NATIONAL FARMERS UNION OF CANADA 

Reading Worth Sharing during COVID-19

NFU members are deep thinkers and great writers.  This email highlights some of their work as well as insightful writing from the NFU office.

The NFU continues to speak on your behalf on daily update calls with the AAFC Minister's office.  We are providing information about Federal programs as they are made available. And -- we continually publish op eds, media releases and other documents to help both the farming community and the general public  understand the critical need for a strong farming sector and local and regional food systems that focus on food sovereignty. 

Contents

*|MC:TOC|*

---

Coronavirus: Another layer of anxiety for farmers

In an article in the Journal Pioneer, NFU-PEI District Director, Douglas Campbell, 

"challenges all Islanders to think of ways to engage government and others. We need to stop the viral threat of the industrial model of agriculture to farmers and to the land. Let’s stop saying, “when we get back to normal …” The normal is pretty disastrous for farmers and the land. We can do better than the ‘normal’. Let’s find new ways together."

We extend that challenge across the country.  Thank you, Doug, for your strong writing that captures the unease of farmers "trying to produce food within an impossible model." 

You can read all of Douglas Campbell's article here.  It is good reading and a strong call to action!

---

Food and Agriculture – Lessons from the Pandemic

The emergence of viruses in intensive livestock operations over the last 40 years is detailed by NFU member Jean-Eudes Chiasson in his insightful piece published in Acadie Nouvelle presented here.

NFU's Jean-Eudes seeks to:

"raise awareness at this point when quarantine is required, as so many of us have more time to read, to inform ourselves, to consult computerized databases available at our fingertips in order to ask questions about the food system, to discover its mechanisms, and to begin to reflect about the foods we eat, their composition, and where they come from.

Let’s also take this opportunity to think about the use of crop protection products, about their effects on consumers, about the people tasked with applying them, about the composition of fertilizers, their health impacts, as well as on animal health, about soil degradation and, on a broader scale, about everyone’s health.

It is just as important to ask ourselves about methods of production, how animals are treated, and about the farmer’s income so as to subsequently define what we really wish for: how should the food on our plates be produced and who should be the players at the base of our food chain. Let us not forget either to take a serious look at the effects of our food system on the climate.

Jean-Eudes Chiasson, Vice-President of “Ferme Terre Partagée”

This article was originally printed in French in Acadie Nouvelle. Read it in French here.  Thanks to Ronald Fournier for the professional translation.

---

Letter to Ag Minister – NFU request for AgriStablity program changes

NFU VP-Operations Stewart Wells calls on AAFC Minister Bibeau to make changes to AgriStability in this letter.  As Stewart says, "Returning to a 15% margin loss trigger and reference margin cap are improvements that can be accomplished and implemented quickly..."

---

Cuts to physician funding devastating for rural Alberta

NFU VP-Policy Glenn Norman issued this media release highlighting that rural family practices will lose their doctors under Alberta's April 1 funding cuts.  Indeed, doctors are also speaking out about this looming crisis in this CTV news coverage. 

---

In the News

NFU members are in the news while Canada (and the world) wakes up to learn how our food system works. Eaters everywhere are filled with renewed gratitude for farmers who grow/raise/produce the food and a desire to support their local & regional food systems. 

Here are just a few of the recent highlights. 

CBC story on "the next TP": locally grown seeds, which are critical for seed and food sovereignty.  NFU seed farmers, Greta Kryger, Manish Kushwaha, Katherine Rothermel and Annie Richard share the crunch they are under to keep up with orders. (Nice NFU ballcap, Annie!)

The National Observer interviews smaller-scale farmers from across the country re: COVID & Canada's food system. NFU-O's Sarah Bakker speaks hopefully from her farm: “I feel like we're going to come out of this in a new world.”  "“I want to talk about making people able to afford food, not making food affordable.”

An Ottawa Citizen story covers the uncertainty felt by Ottawa direct-to-market farmers as they lose their restaurant contracts.  NFU Youth President Stuart Oke works to have Ottawa-area farmers markets opened and the NFU sends a letter calling for OMAFRA's help to support all farmers markets as they face COVID.

You can follow more news updates on the National Farmers Union (Canada) Facebook group.  You'll be asked a few questions before you can join so we aren't plagued by spammers and trolls.

UK
‘We are angry’: green groups condemn Truss plans to scrap regulations


Nature protection rules in proposed investment zones would in effect be suspended

Liz Truss seems prepared to double down on her 

NEO-liberalisation agenda.

 Photograph: Maja Smiejkowska/Reuters


Fiona Harvey and Helena Horton

THE GUARDIAN

Mon 26 Sep 2022 

There was little room for doubt about the reaction to the prime minister’s plans to scrap environmental regulations this weekend. “Make no mistake, we are angry. This government has today launched an attack on nature,” tweeted the RSPB, its most forceful political intervention in recent memory.

Liz Truss’s proposals to create investment zones, where green rules on nature protection would in effect be suspended, represented a step too far for some of Britain’s biggest environment charities. “As of today, from Cornwall to Cumbria, Norfolk to Nottingham, wildlife is facing one of the greatest threats it’s faced in decades,” the RSPB went on.

