In a thorough and authoritative analysis, Alan Matthews examines the repurposing of the English agricultural budget since Brexit, noting that the only other developed country to attempt such extensive changes is New Zealand: http://capreform.eu/agricultural-policy-reform-in-england-and-the-2024-uk-budget/
There has been a much greater reallocation to agri-environmental funds in England than in the CAP.
New Zealand has produced a comprehensive and authoritative report on the latest developments in the Common Agricultural Policy: https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/trade/mfat-market-reports/market-reports-europe/eu-common-agricultural-policy-aims-to-be-fairer-greener-more-animal-friendly-and-flexible/
Caroline Saunders, the president of the Agricultural Economics Society writes in its latest newsletter: 'Climate change is impacting on agriculture, both through consequences such as extreme weather events and through major changes in policy.'
'New Zealand [where she is a professor] is in an unusual position with 48 per cent of its greenhouse gases coming from agriculture. The New Zealand government has passed a Zero Carbon Bill with zero emissions by 2050. The agricultural sector has until 2022 to show how it will achieve this; otherwise, it will go into the Emissions Trading Scheme in 2025. In the UK, agricultural emissions are about 10 per cent of the total, but the UK also has the ambition of net zero emissions by 2050.
Both countries must work out how to measure the emissions, the point of obligation, the treatment of methane and the methods available to farmers to reduce emissions, and how to support farmers through the transition. There is also the issue of trade and the potential substitution of imports produced with higher emissions (New Zealand has relatively low carbon emission per unit of output).
New Zealand and the UK have strong links and it will be interesting to see how negotiations between the countries address these issues. Given WTO rules, this may be through a new trade agreement and/or through promoting consumer preferences for products with low carbon footprints. New Zealand was the first country to adopt a formal well-being budget in 2019.
Whilst it is early days to see how this will transform policy, it is a step in the right direction. One consequence is a shift in policy thinking to put more weight on the well being of those in the agricultural sector, given the changes mentioned above. A key challenge for the [agricultural economics] profession is to research the distinctive role of government to ensure transitions that consider farmer wellbeing.'
One interesting consideration is how Brexit will affect any future trade agreement which is likely to be sought by the UK. One issue could well be trade offs between financial services (for the UK) and agriculture (for New Zealand).
Caroline Saunders, the current president of the Agricultural Economics Society, writes about the experience of removing subsidies in New Zealand in the organisation's latest newsletter.
'New Zealand famously removed all subsidies to agricultural producers as part of its post-1984 reforms. Prior to those reforms, New Zealand (NZ) had a relatively high degree of regulation throughout its economy. With a change in government in 1984 accompanied by an exchange rate crisis and a looming fiscal crisis, NZ undertook widespread liberalisation.
The pace and extent of the reform programme was impressive (Paul Dalziel, New Zealand’s economic reforms: an assessment. Review of Political Economy, 2002). In summary, NZ removed all financial controls, floated its exchange rate, undertook major privatisation of state enterprises, relaxed labour market controls, and removed most import tariffs and regulations.'
'The agriculture subsidies were relatively short lived. Until the mid-1970s, support levels were relatively low. However, the introduction of Supplementary Minimum Payments (SMPs) in 1978 – a form of deficiency payment that favoured the sheep breeding flock – followed swiftly by a raft of other measures, marked a rapid escalation in support levels. These measures included: incentives for land development; concessionary livestock valuation schemes; preferential credit for farm purchase; tax concessions; and fertiliser subsidies. Most were phased out in 1984, with some transitional arrangements persisting until 1986.'
'The main impacts were a drop in sheep production and increases in beef and dairy. Farm incomes for beef and sheep farms fluctuated from NZ$23,000 in 1983 to NZ$18,000 in 1984, NZ$34,000 in 1985 and $15,000 in 1986 before rising again to around $25,000 from 1987 to 1990. The impact of the reforms on fertiliser use was significant, since fertiliser subsidies had been in existence since 1963. Between 1986 and 1991, fertiliser use fell considerably, from around 2 million tonnes per annum, to around 1.2 million tonnes. The real value of farmland doubled from 1972 to 1982, then falling from 1982 to 1988 by 58 per cent.'
'The New Zealand experience of liberalisation of agriculture offers some useful insights. There were clear changes in land prices and production decisions in response to the changes in incentives. However, some caveats also need to be observed, notably that New Zealand had a relatively simple and short-lived support system and the removal of subsidies was accompanied by liberalisation throughout the wider economy. The impact was felt by those who had changed or bought farms during the period with subsidies, and subsequently had debt that was not sustainable after the prices fell. The changes also happened within a generation, which certainly would not be the case in the UK.'
One of the most interesting panels I attended at the Society of Agricultural Economists conference at the University of Warwick was on what, if anything, we could learn from the reforms in New Zealand, often held up as an example of the benefits to be obtained from a radical eradication of subsidies. Interestingly, the position first taken in the discussion was that the experiences were so different in terms of geography, the prevalence of cooperatives, the timing and form of subsidies etc. that little could be learnt. However, as the discussion progressed, some lessons were extracted.
