Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Agriculture

Why are farmer protests sparking up around the world?

Published

11 minute read

—————

From Michael Shellenberger on Substack

Dutch Farmers Revolt Against Green Elites

Even Mick Jagger is sympathetic

Zijn er ook boeren?” shouted Mick Jagger, in Dutch, into the microphone at a Rolling Stones concert in the Netherlands last week. “Are there any farmers in the house?”

Dutch farmers make for an unlikely cause célèbre. For starters, most are conservative, not liberal. And they are fighting against stricter environmental regulations, not for them.

Yet they are winning over liberal-minded people like me who sympathize with the family farmers who provide us with our daily bread and yet receive so little respect from society’s ruling elites.

And now they’re inspiring protests by other farmers across Europe, including in Germany, Poland and Italy. Along with the protests that brought down the government of Sri Lanka, they constitute a growing global revolt against green elites.

I have praised the current Dutch government for being sensible on matters like climate change. Last year it embraced nuclear energy, one of the first Western nations to do so since the 2011 Fukushima accident spooked the world.

But the government’s poor treatment of its farmers has shocked me. The prime minister recently called the protesting farmers “a – – holes,” and sniffed, “It is not acceptable to create dangerous situations.” And yet it was a Dutch police officer, not a farmer, who inexplicably fired on a 16-year-old boy driving a tractor. Luckily, he wasn’t injured.

Share

While nitrogen pollution worsens climate change, the government says its main motivation for reducing it is about protecting its nature areas. Scientists say that in 118 of 162 of the Netherlands’ nature preserves nitrogen deposits are 50% higher than they should be.

Without a doubt the Dutch should do more to protect their nature areas. The country produces four times more nitrogen pollution than the European average, due to its intensive animal agriculture.

The Netherlands is the largest exporter of meat in Europe and the second largest exporter of food overall after the United States, a remarkable feat for a nation half the size of Indiana. Food exports generate more than $100 billion a year in revenue. Experts attribute the nation’s success to its farmers’ embrace of technological innovation.

But even many on the political left say the government demands are too extreme, based on radical green fantasies and dodgy science. “It seems to be very fast,” saidWim de Vries, a professor at Wageningen University and Research who 10 years ago made alarmist claims about “planetary boundaries.”

What, exactly, is going on?

Michael Shellenberger is the author of “Apocalypse Never” and a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment.”

——————-

The situation in Sri Lanka is even more volatile where food shortages are already affecting 1 in 5 people and threatening the majority of the remaining population. The situation this week turned extremely dangerous as massive crowds forced the President to resign.  More on that below.

——————-       

This news article from The New Indian Express was published back on June 18.

Sri Lanka’s agriculture minister forced to flee premises after being jeered by farmers: Report

COLOMBO: Sri Lanka’s Agriculture Minister Mahinda Amaraweera on Saturday was jeered by a group of farmers who protested his visit to an agriculture-related programme in Tissamaharama, a town situated in the country’s southern province in Hambantota district, forcing him to flee the premises.

Amaraweera visited the Tissamaharama Divisional Secretariat on Saturday to attend an agriculture-related programme.

Upon his arrival, a group of angry locals, consisting mostly of farmers, gathered opposite the local government body and staged a protest, according to web portal newsfirst.lk.

When the minister attempted to inquire, chaos broke out forcing the minister to flee the premises, the report added.

Sri Lanka’s economic meltdown has taken a severe toll on the agricultural sector.

A blanket ban on the use of chemical fertilisers imposed by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa in April 2021 has caused a crippling blow to rice production in the country.

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe has predicted that by September this year, around four to five million out of the country’s 22 million population could be directly affected by food shortage.

In such a grim scenario, farmers across the island nation have been forced to abandon their fields.

Earlier this week, the Cabinet also approved a move to grant government officials one leave per week for the next three months to engage in agriculture to mitigate the approaching food crisis.

The Sri Lanka Army will also take part in a farming drive aimed at cultivating over 1,500 acres of barren or abandoned state land to multiply food production and avert any shortage in the future, newsfirst.lk reported.

