More on Brexit and agriculture

My latest contribution to the Brexit and agriculture debate, this time for the Global Plant Council: Global Plant Council

We need to stay in the CAP but we must continue to work for reform

I was one of the speakers at an event on the impact of Brexit on food at the House of Commons last night. It was organized by the Food Foundation, Food Research Collaboration and the Food Ethics Council. The other speakers were Tim Lang of City University and Fiona Smith from Warwick who covered the complex international trade dimension which she described as a 'quagmire'.

Tim Lang claimed that the issue of how food and drink would be affected has been 'largely ignored' in the debate so far. His report suggests there will be 'volatility, disruption and uncertainty' in a post-Brexit trade world. 'The UK should wake up to the significance of our and the EU’s food role in this changed world,” said Lang. 'The public isn’t yet interested, seeing it as a matter of farming. This is dangerously wrong.'

I argued that Pillar 1 subsidies would be vulnerable after Brexit, Pillar 2 subsidies less so. Kerry McCarthy, the shadow cabinet member for Defra, asked why this was the case. I responded that Pillar 2 subsidies would be defended by a coalition of environmental and conservationist lobbies along with farmers, whilst Pillar 1 subsidies would be defended by farmers alone. Pillar 2 subsidies would also receive more support from academics as they were seen as providing public goods.

There was agreement among the panel that the emphasis needed to be on sustainability and that the CAP needed to address public health issues. There was increased public concern about these issues, but it would take at least ten years to make progress. If the UK remained in the EU, the Government needed to take a more systematic and engaged approach to CAP reform.

Kerry McCarthy made a good point when she referred to the Janus-faced nature of the CAP, on the one hand encouraging niche, high valued added, quality production and on the other hand intensive forms of commodity farming.

As President Obama pointed out, we live in an interconnected world and that is why we need a policy like the CAP, for all its imperfections.

Brexit and agriculture

My latest contribution to the debate can be found here: Brexit

Brexit fears hit farmland prices

English farms have seen the steepest fall in their value since the financial crisis, as investors worry about what might happen to farm subsidies after Brexit. Values fell 3 per cent in the quarter to March according to an index constructed by estate agent Frank Knight. This is the largest quarterly fall since the end of 2008. Average values have risen nearly 180 per cent in the last decade.

Knight Frank think that farmland values will fall 8 per cent this year on the assumption that commodity prices remain low and there is not a collapse of sterling.

Farmers Weekly has noticed a 24 per cent drop in the acreage of land advertised in its pages in the three months since January compared with the same period last year. The average price of an acre of English farmland has dropped below £8,000.

NFU release Brexit report

The National Farmers Union have released the report they commissioned from Wageningen University on the possible implications of Brexit for EU agriculture: The report explores three alternative scenarios of what might happen after Brexit.

The NFU Council will decide in mid-April whether to take a position on the referendum. Most farmers probably favour remaining in membership, but a sizeable minority want to leave.

Feedback meetings on the report being held by the NFU around the country are attracting big audiences. This is in line with my experience of addressing meetings in Yorkshire on our Yorkshire Agricultural Society report on Brexit. These attracted audiences of 200 and 160. I will be addressing a meeting in Cumbria on May 5th.

The results of each scenario show that the biggest driver of UK farm income change is the level of public support payments available. The positive price impacts on farm incomes seen through both the FTA and WTO default scenarios would be offset by reductions in direct support. A reduction of direct support, or a complete elimination of it, would exacerbate the negative impact effects seen under the UK Trade Liberalisation scenario.

The cattle and sheep sectors are particularly dependent on direct support payments, but so too are mixed farms and field crops. Consequently, the combination of a more liberal trade policy and a reduction or elimination of direct support would make many British farms less viable.

The report can be linked to from here: Report

Is the CAP fit for purpose?

50 NGOs have urged the European Commission to carry out a fitness check of the CAP: Fit for purpose?

They say that it needs to be assessed in terms of its effectiveness, efficiency, coherence with other EU policies and the advantages of an EU wide policy compared with national policies.

