World

Climate change trumps coronavirus concerns

EUROPEAN Union regulations are constraining large farmers during the coronavirus crisis, as opposed to protecting them, a survey has found.

Sixty percent of large farms in the European Union claimed current EU regulations had made it difficult for the farming industry to respond flexibly during the pandemic and other crises, according to an Ipsos Mori survey commissioned by Syngenta Group.

The survey of 250 French, German, Italian, Dutch, Polish and Spanish farmers found Germany had the least faith in regulations (9%), while Poland had the most (43%).

Just under half said their farm business had been impacted by the covid-19 pandemic and onein-four had immediate concerns about the survival of their business.

For one-third, the crisis had raised concerns about the longterm viability of farming. In line with the severity of the pandemic

World climate change facts

• Three-in-four farmers in Africa and India said their farming businesses had been impacted by climate change, but under half said so in the USA • Just 13% globally did not feel they had been impacted at all by climate change • 9% believed reducing emissions would make their businesses more competitive • 76% of Brazilian farmers were convinced of the benefits, compared to just 48% in the US • One-quarter said financial viability was the greatest barrier to adoption • 15% had seen impacts on crop yields and 9% were unable to grow their usual crops • In Europe, Spanish and Italian farmers were the most concerned about climate change (93%) • Since February, the percentage of large French farmers who were concerned about the effects of climate change had increased from 71% to 89% Source: Syngenta Group in Italy, Italian farm businesses were the worst hit with 78% reporting an impact, and almost half said the impact was severe.

A drop in sales and revenue was mostly responsible, followed by disrupted supply chains and shortages of equipment, machinery and labour.

Despite the pandemic, 63% believed climate change would have a greater impact on their business in the next five years, while more than half said climate change was their immediate priority.

A separate survey, also for Syngenta, of 600 large-scale farmers in Africa, Brazil, China, USA, France and India, found 87% had experienced some negative effect on their ability to produce food as a result of climate change.

This figure rises to 90% in India and 86% on the African continent. The most common problems were cited as volatile weather, droughts and flooding.

Globally, two-thirds of largescale farmers said they had already taken action to reduce

ALARMED: Since February, the percentage of large French farmers who were concerned about the effects of climate change had increased from 71% to 89%.

their greenhouse gas emissions, with the most popular strategy being carbon management in soil. Financial and policy incentives were the top requests from farmers, with cost and lack of government support noted as the main barriers to implementing more sustainable farming practices.

This comes as Syngenta launched its new Good Growth Plan, which pledged to help accelerate innovation for farmers and strive for carbon neutral agriculture.

Speaking during an online event hosted by media network Euractiv, Syngenta chief executive Erik Fyrwald said the company has pledged to invest $2 billion (NZ$3bn) into sustainable agriculture by 2025 and deliver two technological breakthroughs to market each year.

This comes as all the targets from the original Good Growth Plan launched in 2013 were achieved or exceeded, including bringing more than 14 million hectares of farmland back from the brink of degradation and enhancing biodiversity on more than 8m ha of farmland.

As part of the pledge, Syngenta also committed to reducing the carbon intensity of its operations by 50 per cent by 2030 to support the goals of the Paris Agreement on climate change.

In Europe, the company has promised to increase biodiversity and minimise pesticide use by expanding its reach to farmers to train them in the safe use and precision application of pesticides.

– UK Farmers Guardian

Gas converted to animal feed

AN INITIATIVE that converts carbon dioxide into animal feed is one of nine agritech projects to secure NZ$46.2m of government funding as part of a push towards more efficient food production.

Led by Nottingham company Deep Branch Biotechnology, the project will turn carbon dioxide from Drax Group’s Selby power station in North Yorkshire into an alternative to soy and fishmeal for the animal industry.

Deep Branch’s CO2-toprotein process uses carbon dioxide from industrial emissions to generate a singlecell protein that is optimised for animal nutrition.

The carbon recycling company and Drax Group are part of the Nottingham-based React-First consortium which will receive more than NZ$3.8m for the project.

Farming Minister Victoria Prentis said “It’s great to see investment in these outstanding ideas which will help us tackle the farming industry’s greatest challenges, from achieving net zero emissions to investing in sustainable alternative protein for animal feed.”

A further project led by Saga Robotics in Lincoln will receive nearly NZ$4.8m to fund its work to create a fleet of robots to help growers in the UK.

SIMPLIFY: Farmers are being urged to offer easy online shopping solutions.

The consortium, which includes agri-robotics experts from the University of Lincoln, said the Robot Highways project could help reduce reliance on seasonal labour, estimating a 40% reduction in the manpower required.