Swiftly after came the Wildlife Trust, representing another million members and also “incredibly angry … at the unprecedented attack on nature”, and the National Trust, with more than 5 million members.

For veteran green campaigners, the strength and speed of the intervention was striking. “It’s a very strong reaction,” said Tom Burke, co-founder of the green thinktank E3G, and a veteran adviser to governments. “The government cannot have been expecting this strong a reaction.”

The list of anti-green policies from a cabinet just a few weeks old is already extensive:

New investment zones threaten a regulatory vacuum where developers can ignore rules on water quality, species conservation and space for nature.

A bonfire of EU regulations could put paid to more than 500 rules protecting the natural world, from wildlife habitats to water quality.

Fracking has been given the green light, and more than 100 new licences for oil and gas drilling will be granted in the North Sea.

A nod to onshore wind was the only low-carbon measure of any note in the “mini-budget” on Friday.

The environmental land management contracts for farmers are being reviewed. Championed as a “Brexit dividend”, Elms were meant to reward farmers for protecting nature, offering “public money for providing public goods”. Scrapping them would return the UK to subsidising intensive agricultural production at the expense of nature.

There has also been little engagement from the cabinet with key stakeholders, including green groups and farming leaders apart from the National Farmers’ Union, a supporter of scrapping Elms. Ranil Jayawardena, the secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs, has not yet met with green groups and stakeholders, a failure that Shaun Spiers, the executive director of the Green Alliance thinktank, described as “unprecedented”.

The government is still nominally committed to the UK’s legally binding net zero emissions target, and Truss had made senior appointments – including the levelling up secretary, Simon Clarke, and minister Graham Stuart – with green credentials. But green Tories are increasingly concerned.

Ben Goldsmith, the investor and chair of the Conservative Environment Network, said: “There are worrying rumours that the new Conservative ministerial team at Defra are toying with the idea of delaying or derailing the brilliant, groundbreaking new environmental land management scheme, which will link all taxpayer-funded farm payments to the stewardship and restoration of soil and nature. Losing this would of course be a disastrous backwards step, so we must hope that they are only rumours.”

Contrast this with the scene in Liverpool, where Labour opened its party conference this week with the prospect of a clean power generation system by 2030, green public procurement, a low-carbon industrial revolution, and the promise to make Britain “fairer and greener”.

On environmental policy, from fracking to farming, new “clear green water” appears to be opening up between the UK’s two main parties. Spiers warned: “We have been very proud in this country of keeping environmental issues mainstream. This should not be a culture war issue. Conservative voters in middle England don’t want to trash the countryside.”

Despite the furious reaction from mainstream green organisations, which has rattled some backbench and green Tory MPs, Truss seems prepared to double down on her liberalisation agenda even if that means antagonising them further. The Guardian understands that a mooted mollifying statement from No 10, aimed at reassuring voters and MPs in marginal seats, was ditched.

Veteran green experts warned that Truss had misjudged the public mood in her haste to forge a new rightwing radical position. “There is a giant gulf between where Liz Truss thinks the British people are, and where the British people really are,” said Burke.

But he added that green campaigners should not assume that Labour would ride to their rescue. “What parties say in opposition is not always what they do in government. There will need to be firm commitments from Labour that they will restore what the Tories are destroying.”

Doug Parr, policy director of Greenpeace, called on Truss to change course. “[Her] government has launched an indiscriminate attack on environmental rules ignoring both their own manifesto commitments and very strong public concerns about nature,” he warned.


Government poised to scrap nature ‘Brexit bonus’ for farmers

“Voters understand that we need tougher laws to protect the living world. They see water firms getting away with pumping tonnes of raw sewage into our rivers and seas while raking in huge profits, supermarkets flooding our homes with throwaway plastic, and destructive fishing plundering our marine protected areas with impunity. They can tell the difference between so-called red tape and vital rules to stop pollution and environmental harm.”

For Labour, he added, the challenge was to match a strong slate of low-carbon policies with new proposals on nature and the countryside. “This should be a political open goal for Labour. They should get their act together, seize the opportunity and make their nature protection policy as strong as their climate ones.”

Farmers threaten to quit NFU as leader backs scrapping of nature subsidies

Prominent members of farmers’ union express dismay after comments by Minette Batters

Minette Batters said she believed private money should be used to pay farmers for wildlife recovery, rather than public funds. 

Photograph: Fototek/PA


Helena Horton 

Environment reporter

THE GUARDIAN

Mon 26 Sep 2022 

Farmers are threatening to quit the National Farmers’ Union after its leader said she supported the UK government’s apparent move to scrap post-Brexit nature subsidies.

This weekend, the Observer revealed that the government was poised to abandon the “Brexit bonus”, which would have paid farmers and landowners to enhance nature, in what wildlife groups have described as an “all-out attack” on the environment.