Sri Lanka which is facing its worst economic crisis since independence from Britain in 1948.

The economic crisis has led to an acute shortage of essential items like food, medicine, cooking gas, fuel and toilet paper, with Sri Lankans being forced to wait in lines for hours outside stores to buy fuel and cooking gas.

The nearly bankrupt country, with an acute foreign currency crisis that resulted in foreign debt default, announced in April that it is suspending nearly USD 7 billion foreign debt repayment due for this year out of about USD 25 billion due through 2026.

Sri Lanka’s total foreign debt stands at USD 51 billion.

———-

This report from Aljazeera dated March 30, 2022 shows how this hunger crisis has been brewing for months.

———-

This week massive crowds stormed the Presidential Secretariat and then the Presidential House resulting in the President leaving the country and stepping down.

Here’s a report on the fall of the government from Sky News

 

 

After 15 years as a TV reporter with Global and CBC and as news director of RDTV in Red Deer, Duane set out on his own 2008 as a visual storyteller. During this period, he became fascinated with a burgeoning online world and how it could better serve local communities. This fascination led to Todayville, launched in 2016.

Follow Author

Agriculture

Liberal win puts Canada’s farmers and food supply at risk

Published on

This article supplied by Troy Media.

By Sylvain Charlebois 

A fourth Liberal term means higher carbon taxes and trade risks. Could Canada’s farmers and food security be on the line?

The Liberal Party, now led by Mark Carney, has secured a fourth consecutive term, albeit once again with a minority mandate. This time, however, the Liberals have a stronger hand, as they can rely not only on the NDP but also the Bloc Québécois to maintain power.

This broader base of parliamentary support could provide much-needed political stability at a crucial time, particularly as Canada prepares for a new round of trade negotiations with the United States and Mexico.

For the agri-food sector, the implications are significant. From carbon taxes to trade rules, federal decisions play a decisive role in shaping the costs and risks Canadian farmers face.

First and foremost, carbon pricing will remain a central issue. Carney has made it clear that the industrial carbon tax will stay—a policy that continues to erode the competitiveness of Canada’s agri-food sector, where fuel, fertilizer and transportation costs are especially sensitive to carbon pricing. The tax, currently set at $95 per metric tonne, is scheduled to climb to $170 by 2030.

While consumers may not see this tax directly, businesses certainly do. More concerning is the Liberals’ intention to introduce a border carbon adjustment for imports from countries without equivalent carbon pricing regimes. While this could theoretically protect Canadian industry, it also risks making food even more expensive for Canadian consumers, particularly if the U.S., our largest trading partner, remains uninterested in adopting similar carbon measures. Acting alone risks undermining both our food security and our global competitiveness.

Another looming issue is supply management. Although all parties pledged during the campaign not to alter Canada’s system for dairy, poultry and eggs, this framework—built on quotas and high import tariffs—is increasingly outdated. It is almost certain to come under pressure during trade negotiations. The American dairy lobby, in particular, will continue to demand greater access to Canadian markets. The Liberals have a chance to chart a more forward-looking path. Modernizing supply management could lead to a more competitive, resilient industry while providing consumers with greater choice and better prices.

The previous Parliament’s passage of Bill C-282, which sought to shield supply managed sectors from all future trade negotiations, was a deeply flawed move.

Fortunately, the new parliamentary makeup should make it far less likely that such protectionist legislation will survive. A more pragmatic approach to trade policy appears possible.

On the domestic front, there are reasons for cautious optimism. The Liberals have promised to eliminate remaining federal barriers to interprovincial trade and to improve labour mobility, longstanding obstacles to the efficient movement of agri-food products across Canada. For example, differing provincial rules often prevent products like cheese, meat or wine from being sold freely across provinces, frustrating farmers and limiting consumer choice. Momentum was building before the election, and it must continue if we are serious about building a stronger domestic food economy.

Infrastructure investment is another bright spot. The Liberals pledged more than $5 billion through a Trade Diversification Corridor Fund to upgrade Canada’s severely undercapitalized export infrastructure. Strategic investment in trade gateways is overdue and critical for agri-food exporters looking to reduce reliance on the United States and expand into global markets.