The EU referendum and the CAP

My latest contribution in terms of a briefing paper for the Birmingham Food Council: Referendum

An imperfect storm

A new book edited by Johann Swinnen entitled The Political Economy of the 2014-20 Common Agricultural Policy judges it to be an 'imperfect storm' compared with the 'perfect storm' of the Fischler reforms dealt with in an earlier book. The book has chapters written by leading experts on the CAP such as Alan Matthews, Tim Josling and Alan Swinbank.

The authors generally found the outcome of the 2013 decision to be disappointing. The policy changes were relatively minor and not always coherent. The term 'reform' is probably inappropriate.

In terms of explanation, the reform proposals presented by Commissioner Ciolos were not very ambitious to begin with, reflecting his inexperience and that of his cabinet. Another factor was the role of the European Parliament with COMAGRI able to control much of the decision-making with farm interests having more influence than environmental organisations. A final element was that the increase in global food prices pushed food security up the agenda.

The new CAP provides an unprecedented amount of flexibility for member states. However, flexibility may have been a rational choice by decision-makers to reach an agreement. It may become a permanent part of the CAP, reflecting the need to come to political decisions in an increasingly heterogeneous EU.

Alan Matthews suggests in his chapter that the reformist camp, always a minority among member states, seems to have lost much of its momentum and cohesion during the 2013 negotiations. The UK in particular was preoccupied with other issues.

Brexit a diversion from sustainability

The referendum on the UK’s European Union membership will have “momentous significance” for the country’s food system, according to a new briefing paper published by the Food Research Collaboration (FRC). The report – called Food, the UK and the EU: Brexit or Bremain? – argues the country must “wake up to the enormity of unravelling 43 years of co-negotiated food legislation”.

According to the authors – Professor Tim Lang, of City University London, and Dr Victoria Schoen, of the FRC – both consumers and businesses will be affected by a vote to leave the EU. This is a deviation from what the authors describe as the real task of getting the UK food system, from production to consumption, to be more sustainable. If the country decided to leave, food imports are predicted to become more expensive, prices would increase and there could be major disruptions to the finely tuned just-in-time supply chains on which the UK food system now depends.

With such prices increases for imported goods, it is suggested there could be consequences for the consumption of foods that the UK relies on EU nations to produce. For example, nearly 40 per cent of the UK’s total food supply of fruit and vegetables comes from the EU, and nearly 55 per cent of its supply of pigmeat.

The authors express concern about the health implications of Brexit, as diet now accounts for 10.8 per cent of the nation’s total disease burden (compared with 10.7 per cent for tobacco). According to the report, the UK is about 60 per cent food self-sufficient so should be wary of instant independence from the EU.

The authors also warn of a potential “food service and food factory crisis” if EU labour currently working in those industries lost their freedom of movement to be in the UK – figures show EU employees make up more than a quarter of the food manufacturing workforce (26.9%) and a tenth of workers in food and beverage services (11.3%). This compares with 6.1 per cent across the UK economy as a whole.

The paper can be accessed here: Brexit or Bremain

Farmer debt pile grows

Farmers are building up record debts as they struggle to cope with a sharp drop in the price of wheat, milk and other commodities. Farmers borrowed £17.8bn in 2015, driven by cash flow problems, the NFU revealed at its annual conference in Birmingham.

NFU economist Anand Dosa said that agricultural borrowings had doubled in less than a decade. There had been a double digit rise in borrowings since 2012.

However, Allan Wilkinson, head of food and agriculture at HSBC, said that indebtedness remained 'very small' compared with the value of assets. Land values had remained relatively resilient.

Is the CAP less green?

Environmental NGOs argue that the increased flexibility given to member states by the last round of CAP reform has led many of them to reduce environmental spending, making the CAP less 'green' than it was: Greenwash?

New Brexit report

The latest report on Brexit has been prepared by Professor Allan Buckwell for the Worshipful Company of Farmers: Brexit report

Presenting the report, he highlighted the deep uncertainties that exit from the EU would be likely to create, especially for agriculture which currently relies so heavily on EU support and regulation. He pointed out that the only certainty at present is that a referendum will occur, we can’t even be sure when. And, whilst the outcome of this referendum is currently impossible to predict, the possibility of a vote to leave has now to be given serious consideration.

