EU needs to offer leadership on global trade

Alan Swinbank looks at Brexit, Trump and the unintended consequences of incomplete agricultural tariff reform: Incomplete CAP reform

He points out, 'Export subsidies are no more. Taxpayer support for Europe’s farmers is largely decoupled, and unthreatened by WTO disciplines. Despite successive reforms of the CAP, bringing down domestic support prices, these excessively high tariffs remain in place, rather like a whale’s carcass left stranded on a beach.'

'If the global trading system is to be saved, the EU needs to lead. Why not counter Trump’s threats and offer to unilaterally reduce farm tariffs?'

A shortage of experts

The Sunday Express once named me as one of the five hundred most influential people in Britain because I was the only person who understood the Common Agricultural Policy. This was wrong on two counts. First, I have never fully understood the CAP: I am always making new discoveries about its complexities.

Second, there are a dozen or so academics in Britain who understand the CAP better than I do from the disciplines of economics (Alan Swinbank, Alan Matthews), law (Michael Cardwell) and political science (Alan Greer). Conspiracy theorists may wish to note that three of them are called Alan: is this a derivation of 'alien'?

Sometimes the media contact me on the assumption that as I know something about the CAP, I must understand the Common Fisheries Policy as well. It is a mystery to me. I know that we have had enough of experts, but the one academic expert on the CFP that I knew has long since retired. I am aware that there are some conflicts about fishing stocks between marine biologists and fisher folk. The best short account I can find of the CFP is here: Senior European Exp**ts

What is clear is that fishermen (they are mostly male) do follow a very dangerous and demanding occupation and live in tight knit communities. They have been vociferous in their criticisms of the CFP and bringing it to an end is one of the core demands of Brexiteers who see it as an affront to British sovereignty and an area where we need to take back control.

The fact that the EU now appears to be using the CFP as a bargaining chip in the negotiation is potentially politically explosive. Continued access for EU fishing vessels to UK territorial waters in accordance with existing fishing rights is being advanced as a trade off against tariffs on agricultural products and, more importantly processed food and drink products to the EU.

But we should remember that this is a negotiation. Each side is going to push its own interests and perspectives, but ultimately there is a mutual interest in finding common ground. Hopefully.

Be very, very afraid

At one point in yesterday's House of Lords committee evidence session, Professor Alan Swinbank envisaged a future in which there were fewer farming enterprises in Britain. I know that the committee were very interested in a paper he had written for the University of Sussex trade observatory entitled 'World Trade Rules and the Policy Options for British Agriculture Post-Brexit.' The contents, although rigorously argued, are somewhat more explosive than the anodyne title might suggest. You can download the full paper here: Key reflections

It is worth quoting a little of what he says in his conclusion. Professor Swinbank is one of the leading experts on the CAP, but also on agricultural trade policy.

He warns, 'It is highly unlikely that agricultural issues will determine the UK's future trade policy, as easy access for sugar, beef or butter to the UK's market for example could well be some of the key demands of potential FTA partners.' He continues, 'A unilateral reduction in tariff barriers to lower food prices and increase competitive pressures, would probably be unwise (although appealing to a number of economists) as it is those high tariffs that strengthen the UK's negotiating capital.'

He notes that alternative trade scenarios could result in a large number of farms being 'put under considerable financial pressures, with an uncertain impact on farming practices and the environment ... [Farmers] would probably protest vigorously if both taxpayer funded support and tariff protection were removed in a double whammy.'

In yesterday's session, Alan Swinbank was asked if any free trade pacts would be beneficial for agriculture. He noted that the real danger did not come from an agreement with the United States, but from agreements with Brazil or other South American countries, Australia and New Zealand. Australia would like to increase its tariff free exports of sheepmeat to the UK. Benefits could come from agreements with highly protected markets to which high value added goods could be sold: Japan, (South) Korea and Norway.

Further information about Alan Swinbank's remarks to the Lords committee can be found here: Irish Farmers Journal

Consequences of Brexit for UK agriculture

This article summarises a contribution I made to a recent edition of EuroChoices on the consequences of Brexit for UK agriculture, along with summaries of contributions by Alan Matthews and Alan Swinbank: Brexit uncertainties

Why isn't food in the Brexit debate?

The fact that food was not being talked about in the Brexit debate was a political failure said Professor Tim Lang, introducing the 2015 City University Food Symposium on the topic.

Professor Alan Swinbank outlined four broad possible scenarios post Brexit, reduced from a long list of eleven:

• More highly protected agriculture with a self-sufficiency objective
• Freer trade
• Recreate the status quo
• Some tweaking to enhance environmental credentials

Any free trade area negotiated with the EU was unlikely to be a simple deal. Internal market rules and geographical indications would have to be respected.

Peter Backman of Horizons FS said that what was distinctive about food service industries and catering was that they relied - and he emphasised the word relied - on migrants.

Ian Wright of the Food and Drink Federation said any impact on access to imports would have a detrimental effect on business. We would cut ourselves off from the talent pool in the EU when the industry had a skills gap of 100,000 workers. He predicted that the UK would break up in a post-Brexit world.

