Kirsty Finlayson is South West Ambassador for Conservative Environment Network and a lawyer who advises on climate-related risks.
Support for Conservatives in rural areas is collapsing. This was reflected in the local elections in Somerset earlier this month, but also in last year’s figures for the Farmers Weekly Sentiment Survey which suggested there had been a 15 per cent decrease in support from farmers. Linked to this trend is the idea that a transition to net zero is poorly received by farming communities.
This does not have to be the case. Providing environmental risks advice as a lawyer, studying towards an MSc in Conservation and Biodiversity, and living on a farm has provided me with a unique perspective on how the two agendas can happily compliment each other.
1. Buying British is buying biodiversity
One of the most sustainable things we can do in our everyday life is to buy British. Given that food production contributes around 37 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, we can reduce transport and storage emissions by buying local. We currently import 50 per cent of our food and animal feed, worth £18 billion. Encouraging the population to ‘buy British’ not only boosts the local economy but also reduces carbon emissions from extensive food miles – a win-win.
Such a move has been enabled by Brexit and by rejecting EU regulations which meant that, back in 2009, the Swedish government was banned from using a “buy local” campaign on the basis that it contradicted the EU’s free movement principles. Added to that, the war in Ukraine has clearly demonstrated the fragility of depending on global supply chains for our food. Focusing on seasonal British food increases food security all-round. We need our own “Buy British” government advertising campaign.
2. Brownfield should not always mean urban
We also need to make land more profitable for food than for housing, to benefit both farmers and wildlife. It feels like we have been debating brownfield sites for decades, when developers have favoured fields. This is profit-driven. In November last year, £11 million was allocated by the Government to councils to develop brownfield land into good quality housing; but all 23 redevelopment schemes were in towns or cities. This is because the Brownfield Register currently excludes sites in open countryside or buildings used for agricultural and forestry use.
We need to harness the potential for redevelopment in such sites. This will provide much needed affordable housing for local people and their location would undoubtedly not be as controversial for NIMBYs because such sites had previously been built on for manufacturing, industrial or agricultural uses, rather than open fields. Building over those often breeds legitimate concern over overdevelopment and the changing the makeup of a village. Giving greater flexibility to change the nature of disused buildings will also allow farmers to convert disused barns into much needed homes for local people, including those who work on the farms themselves.
3. Reducing environmental risks reduces uncertainty for farmers
Reducing environmental risks benefits food producers in the long-term. Taking action to mitigate climate risks, whether that be in the form of both ‘acute’ events (such as floods) and ‘chronic’ longer-term phenomena (such as higher average temperatures), will help food producers plan ahead. Protecting clean water sources from eutrophication actually ensures high quality crops and protects local aquaculture. Protecting the pollinators needed for crops is vital for crop security; pollinators are directly responsible for at least 1 out of every 3 bites of food we eat.
Innovation is a prime example of where research and development into farming techniques can benefit not just farmers, in terms of profits per hectare, but also productivity of farmers and benefits to nature. Research into these areas, however, should ensure that agricultural experts are included in the conversation; groups often lack rural representation. The Habitats Regulations Assessment Working Group, for example, has representatives from the government, the Chair of Natural England and a QC with a specialism in planning. Where is the representative from landowners who have an interest in the land which is to be protected?
4. Communication is key
There is also criticism of how this message is being communicated. In England, delays to rolling out the replacement of direct payments with the Environmental Land Management Scheme has damaged confidence. The APPG on the Rural Powerhouse’s recent report on ‘Levelling Up the Rural Economy’ noted that whilst the “payment for public goods” model is largely accepted as the correct course of action, there is a need for improved communications with farmers. We must ensure that farm businesses of all sizes – and not just those which can afford (often expensive) land agent advice – can access high quality advice tailored to their location and agriculture business. Farmers do not work in five year election cycles; farmers’ long-term planning must be accounted for in Westminster policy-making.
Labour is promising a rural minister in each department. The Lib Dems, despite lacking any clear political ideology, will be targeting the previous Tory stalwarts of the South West’s rural voters, having formed a new Food and Farming Working Group. The Conservative Party’s conservation message and the needs of rural communities can be compatible, but this must be communicated more effectively. Otherwise, we risk voters staying at home, or opting for another party at the next general election.