Instead of the environmental land management scheme (Elms), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) sources disclosed, they are considering paying landowners a yearly set sum for each acre of land they own, which would be similar to the much-maligned EU basic payments scheme of the common agricultural policy.

Minette Batters, the president of the NFU, said she welcomed the departure from Elms. “My absolute priority is ensuring that farmers can continue to produce the nation’s food – so I do support maintaining direct payments in order to build a scheme that really will deliver for food production and the environment,” she said.

She later doubled down on this point, telling the BBC that she believed private money should be used to pay farmers for wildlife recovery, rather than public funds. She said: “We have got literally billions and billions of pounds in green finance that is looking to invest in wild environments. We should be making the private sector work effectively.”

Prominent members of the NFU have spoken to the Guardian, saying they were minded to quit if the leadership failed to clarify its position and support payments for environmental protections.

Jake Freestone, a regenerative farmer and Worcestershire county chairman for the union, has won awards for his soil quality after practicing nature-friendly farming. While he said he is not yet at the point of quitting, he appeared disappointed with the NFU’s apparent views on Elms.

“We do need to focus on the environment as well as food production and what does worry me is if we are going to throw out a lot of environmental protection on the basis of food security. But we are quite happily farming productively here and also providing good environmental protection – if you don’t have wildlife and pollinators and farmland birds, what do you have?” he said.

“The challenge we have is the NFU have a lot of diversified members with a lot of different interests.”

Martin Lines, the chair of the Nature Friendly Farming Network (NFFN), said many of his fellow farmers were leaving the NFU over its perceived anti-nature stance.

“I know of lots of NFU members who are very unhappy or have already left,” he said. “Unfortunately many farmers are members because they feel there hasn’t been any other farming body in the past that is a voice for farming. I know many farmers who are leaving the NFU and joining organisations like the Country Land and Business Association (CLA), NFFN and others, as the NFU doesn’t represent their views or voice.

“Many farmers are starting to realise the NFU does not represent or champion their voice or farming system.”

Mark Tufnell, the chair of the CLA, which represents 30,000 landowners, said he hoped the government would stick with Elms. He said: “There is concern that there might be a change in direction, it’s harsh to come in at a very early stage and say it isn’t working as it hasn’t been given a chance.”

On the NFU’s policy, he said: “You would have to ask the NFU. We have actively stated since about 2017 that we have always felt it is very difficult to justify a flat-rate payment to farmers and landowners just for the sake of owning land. The benefit of Elms is the more public goods you provide, the more you get paid, and you can stack the amounts you do in the public scheme with the private element.”

The NFU has been lobbied by some influential voices who are against Elms. Celebrities including the TV presenter Jeremy Clarkson, former Undertones singer Feargal Sharkey and former cricketers Ian Botham and David Gower have written to the government asking them to scrap environmental regulations.

Writing as “rural voices” who do “real work” that includes “cultivating the soil, looking after sick animals and bringing in the harvest”, they said environmental regulations on farmers “seek to appease the insatiable demands of a few self-righteous campaigners”.

On Monday, Batters said: “We’re pleased the government is reviewing the framework for future farming regulation to help ensure farm businesses are supported through the current economic challenges and can make progressive decisions to boost growth and farming’s contribution to the nation.

“The NFU has always supported the ‘public money for public goods’ policy but we have called for a delay as the scheme was not fit for purpose and ready to roll out in its current form.”

This dash for growth represents the death of green Toryism

Boris Johnson was far more eco-conscious than recent Conservative predecessors. But this mini-budget is a reversion to type

Kwasi Kwarteng: no mention of net zero.

 Photograph: Jessica Taylor/House of Commons/Reuters

Phillip Inman
Sat 24 Sep 2022
The Observer

The dash for growth by Kwasi Kwarteng means unshackling City bankers and property developers from the taxes and regulations that prevent them from paving over what’s left of Britain’s green and pleasant land.

The humble concrete mixer will be elevated to exalted status. There will be more executive homes built on greenfield sites. More distribution sheds dotted along busy A-roads. And more urban renewal of the kind that involves tearing down buildings in a plume of dust and carbon emissions to replace them with something not much better, at least not in environmental terms.

At no point in the chancellor’s speech on Friday did he mention the need to reach net zero, or how his plans would help our ailing planet while doling out billions of pounds in tax cuts to richer households and businesses.

Boris Johnson’s administration at least put in place plans for achieving net zero, and Michael Gove considered ways of reversing 70 or more years of severe biodiversity loss.

As Fiona Harvey has documented in the Guardian, Johnson’s premiership brought “more major environmental legislation and arguably greater progress on tackling the climate and nature crises than either of his Conservative predecessors in the past decade”. That’s a low bar when David Cameron and his chancellor George Osborne did their best to kick almost all green initiatives into the long grass, but Johnson did put in place the Agriculture Act, the Fisheries Act, and the Environment Act, coupled with plans to phase out petrol and diesel cars, create a boom in offshore wind, and protect a third of the UK’s land and seas.

