Why scrapping net zero could help tackle climate change

Farmers want to play their part in reducing greenhouse gas emissions – but net zero is disengaging them, says a report.

The finding is just one conclusion reached by a “citizens’ jury” of 16 farmers and land managers who explored the role they and their peers could and should play in addressing climate change.

Food producers face growing government pressure to reduce emissions through a range of prescriptive activities.

See also: Climate change mitigation alone is not enough, report warns

Yet many farmers question the way the impact of agriculture is measured – and the practicality and validity of proposed interventions.

The two-day farmers’ jury was convened by the AgriFood for Net Zero Network+ (AFN Network+).

The 16 participants from across the UK heard evidence from more than 20 experts on government policy, climate science, technology and land use.

Better understanding

The two-day evidence session in London sought to gain a better understanding of the demands placed on farmers by government policy and why – and then decide what could be done better to address the issues at play.

In a unanimous verdict, the jury found UK farmers and land managers should play their part in meeting climate change and nature recovery ambitions because delivery on the ground would be critical to overall success.

But the jury also found that climate-change targets should change.

It found that “net zero” as a term was disengaging growers and livestock producers because it was virtually impossible for the sector to achieve.

Juror Trevor Bosomworth, a farmer and grower from Thirsk in North Yorkshire, said the group was clear that UK farmers should play a role.

However, they believe that role should be balanced land management rather than focusing on emissions reduction.

Balance needed

“This means playing an integral part in enhancing the environment while ensuring that viable food production remains at the heart of any changes,” he explained.

The jury felt there was also a disproportionate focus on agriculture as a source of greenhouse gas emissions. Farmers were being expected to do more than other sectors to mitigate climate change, it concluded.

Herefordshire sheep farmer Penny Chantler said: “As farmers, growers and custodians of the landscape, I feel the government is putting a greater pressure on agriculture than it is on others to solve the climate crisis.”

The jury accepted that farmers should also take some responsibility for the ongoing impasse over reducing emissions.

But it found that changes to mindset and language were needed from both farmers and the government to move the debate forward.

‘Ground-truthing’

Behavioural change champion Amy Jackson, who convened the farmers’ jury on behalf of the AFN Network+, said jurors identified a lack of “ground-truthing” in government policy – and suggested farmers themselves could be partly to blame for this.

“Relationships with government are currently quite political and tend to be largely managed through the farming unions,” said Ms Jackson. Policymakers should have better access to grassroots farmers, she added.

Lobbying had its place, but liaising with discussions groups or Monitor Farm networks would help ensure civil servants had a safe space to ask questions and try out new ideas, Ms Jackson explained.

The jury also found that farmers should have a “seat at the table” if and when policies on land use, health, nature and food start to converge. Such co-design is already evident in Scotland and Wales, but less so in England.

Help and advice

Ian Powell, a mixed farmer with a retail business near Abergavenny, said: “The way in which Wales’ environmental farm management scheme changed in response to feedback, illustrates the importance of thorough stakeholder consultation.”

Finally, the jury said farmer engagement with government policy would improve if some important “bottlenecks” were tackled around smarter funding, regulation and the provision of independent advice.

These specifically included changing the way methane was accounted for, standardising carbon accounting methods, regulating nature markets, and widening funding for technology – for example, covering second-hand equipment.

The next steps following the gathering will see the report promoted to governments across the UK’s four home nations – as well as to stakeholder organisations.

To read the full document covering all the proposed changes, at agrifood4netzero.net