Where are we with agriculture and Brexit?

I gave a presentation on Brexit and agriculture to a group of insurance providers and brokers involved with farming at Bishop Burton College this week.

I started by emphasising that it is important to bear in mind that farm businesses vary considerably and this affects their ability to respond to Brexit. Some of the key variations are:

• Climate/terrain
• Soil type
• Ownership structure: owned, tenanted, mixed (increasingly common)
• Size of farm
• Diversification: how much of the farm business is dependent on farming? Most common: agricultural contracting; tourism; on farm niche value added production, e.g., cheese, yoghurt, ice cream; farm shop and/or café. Most of the low hanging fruit has been taken. One needs the right management skills and management resources can be taken away from the farm business.

What does this imply for farms? It is important for farms to spend some time and effort (and probably money) analysing their businesses and how they will be affected by Brexit Is this a commodity business pursuing economies of scale or a niche business? Should we expand or downsize? Succession issues require attention.

The CAP has been a dysfunctional policy. It was not designed with UK agriculture in mind or contemporary problems. Basic payments have been only tenuously linked to outcomes Policy instruments have been poorly designed and often impact farm businesses without securing desired outcomes. It has encouraged the intensification of agriculture.

There is an opportunity to design a better domestic policy, but whether this will be seized is open to doubt. Current proposals are too concerned with pleasing an urban electorate.

I outlined three broad brush scenarios for Brexit:

• Leaving with no deal on WTO terms
• Some kind of less than satisfactory deal
• A comprehensive agreement. The last is very unlikely given the time that is left and the difficulties that have been encountered in the negotiations so far.

Could the negotiating period be extended? Extending the negotiating period would require the consent of all 27 member states. The EU does have a history of ‘stopping the clock. But I have looked at the ways in which constitutional lawyers say this might be done and none are very convincing.

The UK has a governing party that has been negotiating with itself, but also a split opposition party with unclear policies. There is no sure majority in the Commons for any path to Brexit. A second referendum would shift the decision from a deadlocked Parliament to a deadlocked people, and what would the question be?

It is in the interests of both the UK and the EU to come to some sort of agreement. There have been some signs of a softening of the Commission position. At some point the member states are going to have to get more involved, in particular France and Germany, but they have different positions: France hopes to poach UK jobs and business and German domestic politics are fragile.

Northern Ireland is the most difficult issue. Original EU proposal in March would have given EU courts and regulators near unimpeded jurisdiction over the province. The EU is now considering limiting powers of EU authorities to make checks on UK territory and giving the ECJ only indirect authority. However, the Democratic Unionists are capable of vetoing any solution that outsiders might consider reasonable.

A no deal exit has been talked up. Some of this is people playing political games to suit their own ends. There is also an element of brinkmanship as the case in many negotiations A no deal exit is certainly possible, and it is a scenario I will consider in relation to agriculture, but I don’t think it is the most likely outcome.

An eleventh hour fudged compromise is more likely. EU decision-making characterised by last minute deals. This would leave many issues unresolved that would have to be addressed during the transition or implementation period. But during that period economic relationships would continue much as before.

The fudged compromise still leaves some problems. The Basic Payment is the difference between profit and loss for many farms. It will be phased out (in England & Wales) Public good payments will be more unpredictable, they may involve higher transaction costs and they are more likely to yield income for upland farms.

It's decision time for farms. Do they continue in business? One consequence could be a consolidation into larger units. Land prices could be driven down and they have constituted a barrier to new entrants. However, land prices are also boosted by tax benefits and interest in the sporting value of estates.

The growth rate of productivity in farming is poor (0.9 per cent a year, USA 3.2 per cent, Netherlands 3.5 per cent). Brexit might shake out less efficient farmers who are ‘making do’. Younger entrants might be more open to the possibilities of new technology.

Farmers have shown themselves to be resilient and many are innovative. They may have to rethink idea that expansion was always the answer. They need to analyse their individual farm business.