Johnson’s legacy, though, is largely rhetoric and very little action. That’s the message from those who attended committee meetings to put meat on the bones of his “10-point plan for a green industrial revolution” only to find themselves in nothing more than a talking shop. One member of Johnson’s Green Jobs Delivery Group, who preferred to remain nameless, said that if the discussion had ever broadened beyond how many millions of trees could be planted in the UK, a strategy might have emerged.

It didn’t seem to matter that senior executives from Siemens, BMW and E.ON were sitting around the table with the head of England’s further education colleges and representatives of the major industrial lobby groups – the discussion still didn’t go anywhere.

By the time Liz Truss sacked the minister in charge who chaired the delivery group, Greg Hands – whose green credentials were burnished when he resigned from a ministerial post in 2018 over plans to expand Heathrow – the group appears to have achieved nothing but an agenda for the next meeting.

Tree planting is indeed an important issue facing urban landscapes, as well as a countryside plagued by drought. Economically, there is also a good reason to talk about the subject: the UK imports 80% of the wood needed for items ranging from toilet paper to construction timber when well-managed forests could fill the gap.

A junior climate minister – well-meaning and well-connected though he is – is clearly only window dressing in a government that wants to bring back fracking

Still, it was one initiative among many, and a change that was poised to spread across major industrial and commercial sectors could not happen while the political focus lay elsewhere.

Green Tories want us to think the party still cares after Truss appointed Graham Stuart as junior minister for climate change. Stuart was one of the leading voices urging Theresa May to enshrine the net zero target in law. He has also been involved in the Globe group of legislators who push for laws mandating climate action to be passed by national parliaments.

But a junior minister – well-meaning and well-connected though he is – is clearly only window dressing in a government that wants to bring back fracking, produce more North Sea oil and rip up planning laws.

Maybe Truss will reveal herself as a champion of green policies: she spoke several times about the need to act on the climate crisis during her leadership campaign and has committed herself to attending Cop27 in Egypt and the 15th biodiversity Cop in Canada.

Except that the new prime minister, as environment secretary, cut subsidies to solar farms. She has also shown little appetite for accelerating an upgrade of the electricity grid to accommodate more renewable energy providers, or supporting major manufacturing industries as they transition to net zero.

Without a prime minister and cabinet that understands the risk of a dash for growth – one that generates yet more carbon – it will fall to fracking protesters and nimbys to prevent the UK going backwards. They will need to be on the streets in force to block what in most cases will be disastrous and unjustified initiatives.

 

