Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
As carbon dioxide makes up only 20 per cent of agricultural emissions, agriculture is clearly not like most other sectors. Professor Pete Smith, who is the lead author on agriculture for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said when he was before the committee a few weeks ago:
“Agriculture is a more difficult sector to decarbonise because greenhouse gas emissions other than carbon dioxide are involved.”—[Official Report, Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, 1 February 2017; c 30.]
Those emissions are mostly from the biological processes that are inherent in food production. Although some foods produce lower emissions than others, there is no zero-emissions food, and we all, of course, have to eat.
The sector requires a distinctive approach to tackle nitrous oxide, which is 298 times worse than carbon dioxide, and methane, which is 25 times worse than carbon dioxide. There are no easy options. Most of the steps that farmers can take to reduce their emissions can be taken only voluntarily. The Government can, for example, do little to force improvements in livestock fertility, mortality or health. Also, we cannot know the amount of fertiliser a farmer has actually applied to a field or—if it was raining—when they did so.
Factors such as field drainage and soil compaction are enforceable only at the extreme. We need farmers to want to make the changes, but for most mitigation measures we have no realistic means of making, enforcing or directing them so to do.
The draft climate change plan sets out our approach across five policy outcomes covering all the sources of emissions in agriculture. We are targeting every step in the process—from soil to livestock, to waste and byproducts. Our role is to show our farmers what changes they can make to reduce emissions and at the same time improve their profitability, and to give them every support and encouragement.
There is a significant risk that moving immediately to a regulatory approach would achieve the opposite of the intended effect by alienating farmers and damaging their view of climate-friendly farming. If we create an impression among farmers that climate-friendly farming is something that is being done to them through inspections, enforcement and penalties, they will turn against all the other steps that we want them to take. We cannot significantly reduce emissions from agriculture without the good will of the actual custodians of the land. The good news is that most of the actions that farmers can take to reduce emissions will make or save them money. What is good for the planet is, therefore, good for their pockets, as well.
I believe that engagement and encouragement will best achieve the objectives that we have set out in the agriculture chapter of the draft climate change plan. Building on the success of programmes such as farming for a better climate and the soil and nutrient network, we can demonstrate to farmers and crofters that every business can have better soil, healthier crops and more productive livestock, and make the most of its waste products—because farms just like theirs have already done that and have made money at the same time.
There is no question: meeting our statutory emissions reduction targets will require a big effort from agriculture. It is a challenge that, with the right approach, I know the sector can meet. It will not be achieved by working against the industry, though, and it definitely will not happen if we harm farming incomes. Becoming more sustainable often means some up-front costs and risks, but you cannot be green when you are in the red.
I am confident that, as more and more farmers realise the benefits of improving their soil, increasing their livestock efficiency and generating their own renewable energy, we will not call it “climate-friendly farming” any more; it will just be called farming.