The Courier & Advertiser (Perth and Perthshire Edition)
Farm unions deserve praise for securing voice on trade
UK farm unions shou ld be congratulated for scor ing a significant victory, with the UK Government caving in to the huge political pressure they were facing to make the Trade and Agriculture Commission permanent.
This is good news for agriculture as the industry will now have a permanent voice advising Parliament on the likely impact of new trade deals on UK agriculture.
It is of course still advisory but, nevertheless, it should give farmers some comfort that their concerns will be heard before deals are signed off.
The unions’ campaign attracted widespread support from the public with more than a million signatures for their petition.
With celebrity backing from the likes of Jamie Oliver generating substantial coverage in the media, the campaign gained real momentum since parliament rejected the first attempt to make the commission permanent.
The campaign also attracted unlikely support from the environment movement. Green NGOs such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace came out strongly in the media claiming that a US trade deal was toxic and imports of US beef and chicken were dangerous.
Some of the wilder claims they and some others made about industrial farming techniques leading to poor animal welfare and contaminated US meat products were extremely damaging despite the fact they we r e m a n i f e s t l y untrue, as any examination of US statistics on food poisoning will show.
Many farmers were also happy to indulge in the finger pointing going on in the media about our beef being safer than yours.
However, the danger with indulging in this type of negative publicity is that all the public hears through the media noise is yet another negative stor y about meat being bad for you, which is a bit of an own goal.
I also think the claim by some in the industry that a US trade deal would spell the end of UK farming is way over the top.
Yes, there are threats to our beef sector from US farmers being able to use hormones to grow their
cattle faster but, as the EU has shown, compromises can be negotiated with the US such as offering limited tariff-free quotas on nonhormone beef.
We should not forget that a US trade deal is not, as sometimes portrayed, a lose-lose situation for UK agric ulture. T here are potentially big wins for UK dair y and sheep meat exports into US markets in any trade deal.
The real argument on standards and trade which the industry should be making to government is simple.
Consumer research by levy body AHDB has shown consumers like the idea of
higher standards but will not pay for them.
So instead of calling for a ban on imports the demand should be that government levels the playing field by providing the same level of farm support in future to cover the extra costs. That would ensure UK farmers remain competitive against imports.
With the debate around standards and Covid-19 dominating the news, the farming industry has been lulled into a false sense of security; both these issues have sidelined the real challenge facing the livestock sector, which is the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
We know what our fairweather friends in the environment movement who have been piling into the debate about American beef imports believe is the solution to that challenge: An end to meat eating.
So it is good to see Jim Wa l k e r and his Suckler Beef Climate Group bringing forward some ideas on how the Scottish beef industry can make a contribution to Scotland being carbon neutral by 2045.
There is no attempt to duck the issue, as the report makes clear that the suckler beef system is responsible for more than a third of agricultural emissions and the beef herd must find realistic ways to cut emissions if it is to have any future.
The group suggests a wide range of practical solutions to help reduce emissions.
The main thrust of their recommendations is a drive to increase the productivity of the beef herd and lift all producers into the top 20% of performers.
That means increasing the number of calves reared, reducing the size of beef cows, calving at two years old and reducing the age at slaughter to improve performance and cut emissions.
They also point to the development of methane inhibitors, which hold out the promise of cutting methane emissions by 20%.
They want the Scottish Government to set up a new support scheme which will presumably be funded from Common Agricultural Policy money to drive the transformation of the sector.
They suggest that farmers wishing to access the scheme must complete a carbon audit, analyse all inputs, complete soil, forage, manure and feed plans, and commit to a biodiversity plan.
Will the industry buy into this, given farmers’ notorious dislike of being told what to do and how to run their farms?
I sincerely hope so, because if the beef industry does not start taking significant steps towards a more sustainable production model it has no future in tomorrow’s marketplace.