Alberta MLA and Quebec MNA showing leadership on farmland ownership, says NFU The National Farmers Union (NFU) applauds Athabasca-Barrhead-Westlock United Conservative MLA Glenn van Dijken for bringing forward Alberta’s Bill 206, the Prohibiting Ownership of Agricultural Lands (Pension Plans and Trust Corporations) Act, and Québec Solidaire agriculture critic, MNA Émilise Lessard-Therrien who brought forward Quebec’s Bill 991 An Act to combat agricultural land grabbing. Both private members’ bills were tabled in their respective provincial legislatures this spring and attempt to curb farmland grabbing by powerful financial actors.  Ever since the rise of investor farmland purchases following the 2008 financial-food-fuel crisis, the NFU has been sounding the alarm, standing in staunch resistance to the trend, and working to document it.  Bill 206 would ban pension funds from owning Alberta farmland. Globally, pension funds control USD$56 trillion, and are some of the primary actors turning communities’ lands, waters, and social services into financial assets while making them inaccessible or unaffordable to the people who need them. While the effort to bar pension funds is a positive first step, we also need to put limits on other investors – wealthy individuals, hedge funds, and Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITS) –  that are driving farmland prices above the land’s productive value by purchasing farmland as a financial investment. Quebec has legislation ensuring only Quebec residents and Quebec-owned corporations can own more than 4 hectares of farmland. With Bill 991, MNA Émilise Lessard-Therrien, proposes further limits on land grabbing by targeting private investment funds. Lessard-Therrien’s bill crucially limits not only direct purchase of farmland, but also “indirect” purchase, such as through ownership of shares of a corporation that buys farmland. However, Bill 991 seemingly would not limit public pension funds from purchasing farmland.   Bill 991 would also improve transparency by creating a public registry of agricultural land transactions. This would allow for a better-informed public dialogue about the future of farmland tenure. Although each province collects this type of data already, access to the information can be very limited. The NFU supports better public access to land titles data, particularly for public researchers. So far, only Saskatchewan has enabled researchers to use land titles data to develop a picture of investor farmland ownership and farmland concentration over time.  While many private members’ bills are never passed, the NFU hopes that Bills 206 and 991 will advance through their legislatures and spark further public debate. The fact they were brought forward reflects growing awareness and concern about the impacts of concentration of ownership by investment companies and institutions like pension funds. The NFU continues to push for laws and policy that will ensure the land can support farmer livelihoods, flourishing rural communities and healthy ecologies into the future.  Un député albertain et une député québécoise font preuve de leadership en matière de propriété agricole, déclare l’UNF L’Union nationale des fermiers (UNF) applaudit Glenn van Dijken, le député conservateur d’Athabasca-Barrhead-Westlock United, pour avoir proposé le Projet de loi 206, en Alberta, Loi pour interdire la propriété de terres agricoles (par les plans de pension et les sociétés de fiducie), ainsi que la député Émilise Lessard-Therrien, porte-parole en matière d’agriculture pour Québec Solidaire, pour son Projet de loi 991, au Québec, Loi pour combattre l'accaparemment des terres agricoles. Les deux projets de loi d’initiative parlementaire furent déposés dans leurs législatures provinciales respectives ce printemps pour tenter de limiter l’accaparement des terres agricoles par de puissants acteurs financiers.   Depuis la montée des achats de terres agricoles par des investisseurs suite à la crise financière-alimentaire-carburant en 2008, l’UNF a sonné l’alarme, offrant une résistance acharnée à cette tendance et s'efforçant de la documenter.   Le Projet de loi 206 interdirait aux fonds de pension d’appartenir des terres agricoles albertaines. À l’échelle mondiale, les fonds de pension contrôlent 56  billions de dollars américains, et ils sont parmi les principaux acteurs qui convertissent en actifs financiers les terres, les eaux et les services sociaux, tout en les rendant inaccessibles ou inabordables aux gens qui en ont besoin.   Bien que l’effort d’interdire les fonds de pension soit une première démarche positive, il nous faut également imposer des limites à d’autres investisseurs – des individus fortunés, des fonds de couverture et les fiducies de placements immobiliers (FPI) – qui font monter les prix des terres agricoles au-delà de la valeur productive de la terre en achetant des terres agricoles comme investissement financier.   Le Québec a une législation qui assure que seulement les résidents du Québec et les corporations proprement québécoises peuvent appartenir plus de 4 hectares de terre agricole. Avec le Projet de loi 991, la député Émilise Lessard-Therrien propose des limites additionnelles sur l’accaparemment des terres en ciblant les fonds d’investissement privés. Le Projet de loi de Lessard-Therrien limite de manière cruciale non seulement les achats directs de terres agricoles, mais également les achats « indirects », comme par la propriété d’actions d’une corporation qui achète des terres agricoles. Cependant, il semble que le Projet de loi 991 n'empêcherait pas les fonds de pension publics d’acheter des terres agricoles. Le Projet de loi 991 aiderait également à améliorer la transparence en créant un registre public des transactions foncières agricoles. Ceci permettrait un dialogue public mieux éclairé à propos de l’avenir de la tenure des terres agricoles. Bien que chaque province recueille déjà ce type de données, l’accès à l’information peut être très limitée. L’UNF appuie un meilleur accès public aux données sur les titres fonciers, plus particulièrement pour les chercheurs publics. Jusqu’à présent, seulement la Saskatchewan a permis aux chercheurs d'utiliser les données sur les titres fonciers pour dresser un bilan de la propriété des terres agricoles par des investisseurs, ainsi que la concentration des terres agricoles en leurs mains au fil du temps.   Bien que plusieurs projets de loi d’initiative parlementaire ne soient jamais adoptés, l’UNF espère que les projets de loi 206 et 991 vont franchir les étapes dans leurs législatures et provoquer plus de débats publics. Le fait qu’ils furent proposés reflète une conscience et une préoccupation croissantes à propos des impacts de la concentration accrue de propriétés par des sociétés de placement et des institutions comme les fonds de pension. L’UNF continue à faire pression pour des lois et des politiques qui vont assurer que la terre puisse supporter les moyens de subsistance des fermiers, des communautés rurales florissantes et des écologies saines dans l’avenir.

The National Farmers Union is a grassroots farmer organization advocating for farm families across Canada since 1969. Members work together to achieve agricultural policies that ensure dignity and income security for farm families while protecting and enhancing rural environments for future generations.  The NFU advocates for a food system based on the principles of food sovereignty, which calls for a food system that values farmers and what they grow; rebuilds relationships between food producers and those who eat; reclaims local decision making about food production and environmental protection; and strengthens connections between people and the land, empowering communities and citizens to make intentional decisions based on local needs and conditions to ensure a resilient and sustainable future.The NFU collaborates locally, nationally and internationally to research, educate and share effective solutions that lead to a better world for farm families and their local communities.  All farmers are welcome to join the NFU as full voting members. Non-farmers may join as non-voting Associate Members. All who support the NFU's goals are invited to donate to support our work. For more about the NFU please visit our website.   L’Union nationale des fermiers est un organisme fermier de base qui revendique et défend les familles fermières à travers le Canada depuis 1969. Les membres travaillent ensemble pour l’établissement de politiques visant à assurer la dignité et la sécurité du revenu pour les familles fermières, tout en protégeant et en améliorant les milieux ruraux pour les générations futures.  L’UNF plaide pour un système alimentaire basé sur les principes de la souveraineté alimentaire qui : valorise les fermiers et ce qu’ils produisent ; rebâtit les relations entre les producteurs de denrées alimentaires et ceux qui les consomment ; récupère la prise de décision locale en matière de production alimentaire et de protection de l’environnement ; et, consolide les connexions entre les gens et la terre, habilitant ainsi les communautés et les citoyens à prendre des décisions intentionnelles axées sur les besoins et les conditions locales de sorte à assurer un avenir résilient et durable. L’UNF collabore à l’échelle locale, nationale et internationale sur la recherche, l’éducation et le partage de solutions efficaces qui mènent vers un monde meilleur pour les familles fermières et leurs communautés locales. Tous les fermiers et fermières sont bienvenus à se joindre à l’UNF en tant que membres votants à part entière. Les non-agriculteurs peuvent également se joindre en tant que membres associés sans droit de vote. Tous ceux et celles qui appuient les objectifs de l’UNF sont invités à faire un don pour soutenir nos efforts. Pour de plus amples de renseignements sur l’UNF, veuillez visiter notre site web.

