December 2009 Archives

Not for the first time, the French are leading the way in European discussions about the future of farming.

Last week, the French Agriculture Minster invited 21 'like minded' EU Member States to gather in Paris to discuss how best to dish out a CAP budget worth almost £50 billion.

Monsieur Bruno Le Maire said Britain was not 'like-minded' hence no invite.

It was an embarrassment for Defra, although the line from Whitehall was that Hilary Benn, Environment Secretary, was busy and a representative had gone in his place. 

Either way, invite or no invite, it is clear Defra has a mountain to climb if British interests are to be adequately fought during discussions of the CAP post-2013.    

The memory lives strong of deal struck in 2002 between France and Germany to protect farm spending, against the express wishes of the UK Government.

It happened again in 2005 when the Government was promised a shake-up of farm subsidies in return for giving up the hard-fought budget rebate, worth around £7 billion.

Today the promised shake-up still seems far away but this year Britain's contribution to the EU budget will rise by 60 per as the rebate slips away.

The danger of being outmanoeuvred once again must demand a change in the Government's tactics.

The route of the problem is clear - it is Defra's wholehearted and ideological desire for a fundamental reform of the CAP.

It wants to remove all subsidies and protection so the market can reward farmers for their outputs and it wants the CAP to provide a reward for social benefits, such as environmental goods, that the market cannot provide. 

To some the stance is admirable, perhaps even desirable, but it stands in direct opposition to France, and 21 other member states' who wish to protect their farmers from the market.

More importantly, it precludes the UK from being involved in the debate.

If Defra is to influence policy in Europe, it must be seated at the top table and for this it may need to soften on its ideology.

France does not have British farm interests at heart and it would be naïve to think that by excluding Defra from talks, our farmers will be given a better deal. They won't.

Defra must to be engaged in Europe. It is then the job of British Agriculture Plc. to ensure Defra represents farmers' best interest.

Livestock production is one of the major causes of the world's most pressing environmental problem - global warming.

The United Nations estimates that livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions, a bigger share even than transport.

Next Monday, (December 7), world leaders from 192 nations will join 15,000 people from across the world in Copenhagen for the UN Climate Change Conference. Their explicit aim is to thrash out a global deal to slash greenhouse gas emissions across the globe.

Understandably, livestock will be high up on their agenda and rightly so - there is a monumental potential for the livestock industry to make significant greenhouse gas savings.

If world leaders in Copenhagen are to succeed in their mission, they must spare a moment to look at how the UK livestock sector has responded to climate change.

Agriculture in the UK currently contributes 7 per cent to the total domestic greenhouse gas emissions - a relatively small amount when compared to the global average.

Yet the industry is still hell-bent on cutting that figure down further and on improving its green reputation.

A year ago the dairy industry launched its 'Milk Roadmap' to cut emissions. Twelve months on and huge progress has been made.

This week the meat industry followed suit.

The NFU, Defra, British Retail Consortium, British Meat Processors Association, Association of Independent Meat Suppliers, National Sheep Association and National Beef Association all joined with the English Beef and Lamb Executive (Eblex) to draw up a 'roadmap' to reduce the environmental impact of red meat.  

The British Pig Executive (Bpex) followed suit two days later with its own strategy to cut emissions.

Increasingly British livestock farmers are using new breeding, feeding and management techniques to improve their efficiencies - which not only means less emissions but also greater returns. 

If these technological efficiencies could be transferred to some of the world's most inefficient farmers, global greenhouse gas savings would be immense.

Anti-meat campaigners are missing the point - the UK livestock industry is at the cutting edge of tackling climate change and campaigners need to work with, not against it to reduce global emissions.

Together we need to export our ideas, not our production.