Are the NFU crying wolf?

Britain would run out of food on this day next year if it had to be self-sufficient after a no deal Brexit claims the National Farmers Union: Run out of food

This is a bit misleading as, although a no deal Brexit would disrupt food supplies, it would not mean a complete absence of imports. Ireland, for example, would be keen to continue to sell its produce to us.

It is true that self-sufficiency has declined, but I find the idea of a self-sufficiency target a bit Stalinist. If we were reliant on just one or two countries for our food, there would be cause for concern, but there are many countries keen to sell to us.

I think that a no deal Brexit would be damaging for all sorts of reason, but we need to be careful about the arguments we use against it.

Farm expansion may no longer work after Brexit

Leaving the EU will bring a more challenging and more commercial environment in which farmers will have to watch net margin rather than gross cash flow, according to Jeremy Moody, secretary and adviser to the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers.

The commercial realities of farming will focus rental values more on the productive capacity of land. Decisions about land occupation will include a consideration of fulfilling new requirements under a domestic farm policy including environmental public good.

In the past businesses have tended to become larger as they seek economies of scale, but this may not be the pattern in the future. Some will find under the new regime that land they have taken on to expand will no longer perform financially.

Scale will probably still be a goal for commodity producers but with a sharper business focus.

Farmers want to remain

It is a deeply embedded myth that farmers voted in favour of Brexit. In fact there is no evidence base in favour of that view other than a Farmers Weekly poll in which respondents were self-selected rather than based on a sample.

However, for what it is worth, Farmers Weekly has done a new poll on how farmers would vote in a three way referendum. 64 per cent selected remain, 28 per cent backed the Chequers deal and just six per cent wanted to leave without a trade deal.

Food security after Brexit

The Food Research Collaboration has published a report authored by Professor Tim Lang and three other leading analysts on food security after Brexit: Feeding Britain

Three main issues are considered:

• The question of whether the Government is paying enough attention to agri-food in the negotiating process, given its central role in both public well-being and the national economy.
• The threat a careless Brexit poses to the UK’s short-term food security – and any long-term attempt to develop a genuinely sustainable food strategy for the whole of the UK.
• The risk generated to the UK’s status as a potential trading partner of the EU by the Food Standards Agency’s decision to press ahead with major reform of UK food safety regulation, at a time when regulatory stability and clarity have never been more important.

The report notes, 'Like all systems operating to finely tuned specifications, the UK food system is fragile and vulnerable to disruption. Contracts for food supplies are typically set 12 months ahead. UK food comes via a complex logistics system run on a just-in-time basis, i.e. three to five days’ supply. There are only tiny food stocks, commercial or public, held in the UK’s food distribution chain.'

Agriculture in Wales after Brexit

The Commons Select Committee on Welsh Affairs has produced a report on Welsh agriculture after Brexit: Report

The report emphasises the contribution of agriculture to community life in Wales and the health of the Welsh language.

The report notes, 'UK-wide common frameworks could be established in a number of different ways, but it is still not clear where they will apply, what they will look like, how they will work, or how any disputes would be resolved. It is imperative that these frameworks are agreed mutually between the UK and devolved governments and ensure the unique issues that face each of the administrations are given due consideration. We believe that these frameworks will need to be supported by robust and transparent intergovernmental mechanisms.'

The Welsh Government's own proposals for phasing out the basic payment had not been well received by farmers. There is a case for retaining some form of basic payment in less favoured areas to support remote hill farms.

How changing food cultures challenge agriculture

One of our leading rural studies experts, Professor Michael Winter looks at the challenges and opportunities agriculture faces from changing food cultures: Food cultures

His report considers how changing food cultures and the need for a healthier human diet might impact on agriculture in the UK. He says, 'I look at what people are eating, where and how, and I consider some of the key trends in food consumption behaviour, that clearly feed back into what UK farmers produce and where and how their products are marketed.'

