Farmers across Europe are protesting against changes in regulations and subsidy schemes. Smaller protests have spread across Britain – especially in Wales, where thousands have voiced their grievances over the recent update to the Sustainable Farming Scheme (SFS).
This is the Welsh Government’s proposed plan to replace the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which spent the majority of its budget on payments for every hectare of land managed. The new plan aims to give farmers public money for public goods – in other words, pay farmers from public funds for the ecosystem services they provide, which are not reimbursed by the sale of products. These include carbon sequestration, habitat maintenance and the preservation of cultural monuments.
To receive payments from the new voluntary scheme, farmers must comply with 17 actions aimed at improving biodiversity and overall agricultural management.
Farmers have made a special exception to the requirement that 10% of their land must be forested. This usually does not involve hedges as the aim is to increase the size and number of woodlands on farms. In addition, farmers will have to manage 10% of their land for semi-natural habitats, such as species-rich grasslands. Organizations such as Coed Cadw (Woodland Trust Cymru) highlight that tree cover on the average farm in Wales is already around 6-7%.
However, the requirement to plant trees can be difficult for tenant farmers, who need permission from landowners, while mortgaged farmers can be turned away by banks because planting trees could reduce land values.
At a recent event I attended in Narberth in South Wales, National Farmers’ Union Cymru chairman Aled Jones said the 10% requirement is too high and would affect food production (the UK already imports around 46% of his food). and the rural economy. The continuation of the Welsh language must also be taken into account, with 43% of agricultural workers speaking Welsh, by far the highest of any industry.
The economic crisis is looming
Governments are obliged to meet net zero targets, while farmers must cling to their livelihoods in a difficult economic climate. Farmers receive very little of the retail value of their products. Dairy farmers in Britain typically receive less than 1 cent of the retail value of a 480g block of cheese.
Production costs are rising worldwide. Feed, fuel and fertilizer prices have soared along with interest rates and energy costs, making it harder than ever to make a profit. Many farmers could go bankrupt if their subsidy income decreases, especially on smaller farms.
Research commissioned by the Welsh Government shows that the new scheme will shrink agricultural incomes and cause a total annual damage of £199 million (US$250 million) to the Welsh agricultural economy. It predicts that livestock numbers will decline, with an associated loss of farm jobs.
And this figure does not include the indirect impact on rural economies, which are often heavily dependent on agriculture. It comes after years of British farmers being told they would receive financial support to make a green transition. Many feel a sense of betrayal. The exact payment details for SFS won’t be announced until later in 2024, and this uncertainty has many worried.
Falling subsidy levels will force some British farmers to sell their produce. Some farms are already being bought by major investment funds for timber production and the sale of carbon credits to companies looking to ‘offset’ their emissions, a practice that has been criticized as ‘greenwashing’. One investment company has already bought several Welsh farms with the aim of buying as much as 166,000 hectares of land in Wales, which would make it one of the largest landowners in the country.
A new form of politics
We are witnessing the limits of a green transition constrained by austerity, which in this case places the responsibility for decarbonization on individual farms. This is instead of addressing the systemic challenges.
Public investment in agriculture in Wales has declined in real terms over the past decade. Farmers are concerned that future funding for the new plan will not go far enough to make it worthwhile to plant trees and create habitat. Low take-up, with many farms being sold off instead, could not be a bad thing for the Welsh Government if it is just trying to reduce public spending and emissions from agriculture. This would also make more land available for forestry, which will help Wales achieve its tree planting targets.
However, if food production declines, more food will be imported, which will only shift the environmental impacts of food production to other parts of the world. Alternatives such as agroforestry could bridge the gap between these competing demands, with trees promoting, not hindering, food production. An example, called silvopasture, involves planting rows of trees in fields at regular intervals so that animals can graze or crops can be grown on either side.
A transition to an agricultural system will take time and require broader reforms and greater economic security for farmers. Given that Britain is the world’s third largest importer of timber products and only 15% of Wales is forested, compared to 39% of the total land area in the EU, more trees are needed. But it is counterproductive for the Welsh Government to alienate farmers; the plan must take into account the restrictions imposed on them.
Protests from European farmers have already led to governments abandoning some of the proposed changes, such as scrapping plans to halve pesticide use. But while farmers’ frustration is justified, the urgent need to tackle climate and ecological breakdown remains.
The scale of this challenge requires a new form of politics, rooted not in austerity but in renewed government spending on food and agricultural systems, combined with swift action against the parts of the supply chain that are hoarding all the profits.
Supermarkets continue to make eye-watering profits, while farmers face low prices and consumers face high prices due to profiteering. The answer is not to abandon decarbonization or environmental regulation. The answer is to fight for a just green transition, where farmers are better supported to make the necessary changes towards a more socially and environmentally just food system.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Alex Heffron does not work for, consult with, own shares in, or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.