OTTAWA-
Ongoing protests in the Netherlands, by farmers who oppose their government’s plan to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions by 50 percent by 2030, have drawn attention to Canadian farmers’ concerns about a emissions reduction target set by the Canadian government.
Canada’s Agriculture and Agri-Food Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau announced last year that the Liberals want to cut greenhouse gas emissions associated with fertilizers 30% below 2020 levels by 2030.
Some farmers and members of the agriculture industry say that it is extremely difficult to reduce emissions beyond current levels without reducing inputs, because Canadian farmers are already very efficient and prudent with their use of fertilizers.
They say that less fertilizer use could also lead to less output, depending on the method farmers use to reduce their inputs. This, at a time when there is already added pressure on Canadian growers to fill grain market gaps caused by the war in Ukraine.
But the Canadian government insists the goal is to cut emissions, not fertilizer use, and is in consultations with stakeholders through the end of August to discuss how to reach the goal. And scientists say meeting the government’s target, without drastically reducing fertilizer use, is entirely possible.
“Our estimates are that this is doable,” said Claudia Wagner Riddle, a professor in the University of Guelph School of Environmental Sciences.
Farmers in the Netherlands have been filling the streets with tractors and other equipment, dumping manure, tires and rubbish on roads, and burning bales of hay nearby, for weeks to protest their government’s plan to reduce half the nitrogen emissions in the agricultural industry. 2030. Farmers say that could cost them their farms and their livelihoods.
In Canada, protesters in solidarity with Dutch farmers held “slow-moving” demonstrations in cities across the country on July 23, including in many parts of the Greater Toronto Area, Ottawa, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg and Vancouver. Hundreds of people took part in about a dozen protests, lining up trucks and tractors, brandishing signs reading “freedom,” “support farmers” and “world leaders’ agenda = hunger,” while waving Dutch and Canadian flags.
Many of those protests were spearheaded by Freedom Fighters Canada, a group that was heavily involved in the Ottawa trucker convoy protest in February, with members and organizers leading marches during that time.
Several protesters in Canada drew parallels between the policies set by the Dutch government and Ottawa’s 30 percent emissions reduction target. The protesters say they are concerned that Canadian farmers may also lose their livelihoods and end up holding mass protests like their European counterparts.
Protesters in Saskatchewan told CTV Regina that they wanted to send a message to the Canadian government that implementing similar policies here is unacceptable.
But the policies set by the Dutch government and the Canadian government are fundamentally different.
While the Dutch government’s goal is to reduce emissions from the agricultural industry in general by 50% by 2030, the Canadian government is specifically targeting a 30% reduction in fertilizer emissions, also by 2030.
Not only are the goals different, but so are the plans of the two governments to achieve their goals.
WHAT’S HAPPENING IN THE NETHERLANDS
In the Netherlands, the goal is to make what the government calls an “inevitable transition” in its agricultural industry and move towards circular agriculture by 2030, which will ultimately involve using minimal external inputs and closing cycles of production. nutrients, among other practices. The intention is to reduce the use of chemical fertilizers and lessen the environmental impact of the agricultural industry.
The Dutch government’s plan also includes a goal to halve the agricultural industry’s emissions of nitrogen oxide and ammonia in general, from greenhouse gases to groundwater seepage, methane and other waste from livestock.
The main generators of excess nitrogen in Dutch agriculture are livestock farmers, so the government’s targets will affect them the most, explained Alfons Weersink, a faculty member in the department of Food, Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of Guelph.
Many farmers say they may be forced to downsize or sell their livestock to meet government targets.
“It’s very immediate, this is happening now, and that may explain the level of protests, that livelihoods are threatened and people are willing to take to the streets to protect their livelihoods,” Weersink told CTVNews. ca in a phone interview in August. Four.
But the reduction targets do not apply equally across the board. Some areas need to make bigger cuts, in some places cutting emissions by more than 75 percent, and when the Dutch government published maps showing which regions needed to make reductions by what percentage, in many cases farmers said the only way to achieve the objectives is to reduce or close completely.
According to the Dutch government, farmers have three options: adapt, relocate or close.
“It’s a tough target, and they’re going to enforce it through inventory reductions primarily from cattle,” Weersink said.
WHAT’S HAPPENING IN CANADA
Here in Canada, it is the crop growers who are concerned.
“There’s not a lot of room for farmers to go before they start losing productivity and before their yields take a hit, because of course you need fertilizer to maximize your yields,” said Karen Proud, director 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’s not a one-to-one ratio” and that “there are various means of reducing emissions without significantly reducing fertilizer use.”
Proud said the biggest concern is that the Canadian government set the 30 percent target for emissions reductions without consulting with industry experts and stakeholders, but those consultations are already underway and Proud said it is “cautiously optimistic” that the federal government is listening to the industry.
Cameron Newbigging, a spokesperson for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, wrote in an email to CTVNews.ca on July 29 that the government’s target of 30 percent “was set on the basis of available scientific research and internal analysis,” noting tells ways to optimize fertilizer use and reduce 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] is voluntary, and there are incentives to [farmers] to adopt these practices, so carrots are being used, in contrast to the Netherlands, where it’s stick, it’s like ‘you have to do this,’” Weersink said.
Kenton Possberg, who farms northeast of Humboldt, Sask., and is director of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, said he is “frustrated” and “struggling to understand” the government’s “pretty aggressive strategy.”
“We are trying to maximize production and we are barely keeping up with what the world requires annually,” he told CTVNews.ca last month. “It looks like the climate crisis is overtaking the food crisis that we’ve been discussing for the past decade, and we’re just wondering which way we’re going to go next.”
Possberg said he doubts the situation in Canada will escalate and growers will hold mass protests like the ones 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, instead of the 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 stage, in large part because while Canadian growers take government-set targets very seriously, they are not currently mandatory and the government is still in discussions with experts from the industry.
“My hope, and I am cautiously optimistic at this stage, is that we will see the government reviewing its position on some aspects of this path,” he said. “There is nothing wrong with setting ambitious goals… I think the real problem is that these goals come to light without proper analysis of how they would be achieved and what the impact would be.”
Some prime ministers, including Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe, have been outspoken against the government’s emissions reduction target.
Conservative agricultural critic John Barlow said that reducing emissions and reducing fertilizer use are the same thing, and he doesn’t think farmers can do one without the other.
With files from The Associated Press