The chapter on agriculture looks at the ‘fitness’ of the industry to adapt to change and examines some of the market and science-derived opportunities for farmers to diversify the food commodities and products they produce including the breeding of improved varieties of cereals and reviving ancient varieties, and increasing the production of fruit and vegetables. Key to the approach required is for Sustainable Intensification, as the way ahead for agriculture in a resource-constrained world, to bring human nutrition more fully into its orbit.

He concludes (and I agree), 'There is a need to develop a food and farming strategy for the delivery of safe, nutritious and affordable food in the UK, which will allow UK farmers to respond with confidence to the concerns and opportunities presented by civil and consumer society. There is a clear policy imperative to support farmers through the transition to post-Brexit agriculture and policy needs to be designed to ensure that a strong, competitive and food health oriented industry emerges. Agricultural policy should be more focused on health and nutrition. Nutritional security should be seen as a "public good".'

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?'

Will it be all right on the night?

The Future Farmers of Yorkshire event at the Great Yorkshire Show

What follows is the text of my talk to the Future Farmers on Yorkshire on Wednesday 11th July.

For a long time farmers have had to deal with uncertainty about what Brexit will mean for their businesses. The Government has set out a direction of travel for domestic agricultural policy after Brexit in their admittedly somewhat vague Green Paper and this will be made firmer in the forthcoming Agriculture Bill. There hasn’t been much time to digest the 44,000 responses that were made to the consultation, including the detailed response made by the Farmer-Scientist Network of the YAS.

What is clear is that the Government intends to direct future funding towards the provision of public goods and that direct payments will be phased out. Whatever one thinks of Michael Gove, he does have a clear strategic vision, albeit one designed to appeal to urban electorates. If he had replaced David Davies as Brexit secretary, we would have had a further period of instability at Defra.

Unfortunately, Defra lost a lot of its experienced staff and although it has recently made new hirings, they are generally relatively junior and inexperienced in agricultural matters.

What we do not know is the shape of the final settlement between the UK and the EU which could have profound implications for farms. The Chequers compromise seemed to provide a basis for moving forward, but now looks shaky as arguments continue within the Conservative Party, although I think it would command a Parliamentary majority.

Broadly speaking, one may suggest three scenarios:

• 1. A failure to reach any agreement which would lead to trade being conducted on WTO terms. This would be highly disruptive. Last week, the British Retail Consortium warned, ‘'[The] supply chain is fragile. Failure to reach a Brexit deal – the cliff edge scenario – will mean new border controls and multiple "non-tariff barriers" through regulatory checks, creating delays, waste and failed deliveries. This could lead to dramatic consequences, with food rotting at ports, reducing choice and quality for UK consumers.’
• 2. ‘It will be all right on the night’. Both the UK and the EU have an incentive to reach an agreement, although the incentive is stronger for the UK with its 64 million population than the EU with 500 million. There would be some kind of initial compromise and then the real negotiations would take place during the transition or implementation period which could be extended.
• 3. A comprehensive agreement. Whatever happens Britain is not going to have access to the single market on the same terms as at present. One cannot leave a club and continue to receive its benefits. The EU is resistant to the UK to having its cake and eating it. Apart from anything else, it does not want to encourage other member states to think that they might secure the benefits of the EU without staying as members.

It seems to me that a comprehensive agreement will not be achievable given the political constraints in the UK and the EU. Even getting some sort of interim arrangement is not going to be easy. Time is running out and the UK Government has spent a lot of time negotiating with itself. Too often the result of these negotiations is a position that is not acceptable in Brussels. For its part the EU has been distracted by a number of other problems, most notably the migration crisis.

No one has really come up with a feasible solution to the problem of Ireland which has a successful integrated agri-food economy. The technological means of tracking the movement of goods do not exist and would take a long time to put in place and made to work properly. However, some sort of temporary arrangement might be possible. The declared intention to have a common rule book with the EU for agri-foods is a step in the right direction. It may be possible to buy time on this issue through a fudge, but Ireland will not be easily satisfied.