UK farming's 'net zero' climate target in doubt

Malcolm Prior

BBC
Rural affairs correspondent•@NewsMPrior

The NFU had set a "national aspiration" for farming to produce net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2040

Ambitious plans to make farming ‘net zero’ by 2040 - 10 years ahead of the UK’s legally-binding national target – may not be achieved, the National Farmers' Union (NFU) has told the BBC.

Reaching net zero means no longer adding to the total amount of greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere. The NFU said a lack of investment in climate-friendly farming measures by the previous government had made doing that by 2040 “tricky” but insisted that the deadline would not be dropped.

Meanwhile, the Soil Association warned that UK agriculture would not be able to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions “without radical changes".

The government said it was “committed to reducing emissions in the farming sector”.

NFU president Tom Bradshaw believes farming remains a key part of efforts to decarbonise the UK economy


The UK has a legally-binding target under the Climate Change Act to be net zero by 2050.

In 2019, the NFU set its own target for agriculture in England and Wales to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2040.

Farming is currently responsible for around 12% of the UK’s total greenhouse gas emissions, predominantly nitrous oxide from fertilisers and manure and methane from ruminant livestock, as well as carbon dioxide - to a much lesser extent - from energy and fuel.

The drive to net zero in farming has focused on helping farmers to develop more efficient and sustainable production methods, changing how land is managed in order to capture more carbon in the soil and boosting on-farm renewable energy schemes.

When it was launched, the 2040 target was described as “a national aspiration, not an expectation that every farm can reach net zero”.

But, while work to reduce emissions is largely left to individual farms, the industry has pilot projects under way to monitor and record that work and help form a national picture of progress made towards net zero.


The NFU has called for the UK’s total agriculture budget to be increased from £3.5bn to £5.6bn


The government says it is helping farmers reduce greenhouse gases through the post-Brexit farm payments system, known as environmental land management schemes (ELMs).

But the NFU said that its target would now be “tough to hit” because the previous government had not put enough investment into “climate-friendly measures” under ELMs.

Tom Bradshaw, NFU president, told the BBC he still believed farming was “very much part of the solution to decarbonising the UK economy” but that more investment was needed.

“Net zero is never going to be an ambition farmers can deliver alone,” he said.

To mark Back British Farming Day on Wednesday, Mr Bradshaw called for the UK’s total agriculture budget to be increased from £3.5bn to £5.6bn.

He said that was what was needed for farmers to produce more food while “delivering for nature, energy security and climate-friendly farming”.


'Real urgency'


The call for greater funding comes amid fears the government is looking to cut £100m from its farming budget.

Both Defra and the Treasury declined to comment on any proposed cuts but the government has acknowledged there was a £358m underspend in the agricultural budget over the past three years.

Richard Benwell, CEO of environmental coalition Wildlife and Countryside Link, said any cut in the nature-friendly farming budget would “seriously endanger the transition to net zero in farming”.

Brendan Costelloe, the Soil Association’s policy director, said cuts would be a mistake “that would cost the environment, wildlife and the taxpayer more over the long-term”.

“British farming will not be able to reach net zero by 2040 without radical changes to how we produce and eat food”, he added.


The government's independent advisers, the Climate Change Committee (CCC), have already warned that progress in reducing emissions in agriculture has been slow and needs “substantial acceleration”.

The latest government figures show total agricultural greenhouse gas emissions have decreased, with nitrous oxide emissions down by 23% and methane down by 15% between 1990 and 2022.

Meanwhile, carbon dioxide from farming accounted for only 2% of total UK emissions in 2022.

Tom Lancaster, land analyst at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), said there was a “real urgency” for government to help the sector cut emissions further and to support farmers in becoming more resilient to climate extremes.

A spokeswoman for Defra said the government was still “committed to reducing emissions in the farming sector and restoring confidence amongst farmers which is at a record low".

"That is why we will restore stability and confidence by optimising our schemes and grants, to ensure we protect our food security, assist nature’s recovery and drive down emissions.

“But we will go further to support our farmers by protecting them from being undercut in trade deals, making the supply chain work more fairly and preventing shock rises in bills by switching on GB Energy,” she added.

