Executive Summary

As the EU considers additional measures to address climate change, new environmental taxes targeting meat producers could soon be implemented. Denmark has led the way by introducing a carbon tax on agriculture, which will charge farmers approximately €90 per year per cow for greenhouse gas emissions. This tax, starting in 2030, aims to significantly reduce emissions and support Denmark’s goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 70% from 1990 levels by the end of the decade.

While the push for sustainability is commendable, it must be implemented in a way that considers the challenges faced the meat industry, and in particular small and medium sized producers. A collaborative effort between the government, industry, and stakeholders is needed to find solutions that protect both the environment and livelihoods.

New Proposed Taxes

Inspired by the Danish tax on cows and similar taxes proposed or imposed elsewhere, EU researchers have proposed a number of new taxes which could be imposed, many of which will have a direct impact on the meat industry.

Here are some of the potential new taxes that could impact meat producers across the EU:

Intensive Agriculture Tax

This proposed tax would apply to livestock densities per hectare, encouraging farmers to maintain lower stocking densities. Overgrazing can lead to biodiversity loss and land degradation. By taxing high livestock densities, the EU aims to promote more sustainable farming practices.

Fertiliser Levy

Already in place in Denmark, this tax on fertilisers could be extended across the EU. Fertilisers contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and water pollution. A levy would aim to reduce excessive use and promote more efficient farming methods. This is particularly relevant for meat producers, who use large quantities of fertiliser for animal feed crops.

Pesticide Tax

Similar to the fertiliser levy, a pesticide tax would discourage the use of harmful chemicals in agriculture. Meat producers, who rely on pesticides for feed crop production, would face higher costs. This tax could lead to a shift towards more sustainable pest management practices.

Wastewater Pollution Tax

This tax targets pollutants that remain after wastewater treatment, including agricultural runoff. Intensive meat production involves significant water usage and often leads to water pollution. A wastewater pollution tax would encourage meat producers to implement better waste management and pollution control measures.

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)

Although EPR primarily focuses on the lifecycle impacts of products, it could indirectly affect meat producers. EPR schemes require producers to cover the costs associated with the disposal of their products, including packaging and waste. This could increase operational costs for meat producers and incentivise the development of more sustainable packaging solutions.

Impact on the Meat Industry

These potential new taxes represent a significant shift towards internalising the environmental costs of meat production. While they aim to reduce the environmental footprint of the meat industry, they will likely result in increased production costs. Meat producers may need to innovate and adopt more sustainable practices to mitigate these costs. Additionally, consumers could see higher meat prices, potentially driving a shift towards alternative diets.

Denmark’s carbon tax serves as an example of how environmental taxation can drive change. If the EU adopts similar measures, it could influence sustainable agriculture and environmental responsibility globally. However, these changes will require careful implementation to balance environmental goals with economic impacts on the meat industry.

As the EU continues to prioritise sustainability, meat producers should prepare for these potential new taxes and consider proactive measures to reduce their environmental impact.

Commentary: A Meat Producer’s Perspective

For many meat producers struggling to keep their businesses afloat, the prospect of these new taxes is concerning. Operating on razor-thin margins and facing fierce competition, the introduction of additional taxes—such as the proposed intensive agriculture tax, fertiliser levy, and pesticide tax—could be the tipping point that pushes many out of business.

Financial Strain and Increased Costs

The intensive agriculture tax, which penalises high livestock densities, is particularly worrying for producers. A tax on this practice would force them to reduce their herds, directly cutting into revenue. Moreover, the fertiliser and pesticide taxes would increase input costs, further straining their finances. The net result for many producers will to render their business long term unviable.

Competing in a Global Market

These proposed taxes could put EU meat producers at a competitive disadvantage in the global market. There is a fear that higher production costs will make their products less competitive compared to imports from countries with less stringent environmental regulations. This could lead to a loss of market share and, ultimately, job losses in the sector. Although the EU maintains significant barriers to imports of meat from outside the EU, it is also a large exporter of meat to countries such as China, Japan, Korea, and elsewhere, with intense competition from producers based in Brazil, Australia, Argentina, and other large meat exporting countries.

Need for Support and Transition Assistance

If the EU is serious about implementing these taxes, there must be substantial support measures for meat producers. This includes financial assistance for transitioning to more sustainable practices, investment in research and development of low-emission technologies, and subsidies to offset the increased costs associated with compliance. Without such support, the burden of these taxes could be too great for many to bear.

Balancing Environmental Goals with Economic Realities

Meat producers recognise the importance of addressing climate change and environmental degradation. However, it's crucial that policymakers balance these goals with the economic realities faced by the industry. A phased approach with clear, achievable targets and robust support mechanisms is essential to ensure that producers can adapt without being driven out of business.

Sources:

1. Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment

2. True Animal Protein Price Coalition

3. Knowledge for Policy

4. SpringerLink