Finally, the Liberal platform was alone in explicitly committing to support food processing in Canada, a crucial pillar of domestic food security. An increased focus on manufacturing will not only create jobs but also reduce reliance on imported food products, making Canada more resilient in the face of global disruptions.

Farmers have long felt sidelined by urban-centric Liberal governments. The past four years were marked by regulatory and trade clashes that deepened that divide. The hope now is that with greater political stability and a clearer focus on  competitiveness, the next four years will bring a more constructive relationship between Ottawa and Canada’s agri-food sector.

If the Liberals are serious about food security and economic growth, now is the time to reset the relationship with Canada’s farmers, not ignore them yet again.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Canadian professor and researcher in food distribution and policy. He is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast. He is frequently cited in the media for his insights on food prices, agricultural trends, and the global food supply chain.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

Continue Reading

Agriculture

It’s time to end supply management

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Ian Madsen

Ending Canada’s dairy supply management system would lower costs, boost exports, and create greater economic opportunities.

The Trump administration’s trade warfare is not all bad. Aside from spurring overdue interprovincial trade barrier elimination and the removal of obstacles to energy corridors, it has also spotlighted Canada’s dairy supply management system.

The existing marketing board structure is a major hindrance to Canada’s efforts to increase non-U.S. trade and improve its dismal productivity growth rate—crucial to reviving stagnant living standards. Ending it would lower consumer costs, make dairy farming more dynamic, innovative and export-oriented, and create opportunities for overseas trade deals.

Politicians sold supply management to Canadians to ensure affordable milk and dairy products for consumers without costing taxpayers anything—while avoiding unsightly dumping surplus milk or sudden price spikes. While the government has not paid dairy farmers directly, consumers have paid more at the supermarket than their U.S. neighbours for decades.

An October 2023 C.D. Howe Institute analysis showed that, over five years, the Canadian price for four litres of partly skimmed milk generally exceeded the U.S. price (converted to Canadian dollars) by more than a dollar, sometimes significantly more, and rarely less.

A 2014 study conducted by the University of Manitoba, published in 2015, found that lower-income households bore an extra burden of 2.3 per cent of their income above the estimated cost for free-market-determined dairy and poultry products (i.e., vs. non-supply management), amounting to $339 in 2014 dollars ($435 in current dollars). Higher-income households paid an additional 0.5 per cent of their income, or $554 annually in 2014 dollars ($712 today).

One of the pillars of the current system is production control, enforced by production quotas for every dairy farm. These quotas only gradually rise annually, despite abundant production capacity. As a result, millions of litres of milk are dumped in some years, according to a 2022 article by the Montreal Economic Institute.

Beyond production control, minimum price enforcement further entrenches inefficiency. Prices are set based on estimated production costs rather than market forces, keeping consumer costs high and limiting competition.

Import restrictions are the final pillar. They ensure foreign producers do not undercut domestic ones. Jaime Castaneda, executive vice-president of the U.S. National Milk Producers Federation, complained that the official 2.86 per cent non-tariffed Canadian import limit was not reached due to non-tariff barriers. Canadian tariffs of over 250 per cent apply to imports exceeding quotas from the European Union, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA, or USMCA).

Dairy import protection obstructs efforts to reach more trade deals. Defending this system forces Canada to extend protection to foreign partners’ favoured industries. Affected sectors include several where Canada is competitive, such as machinery and devices, chemicals and plastics, and pharmaceuticals and medical products. This impedes efforts to increase non-U.S. exports of goods and services. Diverse and growing overseas exports are essential to reducing vulnerability to hostile U.S. trade policy.

It may require paying dairy farmers several billion dollars to transition from supply management—though this cartel-determined “market” value is dubious, as the current inflation-adjusted book value is much lower—but the cost to consumers and the economy is greater. New Zealand successfully evolved from a similar import-protected dairy industry into a vast global exporter. Canada must transform to excel. The current system limits Canada’s freedom to find greener pastures.

Ian Madsen is the Senior Policy Analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Continue Reading

Trending

X