Whilst we welcome the current Government’s more long-term approach on climate action, disappointingly the 7th ‘carbon budget and growth delivery plan’, published this week (29 October), still stops short of providing sustainable methane-reduction policies.
The Methane Action Plan aims to reduce emissions of planet-warming, greenhouse gases (GHGs) as part of the carbon budget. It recognises that a significant source of GHGs (48%) are emitted by the agricultural sector – largely from beef and dairy cattle. But instead of providing targets suggested by the Climate Change Committee – the need to reduce the numbers of cattle farmed and decrease our consumption levels, the plan aims instead to retain cattle numbers, whilst simultaneously retaining yields and turning a blind eye to the issue of meat reduction.
It states: “While our methane emissions have fallen, productivity improvements have enabled meat production to remain stable and milk output to increase, even while cattle numbers have declined (due to complex pressures such as changing demand, disease outbreaks etc). Productivity improvements have been due to increased prevalence of high yielding breeds and changes in management e.g. improving livestock’s housing and diet.”
What this translates to is not long-term sustainability, but the path to lower animal welfare benchmarks with cattle being reared intensively – housed indoors without access to pasture. And we must ask ourselves, where is the compassion in locking animals away and restricting their natural behaviours? Our recent report highlights numerous examples of what can go wrong when we farm intensively – revealing the immense toll of climate crisis-linked extreme weather on farmed animals, citizens, farmers’ livelihoods and food security. We cannot keep with this business-as-usual approach. It’s simply not working.
The proposed ‘Action to 2030 and beyond’ goes on to acknowledge that a profitable farming sector is “good for rural jobs and food security” but fails to recognise that intensification equates to smaller family farms being swallowed up by megafarms, adding to the breakdown of our rural livelihoods and communities.
Meanwhile, it recognises “the long-term sustainability and productivity of agriculture relies on mitigating the worst impacts of climate change, improving soil health, having abundant pollinators and clean water”. Yes, efforts to plant more hedges and trees is a step in the right direction but taking animals off the land to house intensively reared cattle indoors, does not allow the herd to benefit the environment and play their significant role in carbon sequestration.
Cattle will always be a contributor to carbon emissions, but when managed well, herds can balance out some emissions by enhancing soil organic matter, increasing root depth and promoting plant regrowth. The process can also improve biodiversity and water retention in the soil. By adopting regenerative agriculture practices, sustainable approaches to rearing cattle can be much less harmful to the climate than more industrial and intensive production methods.
The Action to 2030 also highlights that Government will help finance research and innovation on livestock genetics. This is disappointing. It would be far wiser to focus investment on agro-forestry and rewilding, providing practical and financial help for farmers, guided by regenerative principles.
If the Government is committed to supporting UK farmers to achieving net zero and reducing methane emissions to meet the UN’s Paris Agreement, balance is required. Focus should not be to improve meat and dairy yields and productivity, but to break away from intensive cattle production methods, rebuild rural communities and restore nature by reintegrating cattle into our fields through the adoption of regenerative farming practices. This would not only be better for animal welfare, but also our environment would improve. It’s win-win.
To achieve a truly sustainable food system and proper reduction of methane emissions, consumers must simultaneously reduce their meat and dairy consumption within a planned framework. We must look at how we use our land to feed animals. Our Food Not Feed report draws attention to the huge inefficiencies of producing food to feed farmed animals, which if grown for human consumption instead, would in the UK, equate to land the size of Norfolk and Cambridgeshire combined. It’s scandalous that we talk of global hunger, yet this land could be better used to grow crops to fill the bellies of an additional 16.5 million people in the UK. And for farmers to remain resilient, switching to growing peas, grains, pulses, fruit and vegetables should then be encouraged. Doing so, would make the UK less reliant on imports, allowing our national security to be extended. By encouraging consumers to switch to a healthier, more plant-based diet, it would also help to reduce our current obesity and health crisis and reduce the strain on our NHS.
The UK needs to create a food production system that is more resilient to the climate extremes we will – and already are – facing. Three of England’s worst harvests on record have been in the past five years. We need to create a ‘just in case’ farming system that has in-built resilience. It’s imperative we do better for the planet and farmed animals. Doubling down on a cruel, inefficient industrial livestock production system is imprudent. Real transition and change is needed – and now – before it’s too late.
The opinions expressed in this blog are the authors' and not necessarily those of the wider Link membership.
Latest Blog Posts