The intention is to design robots that will assist farmers by picking and packing fruit and treating crops to reduce pests and diseases.

Kent soft fruit grower Clock House Farm Ltd is part of the consortium. The technology also aims to help move the sector towards a carbon zero future – something the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) wants the farming industry to achieve by 2040 – by reducing fruit waste and fungicide use.

The University of Reading’s School of Agriculture, Policy and Development will evaluate the economic benefits of the robots, and bring growers, policy-makers and tech developers together to create suitable uses for the technology in farming.

Dr David Rose, associate professor of Agricultural Innovation and Extension at the university, said “Autonomous robotic technologies could play a key role in the future of agricultural production, but only if they are trusted, reliable, and provide a tangible benefit for farmers.”

– UK Farmers Weekly

Paid damage claims sparks row

FORMER British Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs adviser Professor Sir Ian Boyd has been accused of lying in claiming livestock farmers are being paid by the Government to damage the environment.

Tenant Farmers Association chief executive George Dunn said he was immensely frustrated to see the spurious arguments being thoughtlessly regurgitated again.

In a newspaper interview Boyd said “Most of the livestock production in the United Kingdom is unprofitable without public subsidy.

“The public is subsidising the production of livestock to produce environmental damage, all the way from greenhouse gas emissions to water pollution.

“Why should we continue to do that?

“It is not sensible.”

It is not the first time Boyd, who was the department’s chief scientific adviser from 2012 to 2019, caused controversy in the farming community.

In 2018 he shocked attendees at the Institute for Agri-food Research and Innovation Metaldehyde Conference by saying the UK’s agriculture system was designed in the 19th century and had not changed much since.

And in November farm groups criticised his call for people to cut down on eating red meat to meet the 2050 net zero emissions target.

Dunn said “UK livestock farmers are holding at least one-third of the below-ground store of carbon, providing a massive service to wider society.

“It is simply a lie to say the public is subsidising livestock farmers to damage the environment.

“In fact, livestock farmers are delivering great food to high standards at reasonable prices and a whole suite of environmental, animal welfare and wider societal benefits.

“Switching our retail and food service purchases of meat from imported to domestic sources is what we should be doing if we want to raise our carbon and environmental efficiency.”

National Farmers Union vicepresident Stuart Roberts said “A country with some of the most sustainable systems in the world and with a world-leading aspiration for net zero, alongside some of the highest animal welfare, food safety and environmental standards, is somewhere we should be looking to produce a greater proportion of food, not less.”

– UK Farmers Guardian

Livestock debate still needed

THERE should be a more nuanced, well-rounded debate about livestock and the food system, which balances the pros and cons, Edinburgh University agriculture and food security expert Professor Geoff Simm says.

Every location, farm and even animal is different so there is no silver bullet to this complex issue and improving one thing could simply displace the impact elsewhere.

Developing better information and metrics to help farmers and consumers weigh things up and make the right choices would be a big step forward, he said.

“Meat definitely can be sustainable but we are on a trajectory, globally, where it is not.

“There has been a five- or sixfold increase in production over the last five decades or so.

“Most of that is poultry and pig meat and most of it is in Asia.

“So it is a global issue and we are small players,” he said.

However, most British food producers want to play their part in tackling the issue and welcome the fact consumers are trying to take responsibility for their own footprints too.

There is good evidence moderate meat consumption benefits health and new, plantbased products that people want to eat are therefore positive though their environmental and health impacts should be looked at on a product-by-product basis because so much depends on how and where they are produced.

What is needed, though, is a much more nuanced debate about meat because livestock are not all bad but they are not all good either.

While it stands to reason that to produce protein or energy from livestock takes more resources there are several things that often get missed, particularly in a debate that has been northernhemisphere focused, he said

“For millennia many cultures have consumed livestock products and it is very deeply ingrained,” he said.

“We also know livestock products are a vital source of some key nutrients including protein, energy, micronutrients and highly bio-available micronutrients including calcium, iron and vitamin B12.

“At a global level that is critical and has a major impact on the wellbeing of pregnant and lactating women and physical and cognitive development of young children.

“In many parts of the world livestock also consume resources that are not directly usable by humans or use land that cannot grow human food directly.”

That said, people are interested in other land uses too and conversations about rewilding and planting trees are legitimate.

“I think we need a balanced scorecard because we are trying to optimise so many different things,” he said.

“This should take account not just of methane production, which is often singled out, but of

DOES IT FIT? Professor Geoff Simm asks whether animal protein can be part of a sustainable food system.

nutrition, livelihoods, farmers, the rural economy, cultures and environmental impacts including biodiversity, which well-managed grazing systems can enhance.

