Regulatory alignment needed to avoid high market access costs

The NFU's director of strategy Martin Haworth told a Euractiv seminar in London: 'We need to explore the markets in China and the United Arab Emirates, but the chance of these replacing the EU market is remote. Without regulatory alignment, the costs (of accessing the EU market) could be really high.'

Tom Hind, director of strategy at the AHDB emphasised the importance of investing in the agricultural sector, noting that 'Brexit or no Brexit, productivity will have to be addressed as the imperative facing our industry.' The sector is currently ineffective in 'translating innovation into practice. The sector needs to seize the current opportunity presented [by Gove] to enable us to be more competitive and maintain market share.'

The views put forward by a range of industry leaders at the seminar can be found here: Invest to compete

In this short video speakers emphasise their key points, Martin Haworth noting that Michael Gove speaks only about public goods and environmental payments and nothing else: Video highlights

More threats than opportunities

The agricultural trade dimension of Brexit posed more threats than opportunities according to NFU Director of Strategy Martin Haworth. He was speaking at a EurActiv seminar on 'After the CAP: what future for British agri-trade?' in London yesterday.

He thought that there was a lot of optimism about how easy it would be to negotiate a free trade area with the EU. How far could one replace EU markets with third country markets? With no frictionless access to the single market, we were looking at second best outcomes, the question was how second best?

Even with tariff free trade, there would be barriers with customs procedures. There was a great potential for disruption with perishable goods. He had a number of campaign medals from the past, but none of these problems had arisen since we had been part of the single market.

He noted that the horticulture sector was very integrated through importing and exporting. (Later, this led to discussion of how it was not in Spain's interests to have salad exports to the UK disrupted).

Our food exports to Belgium were three times those of China, India, Russia and Brazil combined.

Peter Hardwick of the ADHB noted that the advantages of proximity and speed of delivery in EU markets. Logistical issues around rules of origin were far more difficult than tariffs.

Molly Scott Cato MEP noted that it was difficult to justify paying people for owning land. There needed to be a discussion in government about what the future farming model should look like. A Defra staff member confirmed that no green paper was in prospect.

Phil Stocker, chief executive of the National Sheep Association, said we were not having a discussion about how we wanted agriculture to look like in the future. Upland farmers could respond by intensifying.

Lord Teverson said that the future relationship with the CAP was critical. The sequencing of agri-trade deals was important. Supply chains were now important even for SMEs.

Martin Haworth emphasised that a defined transition period was needed for everything.

Single market is key for agriculture

The importance of the single market to agriculture was emphasised by Martin Haworth, deputy director-general of the NFU, in a presentation earlier today at a conference in London organised by the UK in a Changing Europe programme. Subsidies to farmers were not the most important issue. 65 to 70 per cent of agricultural exports from the UK went to Europe and there was no other alternative. He also noted that the EU had over fifty trade agreements with third countries.

The uncertainty inherent in the Article 50 process was of itself damaging and the CBI had estimated that it could lead to a fall in GDP of 0.75 per cent to 1.5 per cent.

UK agriculture required 20,000 - 25,000 seasonal workers and there were another 35,000 full-time EU workers in agriculture. Analysis by Oxford University of the effects of a point system showed that 96 per cent of the workers would not get through.

Governments of other EU member states showed more sympathy with agriculture. Britain was a more urban society than most of the rest of Europe. He noted, 'I get much more access, interest and sympathy in Brussels.'

Farming formed part of a food chain and virtually the whole chain was in favour of staying in the EU. Food manufacturers would have to consider relocating in the event of Brexit. The catering industry was highly dependent on migrant labour.

He had not heard a credible argument on agriculture that suggested we would be better off leaving.

Responding to questions he said that the Ciolos reform had not offered a strategic vision of agriculture, but was a tactical attempt to green the CAP to attract more support. The division between Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 had been blurred.

Britain in the EU had been sullen and budget obsessed and had never punched with the weight we should have done.

Natalie Bennett, leader of the Green Party, said that going around the country food issues had been raised relatively rarely. However, she occasionally heard the demand 'We must take control of our fish' which created the vision of a fish swimming round with a passport tucked under its fin. We now had a reasonably sustainable fisheries policy that took account of the biological capacity of the ocean. The fact that we had been able to reform the CFP raised hopes for the reform of the CAP.

What is very clear is that fishers want to get out of the EU, in contrast to the more divided views of farmers: Fishermen and the EU

As for the referendum debate, it had degenerated into a Tory leadership contest masquerading as a EU referendum debate.

Uncertainty about how the world will become worse

One of the speakers summed up an excellent seminar held by EurActiv in London yesterday on 'How Brexit would affect British farming' with the following words: 'Uncertainty about how the world would be worse.'