Kirsty Finlayson is South West Ambassador for Conservative Environment Network and a lawyer who advises on climate-related risks.
Support for Conservatives in rural areas is collapsing. This was reflected in the local elections in Somerset earlier this month, but also in last year’s figures for the Farmers Weekly Sentiment Survey which suggested there had been a 15 per cent decrease in support from farmers. Linked to this trend is the idea that a transition to net zero is poorly received by farming communities.
This does not have to be the case. Providing environmental risks advice as a lawyer, studying towards an MSc in Conservation and Biodiversity, and living on a farm has provided me with a unique perspective on how the two agendas can happily compliment each other.
1. Buying British is buying biodiversity
One of the most sustainable things we can do in our everyday life is to buy British. Given that food production contributes around 37 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, we can reduce transport and storage emissions by buying local. We currently import 50 per cent of our food and animal feed, worth £18 billion. Encouraging the population to ‘buy British’ not only boosts the local economy but also reduces carbon emissions from extensive food miles – a win-win.
Such a move has been enabled by Brexit and by rejecting EU regulations which meant that, back in 2009, the Swedish government was banned from using a “buy local” campaign on the basis that it contradicted the EU’s free movement principles. Added to that, the war in Ukraine has clearly demonstrated the fragility of depending on global supply chains for our food. Focusing on seasonal British food increases food security all-round. We need our own “Buy British” government advertising campaign.
2. Brownfield should not always mean urban
We also need to make land more profitable for food than for housing, to benefit both farmers and wildlife. It feels like we have been debating brownfield sites for decades, when developers have favoured fields. This is profit-driven. In November last year, £11 million was allocated by the Government to councils to develop brownfield land into good quality housing; but all 23 redevelopment schemes were in towns or cities. This is because the Brownfield Register currently excludes sites in open countryside or buildings used for agricultural and forestry use.
We need to harness the potential for redevelopment in such sites. This will provide much needed affordable housing for local people and their location would undoubtedly not be as controversial for NIMBYs because such sites had previously been built on for manufacturing, industrial or agricultural uses, rather than open fields. Building over those often breeds legitimate concern over overdevelopment and the changing the makeup of a village. Giving greater flexibility to change the nature of disused buildings will also allow farmers to convert disused barns into much needed homes for local people, including those who work on the farms themselves.
3. Reducing environmental risks reduces uncertainty for farmers
Reducing environmental risks benefits food producers in the long-term. Taking action to mitigate climate risks, whether that be in the form of both ‘acute’ events (such as floods) and ‘chronic’ longer-term phenomena (such as higher average temperatures), will help food producers plan ahead. Protecting clean water sources from eutrophication actually ensures high quality crops and protects local aquaculture. Protecting the pollinators needed for crops is vital for crop security; pollinators are directly responsible for at least 1 out of every 3 bites of food we eat.
Innovation is a prime example of where research and development into farming techniques can benefit not just farmers, in terms of profits per hectare, but also productivity of farmers and benefits to nature. Research into these areas, however, should ensure that agricultural experts are included in the conversation; groups often lack rural representation. The Habitats Regulations Assessment Working Group, for example, has representatives from the government, the Chair of Natural England and a QC with a specialism in planning. Where is the representative from landowners who have an interest in the land which is to be protected?
4. Communication is key
There is also criticism of how this message is being communicated. In England, delays to rolling out the replacement of direct payments with the Environmental Land Management Scheme has damaged confidence. The APPG on the Rural Powerhouse’s recent report on ‘Levelling Up the Rural Economy’ noted that whilst the “payment for public goods” model is largely accepted as the correct course of action, there is a need for improved communications with farmers. We must ensure that farm businesses of all sizes – and not just those which can afford (often expensive) land agent advice – can access high quality advice tailored to their location and agriculture business. Farmers do not work in five year election cycles; farmers’ long-term planning must be accounted for in Westminster policy-making.
Labour is promising a rural minister in each department. The Lib Dems, despite lacking any clear political ideology, will be targeting the previous Tory stalwarts of the South West’s rural voters, having formed a new Food and Farming Working Group. The Conservative Party’s conservation message and the needs of rural communities can be compatible, but this must be communicated more effectively. Otherwise, we risk voters staying at home, or opting for another party at the next general election.