“But we are lacking a lot of tools that help farmers and consumers make the right decisions.

“We know a lot of the broad principles but what gets really complicated is when you are trying to manage the trade-offs.

“Say you are on a grass-based system – does increasing growth rates through concentrates help or hinder your footprint? It would probably reduce methane emissions on-farm but it will have an impact off-farm because you are bringing in concentrates that have been grown elsewhere.

“And it gets particularly tricky with soya and other resources that have a biodiversity impact elsewhere in the world.”

Developing reasonably robust metrics that help farmers and consumers make the right choices in real-time when faced with choices would be hugely helpful, he said.

There is though, no onesize-fits-all sustainable farming system.

“Often the advantages of one system have downsides too,” Simm said.

“But whatever system is most applicable to your set of circumstances you can do things to reduce environmental impacts through best practice.”

Scientists are in discussion about how important methane actually is to climate change but, regardless, it is good to limit emissions by reducing waste through improved fertility, livestock health, fertiliser use and manure management.

Dietary additives and breeding for reduced methane, are also being researched.

Policy should also properly reward sustainable practices and disincentivise ones that are not.

The environmental and health impacts of production should also be costed in but, alongside policies that tackle the United Kingdom’s high rates of inequality and poverty to ensure food poverty is not exacerbated.

– UK Farmers Guardian

Industry outraged over banned meat comments

INDUSTRY leaders have reacted angrily to comments from the new Trade and Agriculture Commission chairman, who called for an end to the “alarmism” around chlorinated chicken and hormone-treated beef on his first day in post.

In an opinion piece published under his name in The Telegraph, Tim Smith, a former chief executive of the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and ex-Tesco group technical director, said the panic over both products, which are currently banned in the UK, had done “neither the industry nor the public any favours”.

His comments, shared by the Department for International Trade on social media, prompted a backlash from Richard Griffiths, chief executive of the British Poultry Council.

“People are rightly concerned about maintaining our food standards and want to know our Government is listening,” Griffiths said.

“These comments show either a lack of understanding of the subject or a degree of contempt for people who are genuinely worried, neither of which is a good look for a commission, supposedly intended to be on the side of British food producers.”

After five years at the helm of the FSA, Smith moved to Tesco in 2012, which was hit one year later by the horsemeat scandal. He previously worked for Northern Foods, Arla and Sara Lee. Kath Dalmeny, chief executive of Sustain, said: “The Government is trying to fob us off with a temporary, toothless commission, stacked with industry representatives and no consumer champions.

“To have the chair of this commission dismiss our serious concerns about dirty production systems which need chlorine washing as ‘alarmism’ adds insult to injury.

“Mr Smith says the Government has been clear on maintaining high standards of food safety and animal welfare, yet it refuses to protect these in law from cheap imports.”

Trade expert David Henig, UK director of the European Centre for International Political Economy, described Mr Smith’s comments as “disappointing” on social media. In a tweet, Henig said: “When seeking a consensus on a difficult topic it is generally not a good idea to start by telling large numbers they are being alarmist.”

– UK Farmers Guardian

Scots at odds with UK plan

SCOTTISH and United Kingdom ministers have locked horns in a battle over the future protection of food standards.

According to Michael Russell, Scotland’s Constitutional Affairs Secretary, the UK Government is intending to bring forward new legislation which would force the devolved nations to accept lower food standards if England chooses to accept them as part of any future trade deals.

Russell set out his concerns in a terse letter to Cabinet Secretary Michael Gove, in which he accused the UK Government of pursuing its plans while Scottish Ministers were preoccupied with covid-19.

Russell’s letter read: “The introduction of a mutual recognition regime of the type we understand you wish to bring forward would mean a reduction in standards in one part of the UK would have the effect of pushing down standards elsewhere in the UK, in contradiction of the preferred approaches of stakeholders and decisions taken by devolved parliaments.

“Mutual recognition could be applied to a range of devolved policy choices such as food standards.

“This proposal is not only unacceptable: it also ignores the reality of devolution. Your approach would work against the interests of producers and consumers, and ignore the need to reflect natural variations in our geographies, sectors and communities which is a cornerstone of devolution.”

National Farmers’ Union (NFU) Scotland said it was engaging with both the Scottish and UK Governments.

The new law is designed to protect the UK internal market, and would create an external body to stop devolved administrations from passing legislation which distorts domestic trade. It would also include provisions for a new mutual recognition regime which could require regulatory standards in one part of the UK to be automatically accepted in others.

– UK Farmers Guardian