EE#25 Five questions on Farming Protests
... and how to fix them
A few weeks ago I touched on farming protests sweeping Europe and their potential to spill over into the UK. While Farmers torched Place Lux in Brussels, a group of tractors also appeared on Parliament Square, nominally to kick off about trade deals, but with a wide range of placards including some anti-net zero ones.
We need to start thinking about this challenge, quickly. To do so I turned to Georgia Berry, expert in all things sustainable and agriculture. Georgia is currently UK and EU policy lead at Patch, a company working to develop the voluntary carbon market, and has a wealth of experience in the energy sector, as an advisor in No.10 and at Future Countryside. Georgia kindly answered our five questions at Election Energy, on what the problem is, what policies we need and what the politics of change are.
What is the problem?
The anger that has fuelled farmers’ protests across France, Brussels, the Netherlands, Spain, Greece and other European Union member states is largely driven by common pressures facing the agricultural sector: high production costs, challenging environmental regulation, and low returns. The EU’s Green Deal has ambitious environmental targets and to help meet these, the Environmental Committee now has a say in the Common Agricultural Policy. National policy layered on top of EU policy can also lead to even stricter conditions, such as increasing fuel duty on subsidised farm diesel and restrictions on pesticide use. Farmers understandably feel they are at a competitive disadvantage compared to countries with lower environmental standards.
In parallel, farmers are not receiving the prices they need from wholesalers to navigate rising costs. A law was passed in France in 2018 to support farmers through expected increases in costs by absorbing these through the agrifood chain through trade negotiations, but the French government has failed to deliver.
This is set against the background of climate change which has caused extreme weather patterns from droughts and wildfires to extreme flooding, as well as political timing and a desire to be heard ahead of the European elections in June.
What does that mean for the UK?
UK farmers face similar pressures to those in European countries- high production costs, a squeeze from wholesalers, and environmental regulations such as restrictions in nitrate-vulnerable zones. They could claim to face even greater insecurity given that natural capital thinking is more embedded in our policy, bringing the risk of direct competition for land for environmental purposes. Furthermore, the EU has the Common Agricultural Policy, which accounts for approximately a third of the EU’s entire budget, but since Brexit, there has been no clarity on the overall ‘envelope’ of support beyond 2028. Farmers are standing up for themselves because their purpose as food producers looks to be being undermined.
We are in a strong position to learn from around the world and ensure our farmers don’t face pressure from all directions, which would speed up an exodus from the industry and put our food security at risk.
What should the policy response look like?
Budgets are incredibly tight, everywhere. The EU is struggling because, despite spending approximately €40 billion on agricultural subsidies, there are still unhappy farmers and public money is not delivering the climate returns needed. UK public money needs to be smart money that helps deliver food security (and increased security for farmers), climate and biodiversity returns, and health benefits. Excellent work has been carried out by the civil service in the UK’s environment ministry, Defra, to set up a framework for farmers to access new income streams for environmental services, but these are complex to access and depend upon farmers taking them up. They are also not committed beyond 2028, creating further insecurity about whether entering farming is a viable long-term prospect. How can we change this?
A powerful political lever would be to position food and farming as a pillar of our national health service. Farmers need to be recognised as central to our nation’s health. Henry Dimbleby’s National Food Strategy had many good ideas on how to improve our food industry, including public sector procurement of healthy, high-quality food, but sadly it was shelved after politicians were afraid of putting a tax on high-sugar foods amongst the cost of living crisis. By situating healthy local food as part of our health (and ideally education) service, we will be able to channel greater resources to farmers. The requirements from the Taskforce on Nature Related Disclosures for the agricultural sector, although currently another burden on farmers, will provide increased transparency on the impact of different farming practices.
Harness private sector Environmental, Social and Governance funds as well as budgets set to deliver Net Zero. Governments around the world, and bodies such as the Committee on Climate Change, point to the private sector as critical for delivering a large amount of climate action. This will have to be the case, but there is a way to go before policy is designed to truly attract private capital. In the voluntary carbon market, for example, there is no real incentive for corporates to invest beyond a desire to position themselves well before demand spikes for carbon removal credits later in the decade. And to secure good long-term prices via offtake agreements. Sector-specific targets for carbon removal, combined with a greater variety of incentives such as a direct public procurement programme, would go a long way towards scaling this market.
We already have a nascent market in biodiversity certificates and soil carbon certificates, but measurement of soil carbon in particular is expensive and certain methodologies are unreliable. What about simplifying the currently complex setup and focusing instead on farm health credits? Only food producers would be eligible (not those turning their land to other purposes) thus rewarding food production that has a positive impact on nature and climate mitigation. These are not always the same thing so different practices could be ‘stacked’ within one credit. Measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) are incredibly important, but instead of putting the financial burden on farmers and landowners, we could distribute it along the value chain (for example include them within the cost of the credit) alongside support for innovation. We talk about the social cost of carbon - this is a way of rewarding the positive social impact of sustainable food production. As for the private sector - the ‘S’ in ESG - has long been considered the poor sister, but this does not need to be the case.
A well-known request from farmers - that should be acted upon - is that we do not undermine our agricultural sector as part of wider trade deals, where we concede on food to secure other gains. We must also scrutinise the squeeze on farmers from those along the agri-food chain. The EU is exploring a compliance framework for decarbonising the agricultural sector, and a key consideration is how the entire food chain shares the burden of this cost. Finally, there has long been a call from landowners and environmentalists alike to deliver on our commitment to produce a national Land Use Framework to ensure we are planning appropriately to get the best out of our land. This should be an immediate priority.
What about the political dynamics?
There is a view that the Conservative Party is the party of the countryside, and the Labour Party doesn’t understand rural communities. This is simplistic and without historic justification. That being said, the Labour Party have been open about wanting to learn more about the needs of farming and rural communities.
It was disappointing that the Conservatives were afraid to act on the National Food Strategy and seize the opportunity to support our long-term national health, despite overwhelming scientific and economic data that a good diet provides a better quality of life and reduces the social and economic burden of chronic disease.
Deploying smart money to support food security, health and climate is an exciting opportunity available to any political party that is in power, especially given such limited budgets. In terms of a broader worldview, we have seen the impact of not protecting our farmers against burdensome competition, and that is a lesson we need to learn from.
What do we know about public opinion?
The challenges facing farmers, and how difficult daily life can be, is unlikely to be well understood across the population as we are now so removed from the actual production of food (although Clarkson’s Farm and Caleb might have increased our understanding…) We do know, however, that farmers have been associated with environmental damage to our lands and biodiversity off the back of heavy use of fertilisers and weed killers, as well as the removal of hedgerows to accommodate large farm machinery.
Again we have an opportunity to reposition our farmers as the providers not only of our food, but as key agents of our national health system, and guardians of our climate. A politician who stood up and spoke of them that way would help ensure they receive the respect they deserve.
Thanks to Georgia for her time this week, you can read more of her insights on EU Climate Policy in a recent blog at Patch. Have a good Easter