Is EU Green Deal a red alert for farmers?

The extent to which the environmental agenda has gripped EU politics over the past decade is reflected in the Green Deal strategy outlined by the new European Commission earlier this month. Spearheaded by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, the thrust of the deal is towards making the EU climate neutral by 2050.

It is no surprise that in achieving this goal the Commission sees developing a new strategy for EU agriculture as a central planks. What is more surprising and highly significant, is that responsibility for developing this strategy, to be known as Farm to Fork, has been given to the Commissioner for Health and Food Safety, Stella Kyriakidou. It will not rest with the Commissioner for Agriculture Janusz Wojciechowski.

The agriculture sector must not allow the comments made by the Commissioner for Health to go unchallenged

This signals that under the new Commission, the direction of the next CAP, which has been identified as the main tool in implementing the Farm to Fork strategy, will be heavily influenced by both the environmental and human health interest agenda.

Commissioner Kyriakidou’s comments in relation to the role of pesticides and fertiliser will be of concern to farmers. At the recent EU and Outlook conference, she expressed the view that dependency on pesticides is not sustainable and is harmful for our planet and our citizens. Attention was also brought to future practices in relation to antibiotic use on farms and the need to significantly reduce fertiliser and pesticide use.

Political narrative

Her comments show the extent to which the political narrative within Brussels is being shaped by the agenda of non-government organisations. No longer do they require scientific evidence to support their claims. A petition with over one million signatures of support is now a much more effective tool in getting the attention of policymakers.

Nevertheless, the agriculture sector must not allow the comments made by the Commissioner for Health to go unchallenged. Scientific evidence to support such serious claims must be provided. At the same time, the industry needs to highlight the extent to which EU policy currently restricts the industry from accessing technologies that could significantly reduce reliance on both pesticides and fertilisers – mainly gene editing.

The technology is currently subject to the same regulatory framework as genetic modification (GM). Distinguishing between new plant breeding technologies and GM would give farmers access to more resilient crops requiring less resources.

Plan

When the Commission presents its Farm to Fork strategy in spring 2020, there must be a clear plan as to how the same Green Deal standards will be applied to all trade deals. A situation cannot be allowed develop where new regulations that restrict/reduce productivity on EU farms are not applied to imports. Any move in this direction would leave the Green Deal exposed to claims of being designed to outsource climate and environmental obligations.

The proposal for a Carbon Border Adjustment (CBA) suggested in Brussels last October is one the agricultural lobby should look at in detail. Although likely to face stiff competition from global trading partners, the measure would compel other countries to meet EU climate standards or have additional taxes added to their products at EU borders. Commission president Ursula von der Leyen has said the measure would allow EU companies compete internationally on a level playing field.

Meanwhile, at national level there is need over the coming months to develop a strategy as to where we want to position farmers in this debate. Total resistance is one option and there is no doubt a robust defence to proposals in the Green Deal could be mounted – but we risk getting left behind.

Just Transition Mechanism

There is an ambition to put in place a €100bn Just Transition Mechanism (JTM) to help member states implement policies under the Green Deal. While we should challenge the flaws where appropriate in relation to pesticides and fertiliser, we should also explore if there is an opportunity to use the JTM to reshape parts of our industry – particularly those where financial viability is challenged.

In the case of suckling, a final impact assessment should be completed on the effect of moving what is already a low-input suckler system towards one aligned to the Green Deal objectives. Clearly it would only be viable if a significant support model was put in place funded through the JTM. Meanwhile, in the case of dairying there is clearly need for a national assessment to be completed on what effect the direction of travel outlined in the Green Deal will have on future expansion and particularly the viability of further investment in processing capacity.

The passage of the Brexit bill by the British parliament means the UK’s departure from the EU on 31 January is finally confirmed.

Previous attempts by the prime minister and his predecessor were blocked by parliament but the general election has returned a decisive majority of 80 for Boris Johnson, ensuring the passage of the legislation.

After 31 January, the UK will move into the transition phase during which nothing will change in the trading relationship with the EU. This is due to last until the end of 2020, during which time a future trading relationship will be negotiated with the provision for a two-year extension should both parties agree on it. However, the UK has made it part of the withdrawal legislation that they will not be seeking an extension.

This means an incredibly short period to negotiate a complex deal. Signals from the UK prime minister suggest the risk of no deal by the end of 2020 is increasing – a disaster for Irish trade with Britain. Alternatively, the UK could decide to align completely with the EU standards, meaning business could continue unchanged. But this would give the UK little flexibility in other trade deals.

For farmers and industry in the North, the withdrawal agreement means business can continue as usual on the island of Ireland but there will be increased administration and tariffs on trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.

The direction of travel outlined in the European Commission’s Green Deal once again brings the Government’s renewable energy strategy into focus – and in particular the reluctance to put in place a proper mechanism to support on-farm anaerobic digestion.

Early reports that the Commission has its sights set on a 30-50% reduction in pesticide use raises very serious question marks over the range of crops which tillage farmers will be in a position to grow into the future – winter wheat in particular would be vulnerable.

If a sharp reduction in pesticide use is the direction in which EU policy is travelling, then we again need to look at the €100bn Just Transition Mechanism (JTM) to provide alternative land use options for the tillage sector.

Securing adequate funding under the JTM for on farm anaerobic digestion would deliver on the double by providing alternative cropping options and reducing our requirement for fossil fuels.

The announcement this week that a grant scheme is to be put in place for calf-rearing equipment is a useful first step in helping farmers invest in the infrastructure necessary to handle increased number of calves.

We understand a review of the minimum age limit at which calves can move off farms is under review. Caution is need as forcing calves to stay on dairy farms longer may not deliver the intended outcome.

Increasing the age limit before movement should be done in tandem with a move to establish a list of registered calf-rearing farms where farmers selling on to these units could move stock at an earlier age. This would promote a partnership approach between the dairy farmer and beef farmer.

Meanwhile, we must not lose sight of the importance of ensuring we continue to exploit the full potential of genetics in underpinning the value of calves coming off dairy farms.