It is important to understand the context in which reforms took place. New Zealand was suffering from fixed exchange rates, the Think Big energy projects and high inflation, leading to a fiscal crisis. The subsidies were in place for a relatively short time and were also offered to manufacturing to offset the effects of a high exchange rate. Capitalisation into asset prices did not have the same impact as elsewhere.
For a long time New Zealand agriculture enjoyed preferential access to UK markets at guaranteed prices, but in the 1960s commodity prices fell. There were some really sad cases among farmers, but not that many went bankrupt. Because most farms were family farms, some use was made of unpaid labour.
New Zealand had first mover advantage with exports to China, but failed to follow through on that and let others capture market share. Hence, the first mover advantage was squandered.
New Zealand had 67.8m sheep in 1985 and 29.1m in 2015. The dairy herd has expanded, particularly on the Canterbury Plains, but this has led to concern about environmental impacts in terms of climate change and water pollution.
It was pointed out that the structure of cooperatives allowed the rapid transmission of intelligence from external markets to producers.
Some specific mitigation measures were provided. For example, although subsidies on interest payments were withdrawn, the actual payments were kept at the same level. There was also help with farm business plans.
The UK should aim for value added growth, but what sorts of policies did this imply? One approach might be to enhance the knowledge base.
As Brexiteers point to the sunlit uplands, they draw attention to the way in which New Zealand agriculture has flourished since the withdrawal of subsidies. A number of caveats are necessary. The original measures were accompanied by a devaluation of the New Zealand dollar and an end to restrictive practices in ports. Even so, some farmers did take a big hit and went out of business.
What strikes me today about the New Zealand economy today is how dependant it is on exports of dairy products and in turn how important the Chinese market is. Admittedly, the share of dairy products in exports peaked a couple of years ago at 35 per cent and has dropped to just under 30 per cent, but that is still a heavy reliance on one set of products. New Zealand does, of course, have an ideal climate for dairying, although there are environmental concerns about levels of water abstraction for irrigation and the pollution resulting from intensive dairy farming: Green image threatened .
The co-operative Fonterra is New Zealand's largest company and the world's biggest dairy exporter. It supplies almost a quarter of New Zealand's exports. China is its biggest customer, consuming a quarter of the milk produced by Fonterra farms.
It will be recalled that in 2008 Sanlu, in which Fonterra held a 45 per cent stake, was involved in a scandal involving infant feeding power which led to the deaths of six babies and left tens of thousands and others in hospital. The Chinese authorities did not hold back and executed two of those involved and jailed others. The scandal helped overseas companies dominate China's powdered milk market. Foreign brands account for about three quarters of powdered milk sales in China - worth $19.7bn a year.
Now Fonterra has lost out in a different way through its minority stake in Chinese infant formula manufacturer Beingmate. It has lost 70 per cent of its market value in three years and has made losses in the last two years, $152.5m in the year ending December 2017. There have been problems with pricing after a clamp down on price fixing, the distribution network and the discovery of counterfeit powder by the Shanghai police which hit revenues.
Farmer members of Fonterra are getting increasingly concerned and urging the co-operative to drop the investment.
Hopes that the UK and the EU had reached an agreement in principle on the tricky topic of tariff rate quotas (TRQs) have been knocked on the head by an intervention by the United States. The Trump administration is leading a group of countries challenging British plans to retain EU import restrictions on agricultural goods after Brexit. The other six countries who sent a letter to the UK's WTO representative and his EU counterpart were leading agricultural exporters: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, New Zealand, Thailand and Uruguay.
New Zealand's former high commissioner in London has given it large on the issue saying that the row would make Brexit look 'like a kids' Christmas party' if access was scaled back.
The risk for the UK is that part of the post-Brexit transition in the WTO it may have to accept opening up access to agricultural goods from third countries far more than it wants, even before it agrees the much vaunted new trade deals with such countries.
The UK has tried to smooth ruffled feathers by saying that the plans would be discussed extensively with partners in the WTO before proceeding. This is the opening stage of a process in which countries have staked out their starting position in what is likely to be a long negotiation.
Tariff rate quotas have always been one of the more difficult aspects of the negotiations between the UK and the EU over agricultural issues arising from Brexit. However, it looks as if an understanding about a deal has been reached. It may, however, not please third countries which could cause trouble down the line. The proposed deal would not expand overall quotas, and hence market access.
TRQs set the amount of goods that can be exported at low or zero tariffs, and are hence valued by agricultural exporters. The UK and the EU need to share out the quotas by the time Brexit takes place in 2019. Countries such as Australia and New Zealand have been pushing for an increase in combined UK-EU quotas after Brexit.
The deal would divide up quotas according to where goods were previously consumed. For example, the UK would take a larger quota for products such as New Zealand lamb. Consumption patterns would be measured over a three year period. This outcome would reduce additional competitive pressure on sheep farmers in particular.
