Ongoing protests in the Netherlands, by farmers opposed to their government’s plan to cut nitrogen oxide emissions by 50% by 2030, have drawn attention to Canadian farmers’ concerns about a emission reduction target set by the Canadian government.
Canada’s Agriculture and Agri-Food Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau announced last year that the Liberals wanted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with fertilizers by 30% below 2020 levels by 2030.
Some farmers and members of the agriculture industry say it is extremely difficult to reduce emissions beyond current levels without reducing inputs, because Canadian farmers are already very efficient and judicious in their use of fertilizers.
They say less fertilizer use could also lead to lower produce output, depending on which method farmers use to reduce their inputs. This comes at a time when Canadian producers are already under additional pressure to fill grain market gaps caused by the war in Ukraine.
But the Canadian government is adamant the goal is to reduce emissions, not fertilizer use, and it is consulting with stakeholders until the end of August to discuss how to achieve the goal. . And scientists say it is entirely possible to meet the government’s target – without reducing fertilizer use.
“Our estimates are that it’s doable,” said Claudia Wagner Riddle, a professor in the University of Guelph’s School of Environmental Sciences.
In the Netherlands, farmers have been lining the streets with tractors and other equipment, dumping manure, tires and rubbish on the roads and burning nearby bales of hay for weeks to protest their government’s plan aiming to halve nitrogen emissions in the agriculture industry by 2030. Farmers say it could cost them their farms and their livelihoods.
In Canada, protesters in solidarity with Dutch farmers staged “slow rolling” demonstrations in cities across the country on July 23, including many parts of the Greater Toronto Area, Ottawa, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg and Vancouver. Hundreds of people took part in a dozen protests, lining up trucks and tractors, holding up signs that read “freedom”, “stand with farmers” and “world leaders agenda = famine”, while waving Dutch and Canadian flags.
Many of these protests were led by Freedom Fighters Canada, a group that was heavily involved in the Trucker Convoy protest in Ottawa in February, with members and organizers leading marches during this time.
Several protesters in Canada drew parallels between policies set by the Dutch government and Ottawa’s 30% emissions reduction target. Protesters say they fear Canadian farmers will also lose their livelihoods and end up staging mass protests like their European counterparts.
Saskatchewan protesters told CTV Regina they wanted to send a message to the Canadian government that implementing similar policies here is unacceptable.
But the policies put in place by the Dutch government and the Canadian government are fundamentally different.
While the Dutch government’s goal is to reduce emissions from the agriculture industry as a whole by 50% by 2030, the Canadian government is aiming for a 30% reduction in emissions from fertilizers specifically, also by 2030. .
Not only are the targets different, but so are the plans of the two governments to achieve their goals.
WHAT HAPPENS IN THE NETHERLANDS
In the Netherlands, the aim is to make what the government calls an “inevitable transition” in its agricultural industry and move towards circular farming by 2030, which will eventually involve using a minimum of external inputs and closing nutrient loops, among other practices. The intention is to reduce the use of chemical fertilizers and reduce the environmental impact of the agricultural industry.
The Dutch government’s plan also includes a target to halve agricultural industry emissions from nitrogen oxide and ammonia across the board, from greenhouse gases to groundwater leeches. , methane and other livestock wastes.
The main generators of excess nitrogen in Dutch agriculture are cattle farmers, so government targets will hit them the hardest, explained Alfons Weersink, faculty member of the economics department of the Netherlands. Food, Agriculture and Resources from the University of Guelph.
Many farmers say they may be forced to cut back or sell their livestock to meet government targets.
“It’s very immediate, it’s happening now, and it may explain the level of protests, that livelihoods are threatened and people are ready to take to the streets to protect their livelihoods,” Weersink said. to CTVNews.ca in a phone interview in August. 4.
But the reduction targets are not applied in the same way in all areas. Some regions need to make bigger cuts, in some places reducing emissions by more than 75%, and when the Dutch government released maps showing which regions needed to cut by what percentage, in many cases farmers said that the only way to achieve the goals is to reduce or close completely.
According to the Dutch government, farmers have three options: adapt, move or close.
“It’s a tough goal, and they’re going to enforce it by largely reducing livestock inventory,” Weersink said.
WHAT HAPPENS IN CANADA
Here in Canada, it is the crop growers who are worried.
“There’s not a lot of room for farmers before they start losing productivity and before their yields are affected, because of course you need fertilizer to maximize your yields,” said said Karen Proud, head of Fertilizer Canada, which represents manufacturers, importers and distributors. and fertilizer product retailers, in an interview with CTVNews.ca last month.
But Weersink said it was “not a one-to-one relationship” and “there are a number of ways to reduce emissions without drastically reducing fertilizer use.”
Proud said the biggest concern is that the Canadian government set the 30% emissions reduction target without consulting industry experts and stakeholders, but those consultations are now underway and Proud said that she was “cautiously optimistic” that the federal government is listening to the industry.
Cameron Newbigging, spokesperson for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, wrote in an email to CTVNews.ca on July 29 that the government’s 30% target “was established based on available scientific research and internal analysis.” , taking into account ways to optimize the use of fertilizers while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
While the Canadian government is in consultation with stakeholders, the Dutch government has given provincial authorities a year to determine how they will make the mandatory cuts.
“[In Canada] it’s voluntary, and there are incentives for [farmers] to adopt these practices, so there are carrots that are used, unlike the Netherlands, where it’s stick, it’s like ‘you have to do this’,” Weersink said.
Kenton Possberg, who farms northeast of Humboldt, Saskatchewan, and is director of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, said he was “frustrated” and “struggles to understand” the government’s “pretty aggressive strategy”.
“We’re trying to maximize production and we’re barely tracking what the world needs on a yearly basis,” he told CTVNews.ca last month. “It seems like the climate crisis is overriding the food crisis that we’ve been talking about for the last decade, and we’re just wondering which direction we’re going to go next.”
Possberg said he doubts the situation in Canada will escalate and producers will stage mass protests like those in the Netherlands.
“But the agricultural sector in general is tired of being vilified as the enemy,” he said. “We are an easy target. But, but why aren’t we a partner rather than an enemy? Instead of ‘you do this, you do that’, the conversation should be ‘how are we going to come together and develop something?’
Proud said the Canadian and Dutch contexts are very different at this point, largely because while Canadian producers take government-set targets very seriously, they are currently not mandatory and the government is still in talks. with industry experts.
“My hope, and I’m cautiously optimistic at this point, is that we’ll see the government sort of reconsider its position on some aspects of this path,” she said. “There’s nothing wrong with setting lofty goals… I think the real problem is that those goals get released without proper analysis of how you’ll get there and what impact that would have.”
Some Premiers, including Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe, have come out openly against the government’s emissions reduction target.
Conservative agriculture critic John Barlow said reducing emissions and reducing fertilizer use are one and the same thing, and he doesn’t believe farmers can make the one without the other.
With files from The Associated Press