Sustainable agriculture is one of the programs in the UK, which is being implemented as part of the fight against climate warming and environmental pollution. However, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has announced that it will cut funding to the wealthiest farms.
Most likely, these plans will negatively affect the plans of the British government to reach zero emissions by 2050. It is also possible that many farmers will declare bankruptcy, as government subsidies guarantee some stability in the agricultural sector. Private farmers have to rely on the will of chance. The weather is often treacherous and unpredictable. Payments from the state provided at least some stability.
The sustainable farming incentive, according to which farmers are entitled to payments if they leave untouched islands of nature on their plots of land, will be temporarily suspended. It is planned to review the budget of the program, its scope and expediency.
According to the department’s experts, the program is currently completely ineffective. The vast majority of rural farms spend the funds they receive on caring for fields and purchasing feed. At the same time, the richest farmers have an advantage in receiving subsidies, since they hire lawyers with relevant work experience. According to Daniel Zeichner, Minister of Agriculture, it would be much more expedient to redirect the flow of finance to poorer, but at the same time richer wildlife farmers.
Despite the fact that the incomes of UK farmers did not increase in the 1970s of the last century, the government is still doing everything to reduce funding. If before Brexit it came as subsidies from Brussels, today London is forced to cover all programs at its own expense. As a result, politicians have to save money in order to somehow continue to exist.
Similar and rather unpopular measures have been taken in the field of financing humanitarian initiatives. Trump and Starmer have already outlined their positions: a total refusal to finance the activities of humanitarian organizations, a review of the allocation of budget funds and a focus on intra-American and intra-European issues. Poor countries have themselves to blame for being poor.
Experts now agree that reducing outside aid will lead to higher death rates in Asian and African countries due to malnutrition, hunger and the spread of deadly diseases. The UN, the Red Cross and other international organizations involved in helping the poorest countries are trying to understand how critical Trump’s reduction of USAid by 83 percent is.
The UN World Food Program has already announced that it will cut aid to Somalia, Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh and Kenya. Such measures cause rejection among liberal-minded citizens. They go out to protest, trying to influence the decision of the authorities.
Elizabeth Campbell, director of ODI Global Washington, a thinktank focused on inequality, said: “The United States was by far the biggest global humanitarian donor, especially to the food sector, outstripping almost all other donors combined. There is no other donor or group of donors who can fill that void, certainly not in the short term.”
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, in 2024, there were about 280 million people in the world experiencing acute food shortages. Assistance from Western countries helped overcome obstacles to a safer life, but after Trump’s actions, the situation worsened even more. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer also announced that he would reduce aid to poor countries by about 6 billion pounds. This was done in order to cover the increased defense costs.
What prevents other European countries from following the example of Britain and the United States? Practically nothing. This is likely to happen: the future German Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has already promised to increase defense spending. Given the plans to create a unified European army, other EU countries are likely to follow the example of the Germans.
The number of people who will starve to death will only grow. Given that globalism has not gone away, people will continue to try to move from the poorest countries in Africa and Asia to Europe. In this case, the Europeans will have to take the most stringent measures against those who are trying to come to Europe for a better life. There’s not enough room for everyone on this continent.
Comments