

The report consists of an analysis of interviews and surveys from 13 farmers in Italy and in the Netherlands done from October 2024 to March 2025. GCE collected data related to the awareness and understanding of the NRL, the sources of information, the perceived impact of the law on their work, trust in different actors and their experience with misinformation and contradicting information.

Then, Sebastian introduced the results and the drawn conclusions of the report.

Social media was found to be the primary outlet for polarizing narratives and conflicting claims opposing the NRL. In their research, GCE found four alarming characteristics with social media. 1) it’s increasingly growing in power and influence 2) it’s the main medium for misinformation 3) it is the dominant channel for farmers to gain information 4) it’s a common source of misinformation. Overall, misinformation is a tangible threat towards environmental frameworks.

To start off, when interviewing the farmers, GCE wanted to understand their stance on the law. The farmers are not against complying with the NRL as it has environmental benefits, and nature restoration contributes to a sustainable transition. Their concerns lie within five concepts: 1) loss of income 2) changes in current practices 3) land use 4) excessive bureaucracy 5) consumer awareness.  

Regarding loss of income, this was the most recurring concern GCE found. Off-budget expenses were mentioned in most interviews, and farmers stressed that these expenses shouldn’t come out of their own pockets. Complying with new NRL objectives with constrained budgets was seen as impossible. But GCE found that there was potential misinformation with these sentiments. In R.56 of the NRL, there is no implication that the burden of reaching NRL objectives falls exclusively to farmers or landowners, but rather it falls on Member States (with collaboration with their respective agricultural sectors, of course). The bottom line is that off-budget expenses will not come from farmers, as it’s not taxed on them. GCE emphasized the necessity of a symbiotic relationship between Member State governments and their farming sectors.

In terms of changes in current practices, the main concerns expressed by farmers were in regards to pesticide and fertilizer use. The NRL does not acknowledge that there is going to be a reduction. In a general provision, it mentions that pesticides and fertilizers should be gradually phased out. The language in Annex 7 states that the use of fertilizers should not be used in high biodiverse landscapes, but it is not mandatory. This indicates that there is no full awareness of what the law implies. 

Regarding land use and concerns with land forfeiture. Many farmers expressed concerns that dedicated restoration land would take away from their productive land because they are already dealing with income losses. Land forfeit mainly refers to fallow land. Fallow land presents itself as a nature credit, which allows part of the farmer's land for vegetation to grow, to encourage pollinators and healthy soils. However, this presents an inconvenience to farmers, as the current EU Biodiversity Strategy of 2030 already says 10% of farmers' land needs to be allocated to this. 

There were many comments from the farmers in regards to excessive bureaucracy. For example, overlapping frameworks (Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), Natura 2000, NRL) and extra paperwork. Farmers mentioned they are not policy experts, so navigating these nuances is challenging. They expressed concerns with needing to keep complying with even more regulations within this complex bureaucratic system. Last year, the EU and CAP presented a simplification package which implements a system to avoid the double filing of the reports and simplified the paperwork for the farmers. There needs to be a more broader approach to addressing farmers’ concerns with bureaucracy and the NRL at the EU level. 

Lastly, consumer awareness was an area of concern. One farmer mentioned that pesticide use varies by EU countries. For example, the Netherlands restricts pesticide use more than Spain does, so Dutch produce at the supermarket tends to be more expensive than Spanish ones. A consumer might not be aware that pesticides impact the price. Consumer awareness is crucial to address in order to promote which systems and policies we, the consumer, want to act upon on a wide-spread scale. Voting with your euro does make a difference! 

Overall, it was very clear from the interviews there was a disconnect between farmer’s perspectives being included in the policy dialogue. None of the interviewees stated they were included in any dialogue or process regarding the NRL or CAP, even at the local or national level. Connecting policy knowledge with on-ground expertise enhances the validity and eventual success of agricultural strategies. 

The bottom line GCE wanted to stress is to understand and have sympathy for the farmers’ lived experiences. That is the first step towards working together with them in order to come up with well-informed and equitable solutions. This multifaceted approach is essential for Member States to take into account when they develop their Nature Restoration Plans, which will be submitted to the European Commission in 2026. 

[1] https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/Progress-and-prospects-for-decarbonisation/progress-and-prospects-for-decarbonisation