The discussion was opened by Molly Scott Cato MEP who serves on the European Parliament's Agri Committee. A Green, she represents the south-west and Gibraltar, although, as she pointed out, there isn't much agriculture there.

She said that we tended to take the benefits of the CAP for granted. The countryside would suffer if we didn't have farming working.

A point I very much agreed with is her comment that farming did not have the same resonance in the UK as in other member states as being a vital part of the economy. Farmers would be very vulnerable outside the EU. England could move to a more market oriented view of agriculture, we could move to a New Zealand system with greater intensification and industrialisation.

The view from the NFU

Martin Haworth, deputy director-general of the NFU, indicated five crucial issues:

• Access to single market, 73 per cent of agricultural exports go there, higher than for the rest of the economy.
• Would we be more or less open to imports?
• What kind of EU agricultural policy would we have outside the EU?
• Labour: farms had 22,000 full-time employees from the EU and the best available estimate of seasonal workers was 21,000.
• Regulatory issues.

When pressed to give examples of gold plating, Haworth found it difficult to give any, although a representative of the National Sheep Association did point to different treatment of carcasses. The example that Haworth gave of badgers being treated as a protected species is the result of UK legislation reflecting public agitation.

Haworth also said in later discussion that the last CAP reform mixed up economic policy objectives and green policy objectives and ended up pleasing no one.

An environmental perspective

Martin Nesbit of the Institute for European Environmental Policy said that the CAP was not a great advert for European policy-making. What would be a good policy and what would be good for farmers were two different things. The CAP was expensive for what it did and was poorly targeted.

He pointed out that UK vets had been particularly influential on EU discussions and this expertise would be lost.

It was important to consider the link between CAP reform and the wider negotiations. The uncertainty was the most worrying point.

A representative from the WWF commented that Brexit would land both the farming and environment in more trouble. There would be a lower level of funding.

It was argued in discussion that Brexit would change the balance of influence in the remaining European Union. The balance would edge away from the northern liberal states and in favour of the interventionists. One could expect more coupled payments.

EurActiv's own report on the seminar can be found here: Brexit debate

The European crisis, Britain and the CAP

The outcome of the eurozone crisis remains unknown, although none of the measures taken so far have really tackled the fundamental problems of sovereign debt and structural uncompetitiveness in Southern Europe.

What effects will the exercise of the British 'veto' have on attempts to reform the CAP? NFU policy director Martin Haworth is one of the most experienced individuals in agricultural politics and policy and he told Farmers Weekly that only time would tell if Britain would be marginalised in Europe and hence have less influence on a range of issues.

He made a distinction between Britain's largely unsuccessful attempts to secure CAP reform and broader efforts on regulation. He noted, 'The UK has pursued CAP reform policies ... which have pursued UK negotiators on the margins of the debate, so it is unlikely that Mr Cameron's actions will change the way in which the UK is already viewed with regards to CAP.'

'However, on broader regulatory matters where the British voice has been heard in recent years, for example on environmental and market regulation matters, Mr Cameron's actions may affect Britain's influence in the EU.'

The NFU is concerned about a scenario in which agricultural powers were repatriated to the UK, although Eurosceptics have focused mainly on various forms of labour market protection and the Common Fisheries Policy.

A NFU briefing document states that 'A worst-case scenario would see the UK remaining in the single market but regaining autonomy over support arrangements.' The NFU fears 'That would allow the Treasury to achieve its long-standing goal of removing direct payments altogether.'

Supposing Britain left the EU or repatriated CAP payments, the withdrawal of subsidies overnight would cause chaos in agriculture. In principle one might want to see a return to a deficiency payments system which was the more market attuned form of subsidy that existed before Britain joined the EU.

However, in practice, it would be costly to dismantle the existing (albeit rather inefficient) administrative apparatus and replace it with a new one. One would therefore have to pay farmers the SFP on an historic basis, tapering the amount paid over time so that one might start at 90 per cent of the existing payment.

More radically one could compensate farmers for the subsidy by issuing them with interest bearing bonds which could also be sold on the market but that would probably be unacceptable to the parties involved.

Meanwhile British farmers who had opted to be paid in euros have been converting them into pounds on the spot market rather than waiting for a more favourable rate (which, of course, might well not materialise).

It is generally larger farmers who take payments in euros and they usually have some form of relatively sophisticated risk management in place, including hedging.

The crisis has also injected some uncertainty into the market that trades in English Single Farm payment entitlements. If CAP reform is not agreed in time for the 2014 claim, which in my view is more than likely, the purchase of entitlements now would give buyers access to claims for the years of 2012, 2013 and 2014 for little more than the value of one year's SFP.

Leading broker Webb Paton is reported to be doing about 15 deals a day. The existence of such a secondary market might seem to be perverse but, given that we have farm subsidies, it is a 'second best' solution that facilitates their more efficient allocation.