UK

Call to boost agriculture budget to ‘value’ food security amid fears of cuts

National Farmers’ Union says sector needs £5.6 billion a year UK-wide to produce sustainable, affordable food and deliver for nature and climate.


Farming leaders have called for a boost to agricultural budget (Steve Parsons/PA)

Emily Beament

 Evening Standard

Farming leaders have called on the Government to “truly value” food security by raising the UK’s agricultural budget to £5.6 billion a year, amid concerns over potential cuts.

The National Farmers’ Union (NFU), which is holding a reception in Parliament on Wednesday to mark Back British Farming Day, is urging ministers to deliver a “renewed and enhanced” multi-year agricultural funding pot in the Budget in October

The NFU says increased funding – of £4 billion for England, equating to £5.6 billion UK-wide – is essential to give farmers the confidence to invest in the future, produce sustainable and affordable food and deliver for nature, energy security and climate-friendly farming.


Under the previous government, there was a £2.4 billion annual agriculture budget for England, which was being shifted from EU-era subsidies mostly for land farmed, to environmental land management scheme (Elms) payments for public goods such as healthy soil and water and habitat creation.

This budget is essential in giving Britain’s farmers and growers the confidence they desperately need to invest for the future

Tom Bradshaw, NFU president

The NFU’s call follows reports that a £100 million underspend in the budget could be handed back to the Treasury, as part of efforts to fill what the Government has labelled a £22 billion “black hole” in the country’s finances.

It comes as Labour criticised the former Tory government for failing to provide farmers promised funding after the Environment Department (Defra’s) farming and countryside programme’s annual report revealed a £130 million underspend in the budget in 2023/2024.

That comes after under-spending of more than £100 million in each of the previous two years.

Daniel Zeichner, minister for food security and rural affairs, said: “Time and time again the previous Conservative government broke their promises to farmers.

“They sold them out in dodgy trade deals and then failed to pay them the funds they were promised.”

“The Labour Government will restore confidence and stability to farmers to boost rural economic growth and strengthen our food security,” he pledged.

But ministers have also warned of the dire state of the UK’s finances, setting up a clash with countryside organisations over agricultural funding, as wildlife groups line up with farmers to call for an increase in the budget for nature-friendly farming and delivering goals to tackle the nature and climate crises.

Speaking ahead of the reception, NFU president Tom Bradshaw said British farmers and growers were “proud” to produce the raw ingredients for the UK’s £148 billion food and drink sector, but there were huge challenges for the industry.

“Over the past 18 months we have seen a collapse in farmer confidence, driven by record inflation, falls in farm income and a changing climate with unprecedented weather patterns delivering relentless rain which left thousands of acres of farmland under water,” he said.

“While in opposition we heard consistently from Labour that food security is national security.

“The Prime Minister, speaking at NFU conference last year, pledged that Labour ‘aspires to govern for every corner of our country, and will seek a new relationship with the countryside and farming communities on this basis, a relationship based on respect and on genuine partnership’.”

“We now need to see those ambitions realised,” he urged.

Farmers say a boost to the budget is needed to deliver environmental and economic goals (Steve Parsons/PA)
PA Archive

“Today we’re calling on Government to truly value UK food security by delivering a renewed and enhanced multi-annual agriculture budget of £5.6 billion on October 30.

“This budget is essential in giving Britain’s farmers and growers the confidence they desperately need to invest for the future and deliver on our joint ambitions on producing more sustainable, affordable homegrown food while creating more jobs and delivering for nature, energy security and climate-friendly farming,” he said.


The NFU says independent work it has commissioned from the Andersons Centre suggests an annual budget of £4 billion is needed for England.

That includes £2.7 billion to meet the Government’s environmental goals, as well as £615 million for driving productivity and £720 million to support the economic stability of agricultural businesses.

The NFU estimates that would translate to a UK-wide budget of around £5.6 billion.

The union also wants to see the Defra be more transparent, publishing its impact assessment for the transition, including the uplands which could be particularly adversely affected, sharing annual budget plans and urgently reviewing Elms to make sure they can be accessed by all farmers.

Mr Bradshaw described the £130 million underspend as a “kick in the teeth”, and warned it had not been spent not because it was not needed, but because the new land management schemes were not completed in time.

He urged the Government to roll forward the unspent funding into the future budget to invest in sustainable food production and deliver legislated environmental targets.

Environment Secretary Steve Reed acknowledged confidence among farmers was at “record lows, with costs spiralling, flooding hitting their bottom line and red tape holding them back”.

He said: “The new Government will restore stability and confidence in the sector, introducing a new deal for farmers to boost rural economic growth and strengthen our food security.

“We will protect farmers from being undercut in trade deals, cut energy bills by switching on GB Energy, better protect them from flooding and use the Government’s own purchasing power to back British produce.”

The Government said there were “difficult decisions” ahead, and spending on Defra’s priorities would be confirmed as part of the forthcoming spending review.


