Agenda item

In accordance with the Notice of Motion received under Section 4.19 of the Constitution, Councillor Gruffydd Williams will propose as follows:-

Given that Cyngor Gwynedd has already passed a notice of motion in September calling on the Welsh Government to re-consider demanding that 10% of agricultural land is given to woodland as part of the Sustainable Farming Scheme, I call on Cyngor Gwynedd:-

To call on the Welsh Government to take a step back and re-consider (in light of the cumulative impact on the agricultural industry), before demanding under the Sustainable Farming Scheme (SFS), that 10% of farming land is given to Cynefin/Biodiversity land together with the changes to the statutory requirements and policies such as Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZ).  

Submitted - the following notice of motion by Councillor Gruffydd Williams, under Section 4.19 of the Constitution, and it was seconded:-

Given that Cyngor Gwynedd has already passed a notice of motion in September calling on the Welsh Government to re-consider demanding that 10% of agricultural land is given to woodland as part of the Sustainable Farming Scheme, I call on Cyngor Gwynedd:-

To call on the Welsh Government to take a step back and re-consider (in light of the cumulative impact on the agricultural industry), before demanding under the Sustainable Farming Scheme (SFS), that 10% of farming land is given to Cynefin/Biodiversity land together with the changes to the statutory requirements and policies such as Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZ).

The member set out the context to his motion, noting that:-

·        Significant damage would be caused to the agriculture industry if Welsh Government adopts the SFS and NVZ.

·        That there were associated costs for farmers should they lose 20% of their land from giving 10% to biodiversity and 10% of their land to plant trees; this would lead to an unsustainable farming industry and many farmers would leave the industry.

·        That there was huge expenditure for the agriculture unit in order to comply with the new rules, which would squeeze small farms out of business.

·        The nitrogen going on the land would lead to a reduction in the crops, which would lead to less produce. He added that if there were food shortages for the public, then prices would rise.

·        That there was a need to stand with the farmers or people would leave the countryside and the population diminished.

The proposal hoped to receive support from all members to ensure the prosperity of the agriculture industry and prosperity in the countryside.

Strong support was expressed to the motion by several members on the grounds of:-

·        ⁠That there was a moral duty on us in Gwynedd to support the farmers in our communities, which represented the culture, history and language of our communities.  The slogan, No Farmers, No Food, No Future, was quoted.

·        That the current prices of sheep was proof of the shortages and it was believed that there would be food shortages - growing trees would not resolve this.

·        That agriculture was very important in Pen Llŷn. He asked for the support of all members, emphasising that the Government's plans needed to be stopped.

·        That the problem of planting 10% trees was huge in Pen Llŷn, compared with Meirionnydd. It was believed that insufficient targeting had been undertaken by the Government and instead they had treated every area in the same way.

·        That there was a need to thank both agricultural Unions which had worked hard to support the farmers. It was expressed that the Council needed to support and strengthen their request.

·        It was noted that agriculture was the foundation of the countryside and it was at the core of our culture. It was noted that without agriculture there would be no Schools or young people in the countryside; it was believed that it was essential to support the proposal.

·        That what was proposed by the Government was harmful and inconsiderate of the mental health and emotional well-being of the industry, which in reality was a culture of individuals.  It was believed to be a threat to agriculture and endangered agricultural succession.

Consideration was given to amending the proposal but following a discussion between the member and the Monitoring Officer, it was decided not to propose an amendment as it affected the clarity of the original proposal and it did not coincide with the proposal.

To close, the proposer expressed his gratitude for the support. He referred to the research of the Unions which supported farmers who noted that adopting the SFS and NVZ would mean that 5,500 jobs would be lost. He believed that major companies would be the only ones to benefit.