Some of the biggest challenges for farmers arise from future trading relationships, both with the EU and the rest of the world. Under the worst case scenario, sheepmeat producers would face substantial tariffs at the EU border. These would effectively deny them competitive access to the EU market which accounts for around 40 per cent of UK production. This would be devastating for sheep farmers. However, I remain reasonably confident that we can avoid this worst case scenario and that sheepmeat exports will continue much as they do at the moment.

What is perhaps of greater concern is the trade treaties that the UK intends to subsequently negotiate with third countries such as the United States. It should be noted that the intention to align with EU rules on agriculture and food after Brexit will make securing a trade deal with the US much more difficult, given the US interest in having access for chlorine rinsed chicken and hormone treated beef which are banned under EU rules. Nevertheless, my concern would be that agriculture would not be high up the list of government priorities and would be used as a bargaining chip to obtain concessions on manufactured goods or services. For example, Australia would like greater access for sheepmeat to UK markets.

However, I do think that these treaties will take some time to secure and probably will not be possible until after the implementation period. This will at least give farmers a breathing space. The risk in the longer run is that cheap food imports will arrive in the UK market, having not been produced in accordance with the exacting animal welfare standards required in the UK. Price is a big driver for consumers.

It should also be noted that farmers in France, Germany and elsewhere in Europe will continue to receive direct payments, albeit at a somewhat reduced rate because of the loss of UK funds. British farmers will not be competing on a level playing field. The total sum made available to farmers in support payments will surely be reduced. Public goods payments may be more complicated to access and will certainly be distributed in a different way.

Hopefully, post Brexit, there will be more opportunities for a decentralised agricultural policy for England, not just for the devolved administrations. Yorkshire needs more opportunities to develop its distinctive agri-food offer of which we can see many splendid examples round the showground today.

How can farm businesses succeed post Brexit? Each farm business is different and faces its own challenges and potential. What is certainly worth doing at the very least is a SWOT analysis in terms of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Some types of activity may no longer be viable and new opportunities may open up. For some farms, the efficient production of commodities securing economies of scale may be the best way forward. For others, there may be opportunities for niche forms of production which add value and involve direct relationships with consumers.

These different approaches require different management skills. Above all, there has to be an openness to new ways of doing business which is an area in which Future Farmers have much to contribute.

Robots ahoy!

Harrogate: We don't value the soil to the extent that we should argued Clive Blacker of Precision Decisons Ltd. at a seminar om Precision Farming and the Hands Free Hectare at the Great Yorkshire Show, The trend towards even bigger machines was driven by a number of factors and they caused soil compaction.

He envisaged a future with swarms of small robots and their tractor outside looked dinky and not a threat to anyone. Fortunatey, the tractor is now driving in straighter lines than last year.

How soon commercialisation could occur was uncertain with cost a key factor. However, there could be contracted weed removal services.

Shortage of skilled labour was a constraint, but Brexit would get rid of people who weren't interested in learning or training, The project was intended to appeal to the younger generation.

Insurance was an issue. Who was to blame if the owner changed the programme and the machine crashed? Or supposing it was hacked into and went walkabout?

It needs to be remembered that new technology has to be socially acceptable. Someone was telling me about a robot that would trundle round the countryside zapping weeds with a laser and no doubt announcing 'This vehicle is exterminating'. Would you like to meet that walking your dog?

'Policy is coming home'

Harrogate: That was the message from NFU Deputy President Guy Smith at the Future Farmers of Yorkshire meeting on how to succeed post-Brexit at the Great Yorkshire Show today. Policy was going to be made back in the UK for the first time in 40 years.

Government had to help farmers to harness new technology and boost productivity. Farming was essentially a risky business. One was never sure of the value added going forward. That was why governments helped farmers across the world.