Tom Bradshaw

NFU Letter - Time to rebuild our meat processing system Dear Editor, The recent closures of meat packing plants in Alberta, Quebec and several American states due to the Covid-19 pandemic are shedding light on the tremendous expense of this style of massive meat processing operation. The expense borne by the workers at the plants is the greatest of all, their health threatened so severely, even causing death to two Cargill workers in Alberta. However the expense doesn’t stop there, as consumers are expected to see meat prices jump, farmers have seen the prices paid for their animals drop by more than 30% and tax payers will ultimately pay the price to help bail out this sector. Several decades ago when the move to close smaller slaughterhouses in favour of building huge single entity plants was happening, the rationale was that there were going to be tremendous efficiencies in doing this. National Farmers Union studies showed that the promised efficiencies of consumers seeing cheaper meat and farmers making a decent living simply did not materialize. The spread between what famers are paid for their animals and what consumers pay for meat has grown. The working conditions at the plants with thousands of animals being slaughtered each day are stressful at the best of times and downright dangerous now. Farmers suddenly have nowhere to sell their animals and consumers are starting to see less meat on the shelves. Now is the time to look at how we can build a meat processing system that will not cause these massive problems. A move to build smaller, safer slaughter plants in each province would help to disperse the threats to food security. We could assure meat supply from local farms to meet local demands. If one plant was forced to close it would not disrupt the food chain across the entire country. Providing safe secure food from local farms to local consumers is entirely possible without putting meat packing workers at risk. Surely we’ve learned that bigger is not always better. Vicki Burns, Winnipeg MB Fred Tait, Rossendale MB

Contact information: Website: www.nfu.ca Telephone: 306-652-9465 Email: nfu@nfu.ca Our mailing address is: 2717 Wentz Ave., Saskatoon, SK S7K 4B6 Local Abattoirs The NFU and its members have been talking about the need for more Provincially-inspected local abattoirs for years before the COVID crisis raised the issue to the public. Issues at the Cargill plant highlighted the bottleneck created by the conglomeration of processing as the NFU brought to the public's attention through this media release and this backgrounder. (Ici en français: communiqué et fiche d'information) A national Livestock Committee has been struck to address the many issues around livestock and the NFU-Ontario released this letter highlighting the need for local abattoirs.  More action on this issue will follow.

Tory ministers failing to help farmers deal with Brexit fallout, says NFU


Adam Forrest
Tue, 21 February 2023 

THE COW WHISPERER

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer during his visit to Home Farm in Solihull, West Midlands (PA)

Rishi Sunak’s government is failing to “back up its rhetoric” with action to help farmers hit by post-Brexit changes, labour shortages and rising costs, the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) has said.

NFU president Minette Batters warned that “the clock is ticking” on support for farmers and growers struggling with a wide range of issues – including the environment land management schemes (ELMs) aimed at replacing EU subsidies.

“We have seen progress”, said Ms Batters at the NFU conference in Birmingham – pointing to the prospectus for the post-Brexit subsidy scheme and increases to seasonal agricultural workers schemes.

But she added: “More often than not – it has been incredibly hard getting government to back up its rhetoric with concrete actions. The time is nearly up for government to demonstrate its commitment to food and farming in our great country, not just by saying they support us, but by showing us they do.”

The NFU president also said farms were struggling with labour shortages and soaring energy prices, with the poultry industry was “reeling from avian influenza”.

Ms Batters said costs in agriculture have risen almost 50 per cent since 2019 and UK egg production has fallen to its lowest level in nine years. “In 2022, UK egg packers packed almost a billion fewer eggs than they did in 2019,” she said.

Sir Keir Starmer addressed delegates at the NFU conference, where he pledged that 50 per cent all public sector food will be locally and sustainably produced under a Labour government.

The Labour leader promised a “better trading relationship” with the EU for farmers, as well as pushing for high British food standards.

Asked about labour shortages, Sir Keir warned: “I think the days of cheap labour in the way that we have had for many years are probably over.”

Ms Batters warned: “I won’t let the opposition off the hook either, I believe the rural vote will be crucial in the next election.”

Meanwhile, farming minister Mark Spencer said more than £168m in grants are to be made available to farmers this year – including money to boost food production, pay for equipment and automation, and fund smaller abattoirs.

Speaking at the NFU conference, Mr Spencer said the money will sit alongside the ELMs, which pay farmers for improving biodiversity on their land.

ELMs have taken five years to draw up and are the replacement for the EU common agricultural policy. Farmers can be paid for planting hedgerows and maintaining wildflower meadows and peatland.

Mr Spencer said: "The role farmers play in putting food on our tables as well as looking after our countryside is crucial. We know that sustainable food production depends on a healthy environment, the two go hand in hand.”

The Sunk government said it wants to offer £600m out of a £2.4bn budget to support productivity and animal welfare through grants and other measures.

It also said it wants to support small abattoirs which are “crucial” for the rural economy. “The availability of funding will help abattoirs to invest in new technology and improve productivity and animal health and welfare, allowing our agriculture sector to get its high-quality produce to market.”