Martin Haworth, acting director-general of the NFU, said that agriculture had 34,513 full-time employees from outside the UK. The EU did lead to some inappropriate or disproportionate regulation. Legislation was the price of single market access.

Kate Trollope of EU Food Policy said that as a third country, EU approval would be required of manufacturing and processing plants in the UK. Border inspections could lead to time delays. There would also be import fees.

David Baldock of the IEEP said that it would be difficult to envisage the Treasury requiring anything other than significant cuts in payments to agriculture. The exit scenario was not one for the UK to dictate, it had to be negotiated.

Former civil servant Andrew Jarvis warned, 'If you are not at the table, you are not on the menu.'

Polls taken showed that those in the room overwhelmingly favoured staying in the EU, whilst the latest opinion polls show public opinion evenly split.

Agricultural policy outside the EU

There has been relatively little discussion so far of what kind of agricultural policy the UK might have if it left the EU and hence the CAP. Agricultural economist and CAP expert Alan Swinbank has been trying to stimulate debate on this issue, but so far with little success. His latest effort is in the journal EuroChoices.

He notes, 'Successive British governments have repeatedly argued for more radical reform of the CAP than the EU has been willing to accept ... To what extent these aspirations would translate into a reduction of support for British farmers, and a greater emphasis on the provision of environmental public goods, should the UK exit the EU is open to question ... British farmers might bitterly complain that they faced an uneven playing field as their competitors were better able to remain in business as a result of more generous Pillar 1 payments subsidising their farming activities.'

Swinbank also poses the question: 'Could a WTO compatible agri-food trade agreements be negotiated with its former EU partners, or would Irish and Brazilian beef face the same tariff barriers on imports into the British market?'

My initial thinking has been that the single farm (soon to be basic) payment should continue during a transitional period if the UK left the EU, but at a somewhat reduced percentage of the current rate, e.g., 90 per cent, 85 per cent, 80 per cent over three years. However, there is danger that this could become set in stone and we would be left with an historically determined form of subsidy rather than debating and re-thinking the pattern of support.

As Swinbank argues, the alternatives do need to be spelt out so that voters can make an informed choice in any referendum.

Inside the CAP reform process

A major new analysis of the CAP reform process, An Inside View of the CAP Reform Process by Arlindo Cunha with Alan Swinbank has been published by Oxford University Press. Cunha was Portugal's Minister of Agriculture during the negotiation of the MacSharry reforms and was involved in the Fischler reforms as a member of the European Parliament. Swinbank is one of the UK's most distinguished agricultural economists and has written extensively on CAP reform.

The books explains how the 'old' CAP became no longer fit for purpose, deals with the structure and functioning of CAP decision-making, examines the 1992, 1999 and 2003 reform and also the Health Check and includes the results of a Delphi survey of some of the key players in the reform process.

The analysis suggests that the series of reforms 'was initiated by the Commission, with a particularly important role played by the commissioner, with the Commission playing its cards as an agenda setter at a time when internal and external forces were pressing for policy change.' There is much talk these days of the relative weakening of the Commission in the EU policy process and one wonders how far it will be able to play this kind of role in the future.

It is noted that the Commission has not been as successful in developing rural development as the second pillar of the CAP as Commissioner Fischler would have liked, but the decoupling of support has been relentlessly pursued. Of course, one might add that it has made the CAP more respectable.

However, much has not changed. It is noted that that the CAP still pre-empts a large share of the EU budget and that support is very unevenly spread both between and within member states. Larger farms receive higher payments and payments reflect past production structures.

Ag econ folks give it large to SFP

The intention of the European Commission to retain the SFP as the centre piece of the CAP after 2013 is a fundamental error according to leading agricultural economists. In a paper by David Harvey and colleagues to the Agricultural Economics Society conference in Edinburgh, it was argued that direct farm payments should be phased out.

The very idea of general direct payments was said to be unjustifiable. Payments should be reoriented from payments that are still historically linked to production-based payments and towards the guarantee of food supplies, rural economic development and protection of the environment.

The ag ecnomists argue that the overall agricultural policy problem for the EU is the preoccupation with farm incomes which dates back to the formation of the CAP in the 1950s. The bulk of an expanding budget is still spent on that objective. Despite this expenditure, average farm incomes remain below the national average income in almost all member states (which, of course, could be seized on as an argument for not making things worse by removing farm support). The economists argue that whatever governments do, they are not going to substantially improve the incomes of the less efficient and marginal farm holders.

The economists note that these payments were originally meant to be transitional. Of course, following Mancur Olson, the politics of subsidies which have concentrated effects but diffuse costs means that they are often converted from temporary to permanent payments.

Harvey revives the idea of a bond scheme to buy out these payments as first suggested by Professor John Marsh more than twenty years ago and subsequently developed by Alan Swinbank and his colleagues. Uncertainty for farmers would be reduced and they would have time to adjust to liberalised markets.

I have always found such a scheme attractive in principle, but the Commission view is that it is not compatible with cross-compliance.