In discussion it was noted that people's relationship with food was changing. Nutrition had to be embedded as a value in food.

It was possible to under estimate the resilience or extent of innovation in the sector.

I will post the text of my talk later in the week.

Will biocontrol work for arable farmers?

Harrogate: This was the subject of a seminar organised by the Farmer-Scientist Network of the Yorkshire Agricultural Society at the Great Yorkshire Show today.

Dr Roma Gwynn of Biorationale said that there was no precise definition of biocontrol, but it was about substances based in nature, There was a global annual growth rate of 20 per cent in biopesticides compared with five per cent for chemicals. 30 per cent of active substances registered in the EU were now biocontrol and 50 per cent of those coming through. They were extensively used in horticulture, but there was considerable scope in arable.

Professor Rob Edwards of Newcastle University said that diagnostics helped us to decide where we should and should not use chemicals. A spring wheat trial had been carried out in 2017 and a winter wheat trial on three sites in 2018 to see what worked with different resistance and different treatments. We were going to have to wean ourselves off pesticides. Roma Gwynn said that we should make those we do have last as long as possible.

No difference had been found between treatment regimes and varieties, but there was more protein in biocontrol treated plants. The objective was to enable plants could better access nutrients by placing microorganisms around the root. A more plant centric approach was needed.

It would be 10 to 15 years after Brexit before any distinctive UK legislation would be possible. The project was the beginning of a much longer story.

Rob Edwards said that we had to move from fixing things that were broken to stop them happening in the first place. We were using old fashioned testing criteria for new varieties.

Dr Gwynn said that the project had the potential to drive the conversation, to take evidence to government.

Rob Edwards showed a kit which gives an idea of how strong the resistance trait was. One was managing blackgrass rather than total eradication which was not feasible.

In discussion the importance of healthy soil was emphasised. There were benefits from growing crops together, a polyculture type of production. The challenge was to match that up with modern machinery. Growing clover as a cover crop benefitted the soil, nitrogen input was reduced. Monoculture was a perfect system to encourage pests and disease.

Biocontrol is variable, affected by the weather, not as consistent as conventional chemistry. There was a need to do a lot of things together [implying more demanding management and a higher level of skill].

Work was needed on public perceptions of biopesticides. There were a lot of preconceptions in the public and a need to understand what these were. People would happily buy biocides, but once technology went into food, perceptions changed easily.

A farmer questioned the compartmentalised terminology which was not helpful. What was conventional agriculture?

Rob Edwards noted that alternative UK technologies were used extensively in sub Saharan Africa. Roma Gywnn observed that Kenya had established biocontrol and integrated pest management before Europe had moved. The Kenyan Government had listened and changed regulation.

Wales needs a 'farming plus' policy

Wales must develop a 'farming plus' policy post Brexit to ensure a sustainable agriculture argues Professor Terry Marsden: Post Brexit Farming Model

He concludes, 'Developing a reinvigorated and branded quality agri-food strategy, based on a more diverse set of farming practices, thus becomes a critical element of the post-Brexit approach in Wales.'

Food could rot at ports in the event of a 'cliff edge' Brexit

The British Retail Consortium has warned that there will be food supply issues in the event of a 'cliff edge' Brexit: Food supply issues

The retail organisation warns: '[The] supply chain is fragile. Failure to reach a Brexit deal – the cliff edge scenario – will mean new border controls and multiple "non-tariff barriers" through regulatory checks, creating delays, waste and failed deliveries.'

'This could lead to dramatic consequences, with food rotting at ports, reducing choice and quality for UK consumers. It could also lead to higher prices as the cost of importing goods from the EU increases.'

Scotland to cap basic payments

Defra has moved away from capping Basic Payments to farmers as they are phased out. However, in its consultation paper on post Brexit policy, the Scottish Government suggests capping payments at £25,000 a farm. This would affect 5,000 farm businesses and raise £140m. An alternative option would see payments capped at £200,000, affecting just 50 farm businesses and raising only £4m.

