Farmers can meet their climate obligations – and stay productive

FARMERS have shouldered the blame for many of the ills of the countryside for years. They have been blamed – generally unfairly – for everything from the loss of birdlife to restrictions on rural access. And all the while their critics have enjoyed a wide variety of competitively priced home-produced food and drink from the very farmers whose work they attack.

In truth, of course, agriculture in the UK is among the least damaging, most animal-welfare friendly and, increasingly, environmentally-aware to be found anywhere in the world. While any activity in the countryside has an impact on the soil, the wildlife and the landscape, the positives more than outweigh the negatives. And if you want to completely ‘rewild’ the countryside you have to go abroad for even more of your food. It’s as simple as that.

But if farmers are a part of the problem when it comes to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions they are also an even bigger part of the solution. With the right farming methods they can store more carbon than they release. With sympathetic planting they can create more homes for wildlife and with the clever use of technology they can cut down on the chemical inputs and the harmful outputs on their farms.

The National Farmers’ Union has taken up the challenge facing everyone in the UK to reduce their contribution to global warming and pledged to move to net zero output by 2040 – a whole decade before the UK government has promised the nation will do the same.

They are already making progress towards that target and have seen greenhouse gas emissions drop by 16% since 1990. They admit, however, that progress has slowed since 2011. The initiative announced yesterday will put it back on track.

Improving the health of cattle and sheep – essential converters of carbon-holding pasture into meat and milk – will reduce methane emissions; greater precision in the arable sector will mean pesticides and nutrients can be delivered more accurately, meaning less is needed.

And bigger hedges, more trees and more areas planted with cover crops and wild flowers will help to provide safe havens for insects, birds and mammals, widening bio-diversity. No one is claiming that it is possible to feed a nation of more than 60 million people without making a contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. Like other industries, farming has a carbon footprint it must manage.

But, uniquely, farming is an answer to the problem as well as a partial cause of it. Minette Batters, the president of the National Farmers Union recognises that fact and, ambitiously, aspires to helping Britain produce the most climate-friendly food in the world. It would be possible to dramatically reduce the UK’s carbon footprint by simply exporting food production abroad. That though, would be both morally indefensible and economically ruinous for the countryside.

We can already feel proud of our farmers and countryside managers for keeping our landscape beautiful, productive and providing homes to wildlife. Over the coming decades they can also play their part in cutting greenhouse gas emissions. They deserve credit, not complaints.

BRITAIN had very few referendums, then suddenly 11 since 1973 as the move for more devolved governments resulted in Welsh and Scottish referendums.

There are mixed opinions about referendums. One parliamentarian I have known for 60 years, who spent his life in and around the Houses of Parliament, says, “since 1215 we have lived in an evolving representative government, not a plebiscitary ‘rule by the mob’”. Considered carefully, with a measure of reflection on our recent experiences, there is an argument that suggest referendums can and do release the dogs of war.

National referendums are regulated by the 2000 Act of Parliament. They are rare due to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, meaning they cannot be constitutionally binding on the Government or Parliament, although they usually have a persuasive political effect.

So what are the justifications for having one? They give valuable consultative information to government on public opinion on issues; for example capital punishment, divorce or Lords Reform. Referendums on smaller issues like the establishment of the Welsh assembly and Scottish Parliament expressed the public wishes for more devolved regional government. The Government publishes policy documents – Green or White papers – discussing possible policy; another way it gathers a public reaction to a mooted course of action.

Rule by plebiscite (referendum) or, as some correspondents suggest, changing the role of our MPs from

representative of all who live in the constituency to one of a delegate (delivering instruction to parliament only from people in the party that supported their candidature) would produce mass resignations of MPs and parliamentary chaos.

Our Parliament debates proposed laws, researches them , considers them again and votes. Laws are made if Parliament as a majority says so. That thorough, but perhaps ponderous system has served us well. If experience shows a law was poor or inadequate Parliament can make amendments or repeal – revoke it. Mrs Thatcher’s poll tax is one example. The first act of John Major, as the new Prime Minister was to repeal it. The majority of supporting MPs in Parliament were wrong and they changed their minds.

“If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.” So spoke David Davis MP who spent almost three years negotiating with the EU over Brexit.

The Lisbon treaty determined the procedure under which a state can leave the EU, including leaving with and without an agreed settlement. It allows for a change of mind before the end of two years. Britain can revoke article 50 and remain – but not after the leaving date. After the 2016 referendum result the British government legislated to leave the EU and gave written notice of withdrawal, stating the date for leaving. That meant if no leaving terms are agreed by that date, membership is terminated, by the EU; Britain leaves by default.

David Cameron chose not to follow the recommendation of the Venice convention on referendums for a two-vote staged approach. That was his first mistake – but not his only one. The result was chaos and confusion and fanciful reasonings from both sides.

Neither side knew what leaving terms might be possible – or the cost of our statutory obligations. The consequences of a common border twixt the north and south of Ireland, or between Gibraltar and Spain, was hardly mentioned.

It was further aggravated by both the government and opposition giving clear signs to the voters that Parliament would be “compliant” towards the majority vote, totally contrary to the overriding fact of Parliamentary sovereignty over all laws. Its efficacy was further infected by the very reason for a referendum – political, not national, not economic.

The referendum on our EU membership was probably the most dangerous thing a British government could have contemplated.

Its result – with or without a deal – impacts on all 27 EU member states because it would affect trade conditions. It also took the final fallback decision out of British hands. It was not a case of ‘no deal, then you remain’, it was ‘no deal, then you leave’.

Don Frampton was a people manager for a large insurance company. He lives in Newton Abbot.