Brexit ‘intransigence’ is main threat to agriculture
“Re wilding”, species introduction and protection, climate change mitigation, fairer methods of calculating farming’s contributions to greenhouse gas emissions, mental health and wellbeing, and getting a fairer share from the food supply chain all figured large at NFU Scotland’s conference and AGM yesterday.
But even against the background of such underlying threats, union president Andrew Mccornick said that there was no getting away from the fact that Brexit uncertainty still constituted the single biggest issue facing Scottish agriculture.
Warning of the ”massive disruption” which he said would ensue in the face of a no-deal Brexit, Mccornick said that with only 1,200 hours to go – and the negotiations still “stuck in the glaur” – it was imperative that the country’s leaders put aside political differences: “A ‘no-deal’ means a ‘hard Brexit’ and this means the UK falling out of Europe on 30 March and the application of World Trade Organisation tariffs.”
He said that the under WTO rules, the agri-food sector was amongst those likely to be the hardest hit with huge tariffs on food and farm products threating the viability of many sectors of the industry. And warning that patience was running out in Brussels, he said that any remaining goodwill towards the UK was in danger of being squandered by political in-fighting at Westminster.
“While there might have been a feeling of collaboration and a willingness to understand in Europe, all they can see happening in the UK is confrontational politics with polarised views and intransigence.”
On climate change, Mccornick said that the industry wasn’t getting the recognition it deserved for carbon sequestration – with the current processes used to calculate net contributions entirely ignoring the fact that the industry also captured carbon.
“And if we could continue
to improve soil organic matter – increasing it by even a single per cent – then we would be capturing more carbon than all the forests in the country,” said Mccornick.
The point was taken up later from the floor by former union president Jim Mclaren, who said the country was in danger of “sleep walking” into a net zero emissions policy long before it was ready: “There is a desperate need for proper measures to calculate the real benefits of Scotland’s grass-based red meat industry, for which we currently receive zero credit.”
The meeting also heard a strong condemnation of the prevailing approach on species introduction and protection which had considerable impact not only on farming profitability but also on other wildlife.
David Colthart from Appin in Argyll interspersed his talk on a monitor farm project looking at the effects of sea eagle predation with the “pictures which Springwatch doesn’t want you to see”, when he outlined some of
the experiences of farmers in the area. He said that the study had shown that the number of lambs being lost between birth and sale was undermining the ability to run hefted hill flocks.
“Predation is taking away the ability to return healthy ewe lambs to maintain the hefts. The result is we are forced to keep poorer ewe lambsasreplacementsand have to hold on to our ewes for longer,” he said.
He said that as new stock from elsewhere wouldn’t integrate with hefted flocks this ledto a “cycle of decline”.
While he welcomed the fact that the scientific study had backed up the feeling of producers that productivity had dropped in sea eagle areas, he said: “We can’t simply allow this scientific experiment to continue because we are dealing with people’s actual livelihoods here.”
Scottish National Heritage chief executive Francesca Osowska, who stressed the need for collaboration between farmers and environmentalists, in her address was told from the floor that this approach needed to be worked on.
“If environmental bodies want buy-in from farmers they need to accept that wildlife management comes at a cost – because like me, many farmers are done with providing public goods at our own expense,” said Angus grower, Euan Walker.