He also made it clear that even if the earliest possible date for a referendum (sometime in June 2016) were to be adopted, a vote to leave would, in all probability, mean exit would not occur for at least another four years, making exit the end of 2020. Creating an extended period of enormous, and potentially highly damaging, uncertainty for our industry.

The interim period would involve a whole raft of intensely complex, international negotiations, not just between Britain and the EU but with all our trading partners globally, as the UK Government tries to secure trade deals to replace those negotiated within the EU. At the same time there would need to be a national debate to establish the basis for agricultural policies to replace EU regulations and the CAP.

Whilst it is clear that even if the British people were for BREXIT, payments due to UK farmers under the CAP will continue right up to the actual exit date, the nightmare scenario for farmers following exit would be a combination of the rapid removal of CAP direct payments, with much, if not all existing regulation remaining, and with continuing free access to our market for the still-supported EU farmers. At the same time, outside of the EU, UK farming would also be exposed to increased competition from the world’s lowest cost exporters. This outcome is likely to be regarded as equally undesirable by environmental interests.

Once the immediate effects of a vote to leave have worked through the system, the future of the industry would depend critically on the intelligence and constructiveness of the agricultural policy debate that follows. Some might argue that in the long run it could result in British agriculture being in a stronger position with a more resilient industry developing, but this would depend very much on the legislative and policy environment that replaced the CAP and the competitiveness of the industry it encouraged to develop.

Brexit report out

The report from a working party set up by the Farmer-Scientist Network of the Yorkshire Agriculture Society on Brexit and agriculture is now out: Brexit

The working party was made up of academic specialists from the fields of law, agricultural economics and political science, as well as farmer members.

The report highlights the complexities and uncertainties associated with Brexit, particularly given the absence of any Plan B for agriculture produced by the UK Government.

Among the topics covered are the future of farm subsidies, international trade, the devolved administrations, plant protection, animal health and welfare, GM crops, geographical indications and migrant labour.

CAP reform fatigue

EU agriculture commissioner Phil Hogan is open to a mid-term review of CAP reforms next year, but says that there is 'reform fatigue' among decision-makers and stakeholders: Mid-term review

Farmland prices fall

The cost of prime arable land fell last year for the first time in 13 years, according to estate agents Savills. It is estimated that prices fell 1.7 per cent last year, after rising 12 per cent in 2014.

The main reasons for the fall are thought to be falling commodity prices and uncertainty about what would happen to farm subsidies if the UK left the EU. Farm subsidies have tended to push up prices.

The 25 per cent fall in wheat prices last year had a particular impact on demand, especially from farmers looking to expand. Farmers with high debts or no successors may have cashed in last year while prices remained high. Farmers accounted for 50 per cent of farmland sales last year, the highest proportion for seven years.

Arable land values in the eastern counties of England, where prices have been the highest, fell most compared to other types of land. They remained stable in Scotland and the north of England.

Savills said that the fundamental factors driving UK farmland value growth remained: 'Supply is historically low, the product is finite, competing land uses and ownership motives will all support farmland values growth in the long run.'

High land prices remain a significant barrier for new entrants to farming who do not inherit a farm.

Brexit could hit farmland prices

It is unlikely that the current level of €3bn a year direct support would be maintained after Brexit. The Treasury would see it as an opportunity to reduce subsidies to farmers.

The value of prime agricultural land would be unlikely to be affected. High quality land has been selling at £1,000 per acre with investors looking to diversify assets and preserve capital values. The price of the best land in East Anglia and the south east has risen fourfold over the last decade.

However, the value of land used for dairy farming, lowland beef and sheep farms could be hit much harder. Ian Ashridge, a partner specialising in agriculture at Bidwells, told the Financial Times, 'You would seem some sectors affected severely. Those investors who have acquired land that supports more than one enterprise are likely to be affected much more seriously by any reduction in support.'