Australia and New Zealand will challenge any outcome they think reduces their current levels of market access. Other major agricultural exporters such as Brazil and the US want more market access. However, if they decide they want to take matters to the dispute settlement mechanism of the WTO, they may be in for a disappointment. The US has been blocking the appointment of new judges and the quasi-judicial tribunal may soon have insufficient judges to function.
Attention is often drawn to how New Zealand benefited from the withdrawal of agricultural support, but this helpful briefing note from the AHDB points out that there are many differences between the situation in New Zealand in 1984 and that in Britain today: What can we learn from New Zealand?
In particular we should never forget that New Zealand has a particularly favourable climate for livestock with year round grazing.
There are some lessons that can be drawn:
When Britain was originally negotiating and then confirming by referendum its membership of what was then the European Community, one of the issues was New Zealand agricultural products. I need to go back and read the contemporary literature, but essentially the point was that Kiwi exports of butter and lamb were important to its economy and the UK wanted to continue to have access to them tariff free, so it was agreed that quantities of these products could enter the common market free of tariffs.
New Zealand subsequently adopted a 'scorched earth' farm policy which caused more pain than many of its admirers admit and was also accompanied by a devaluation of the NZ dollar (as well as freeing up the country's ports from various restrictions). New Zealand has thus opened up new markets for its dairy products in East Asia and the Gulf states.
Nevertheless, that does not mean that the European market does not matter. New Zealand has formally objected to a plan that would limit the amount of its lamb sold in Britain. The UK Government wants to share the tariff rate quotas with the EU after Brexit. The hope is that replicating the EU's tariffs and quotas would make matters easier in the World Trade Organisation.
It is somewhat ironic given that it was hoped that one of the first post-Brexit free trade pacts would be with New Zealand. You might wonder what the UK could export all the way to New Zealand, but apparently it is about financial services.
It is often suggested that the UK could learn from New Zealand's experience of abolishing agricultural subsidies, although such comparisons often overlook the way in which the climate there favours pastoral agriculture and the extent to which devaluation assisted the transition (a devaluation of 55 per cent over ten years).
The AHDB has taken a systematic look at what might be learnt from New Zealand, emphasising the differences between the state of the New Zealand agriculture and economy in 1984 and that of Britain today: Kiwi subsidy reforms
Ten per cent of farmers were in serious financial trouble by 1986 and land prices fell by over half.
The principal conclusions are:
As I write this post, the Council of the National Farmers' Union is debating options for farming post Brexit a few miles away at Stoneleigh Park and none of the scenarios looks particularly promising.
If area subsidies are withdrawn overnight, farmers will face a 'cliff edge'. Many enterprises will go out of business and be consolidated into larger businesses or bought by foreign investors at a knockdown price.
We need a phasing out of existing forms of subsidy. Exactly how this might be done is something I am working on at the moment.
Earlier this morning I did a television interview for Reuters on the challenges for UK farming post Brexit. The interviewer made the point that they heard a lot in London about the needs of the financial services industry, but very little about farming. Exactly so.
Indeed, the UK Government is now contemplating a trade deal with New Zealand that would benefit the financial services industry, but allow in additional imports of lamb, to the detriment of the sheepmeat industry.
The Scottish Government is considering continuing general subsidies after Brexit, although they may face budgetary constraints in doing so. What is clear is that French and German farmers will continue to receive CAP subsidies which could amount to 20 per cent of the market value of product.
I want to move away from subsidies, and in particular blanket subsidies that are not related to a policy objective. But it must be done in a way that allows the industry to adjust.
There is currently a supermarket war going on using milk as a loss leader. Farmers have been reassured that it will not affect the price that they are paid, but some are concerned about the treatment of liquid milk as a commodity. With the impending lifting of quotas, many EU farmers, not least in the Netherlands, are planning expansion. But in a world that could be awash with milk, despite increasing demand in China, milk could turn out to be 'white gold' but fool's good.
Moreover, any country expanding its production will be up against New Zealand which has an ideal climate for dairy production and years of accumulated expertise in production and marketing. But is New Zealand really the Saudi Arabia of milk?
A recent report in the Financial Times struck a note of caution: White Gold.
The Pink 'Un noted that since 1980, the dairy herd has more than doubled to 6.5m cows while the number of sheep has halved. At least 300,000 hectares of land has been transferred to dairy use from other types of farming and forestry over the past decade, causing a jump in agricultural land prices. The dairy industry is driving the boom in capital investment with NZ$1bn dairy plants under construction along with other spin-off infrastructure projects.
But there are risks in being so dependent on a single sector which now accounts for almost a third of total exports, particularly when it is a commodity. It makes New Zealand look like a modern version of a company town. Some see parallels with Ireland before the financial crash with an economy based on debt and credit, low savings rates and current account deficits. Irish dairy farmers prospered under the CAP, some of them building new mansions with porticos. They survived the crash with the CAP providing a safety net which Kiwi farmers do not have.