Money raised would be used to support new entrants to farming and smaller businesses, although there is scant detail on how this would be achieved.

Trump administration looks to bail out US farmers

The Trump administration is looking into ways of offsetting the financial losses American farmers have suffered from its trade battle with China. Beijing is set to raise duties by 25 percentage points on Friday on $34bn of US goods in retaliation for new American tariffs. Among the biggest targets are soyabeans, the largest agricultural export to China.

The threat has pushed the US soyabean price below $9 a bushel, an unprofitable price for many farms. Last week, futures slid a further 4 per cent.

Consideration is being given to using the Commodity Credit Corporation set up in 1935 by President Roosevelt. It has $30bn in borrowing authority from the Treasury and latitude in how its funds are spent. Congress in March broadened its authority by lifting curbs on its authority to support crop prices and remove commodity surpluses.

Farm groups have set to head off President Trump's aggressive trade tactics against China, Mexico, Canada and the EU without success. There is concern that in the lomg run tariffs could lead to more land being converted to soyabeans in Brazil.

Cheese mountain in the US

The US has amassed the large stockpile of cheese since records began 100 years ago. If gathered together. the different varieties of cheese would weigh 630 million kilograms and occupy roughly the same amount of space as the Capitol building in Washington DC.

Stocks have increased because processors have more milk than they can cope with, and it is easily stored as cheese. Milk production has reached record levels thanks to selective breeding and consolidation in the agriculture industry, but consumption has fallen as consumers have embraced non-dairy alternatives such as almond milk. The average American now drinks 18 gallons of milk a year, barely half of what they drunk in the 1970s.

In 2016 the US agriculture department bought more than 40 million kg of cheese to reduce a surplus that was 16 per cent smaller than the current one.

When the EU had extensive intervention buying, cheese was not included with one or two minor exceptions.

Animal welfare standards at risk after Brexit

Animal welfare standards are at risk after Brexit according to a report from the Food Research Collaboration at City University: Low standard imports

Macron is president of cities says French farm leader

Just as England's NFU has a woman leader for the first time, so does France's leading farm lobby, the FNSEA. Christiane Lambert, a 56-year old pig farmer, does not hold back in giving it large to President Macron. She says that his image is as a president of the cities who had no idea how farmers lived and worked.

She thinks that French farmers stand to lose €5bn over the next budgetary period if cuts in the CAP budget are confirmed. She thinks that Macron is dithering over the issue. Last year the number of farm bankruptcies in France rose by seven per cent.

More competitive countries such as Germany and the Netherlands have pushed down the prices of beef. dairy and pork products and gained market share abroad. Ms Lambert thinks that labour intensive farming activities have suffered from distorted competition from German producers who employ cheap labour from Bulgaria and Romania.

French farmers are resorting to their usual direct action tactics, planning to block 13 oil refineries tomorrow. The farmers are protesting against imports of palm oil to make biofuels.

Committee report criticises Defra

The House of Commons Defra Committee has produced a report in response to the Government's consultation on the future of agriculture: Report

It states, 'The evidence from a range of agricultural businesses indicates that their sectors will face significant impacts from the proposed withdrawal of Direct Payments. The level of impact will vary by sector as the economics of each are so different. There are likely to be particularly damaging effects on grazing livestock, cereal and mixed farms and the withdrawal of support and any subsequent closures of businesses could have wide reaching impacts on the rural economy and its communities. As in our Brexit: Trade in Food report, we were disappointed that these impacts have not been thoroughly assessed by Defra on a sector-by-sector basis, to then inform future agricultural policy.'

The report notes, 'The consultation paper lacks discussion of wider food policy and has failed to link agricultural policy to wider public health goals and reducing diet-related diseases. Healthy food makes a wider contribution to public health, which is in the public good and we recommend it should be supported as such under the new model of awarding payments to farmers.'