Brexit and agricultural trade

Alan Matthews takes an in depth look at the implications of 'Brexit' for agricultural trade: WTO and Brexit

Certainly in the work we have been doing in the Yorkshire Agricultural Society working party on Brexit, we have found this to be the most complex issue.

Matthews concludes: 'There must be a high risk that Brexit would lead to disruption to supply chains (in the case of imports) and to export sales. Also, the time pressure on the UK to secure agreements will leave it in a relatively weak bargaining position vis-à-vis its trade partners implying that it may have yield more concessions that might otherwise be the case in order to secure these agreements.'

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.

Big mergers in input industries?

A series of major mergers is in prospect in the agricultural input industries. Having seen off repeated approaches from US rival Monsanto, Swiss group Syngenta is now seeking to combine its strength in crop chemicals with other groups' leading positions in agricultural seeds. Other leaders in the business including Monsanto, Dupont's seed business Pioneer and the agricultural units of Dow Chemical, BASF and Bayer.

Syngenta chairman Michael Demaré told the Financial Times, 'On the crop chemical side, we are the strong leader. On the seed side, Monsanto and [Dupont's] Pioneer are the key leaders. The winning company in the future will be the one that can combine these two strengths and have an integrated offer.'

Further concentration among the 'big six' would have implications for competitiveness. It would also enhance the global political influence that these companies are able to exert. There is often an under estimation of how influential the input industries are in supporting agriculture politically.

'We are not sleeping on the job!'

That was the assertion of Ladislav Miko, Deputy Director General for the Food Chain in DG Sanco, at a symposium at the European Parliament yesterday on feeding Europe with less pesticides. The event was organised by Greenpeace, the International Biocontrol Manufacturers Association, Pesticides Action Network Europe and other organisations.

He insisted that progress in the approval of low risk substances was dependent on progress in the member states. It was also constrained by the legislation and the capacity available to DG Sanco. This capacity was not increasing.

Miko was optimistic in the sense that he felt some difference in practices was observable in the field. However, a report on the implementation of the Sustainable Use Directive that was due in November 2014 will be submitted to the institutions in the first half of 2016. National Action Plans had been delayed.

I am afraid that this reflects the typical glacial pace in the European institutions, the inadequacy of implementation and enforcement and the usual resort to wheeling out shortcomings by the member states, or more specifically the subsidiarity principle, as an excuse.

One might hope for more progress under the Dutch presidency from January. They intend to propose a 'road map' to the Council which would include the acceleration of approval and authorisation procedures and the finalising of low risk substances criteria.

The Netherlands has been operating its own Green Deal since 2014. However, when I heard the lessons learned listed, they were mostly identical with those that we derived from our RELU biopesticides project which was completed seven years ago. So much for impact. If the Dutch weren't interested in a British project, they could have learnt lessons from their own Genoeg project.

Other dispiriting news was that the 'grey area' of plant strengtheners is to be dealt with in a review of fertilisers, which is inappropriate as these products are often marketed on the basis that they enhance plant protection. Their effect on human health is unknown.

It also became apparent that the European Chemicals Agency and the European Food Safety Agency are treading on each other's toes despite pious expressions about better coordination. Sometimes I think that the EU has too many agencies with too many overlapping jurisdictions, but I don't think this is on David Cameron's reform agenda.

Czech MEP Pavel Poc said that member states needed to respect the commitments made. More needed to be done to tackle the illegal trade in pesticides. As far as low risk substances were concerned, every data gap should not be used as an excuse for non-approval.

IBMA executive director David Cary said that we had not yet built the toolbox we needed. There were far too many approvals for emergency use of synthetics under Article 53. Five low risk substances had now been approved, two of which would be available from January.

Summing up, chair Michael Hamell, a former DG Environment official, said 'A new direction for plant protection is here and it's better to step on the train now. We know where we want to go. Are we sure that everything in our regulatory system is in place?'

My answer is a resounding 'No'. The directives and regulations do the job, the problem is the lack of implementation.

My own presentation on 'The Benefits of Sustainable Agriculture' can be found here: Benefits