Trade deal with China offers hope to beef farmers

A trade deal with China that has ended a ban on exports of British beef offers new hope to beef farmers, but also raise broader issues about UK strategy post Brexit.

A ban on British beef exports to China was imposed following the BSE crisis in 1996. The UK-China Beef Protocol is expected to generate £230m of trade over the next five years. China is the world's largest importer of beef. However, it is expected to be 2021 before supplies start flowing.

In the meantime beef prices are at a low level. Large stocks of frozen beef bought ahead of the original Brexit deadline are still feeding into the system. There has been a collapse in the global leather market affecting hide prices.

More significant in the long run is growing consumer antipathy to red meat because of health concerns and the impact of cattle on the environment, particularly in relation to climate change. 'Flexitarians' are a bigger challenge than vegans.

The broader issue is how far Britain wants to move closer to China after Brexit rather than the United States. There are export opportunities, but also broader concerns about human rights, not least in Hong Kong.

UK agriculture and the current political landscape

My presentation to the Geo-Agriculture conference in Beverley this week discussed the political landscape as it related to agriculture. I got it wrong in the preceding year when I forecast an eleventh hour fudged compromise given that EU decision-making was characterised by last minute deals. This would have left 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.

Why did I make a false prediction?:

• An exit decision for a member state could not be fudged like a CAP reform
• The member states showed more solidarity than I had anticipated
• MPs were more intransigent than I had thought likely

The Agriculture Bill has been the victim of Brexit chaos. It finished its progress through committee in November 2018 and continues to wait for its Report Stage debate to be scheduled, now over 200 days since it was debated The NFU would like to see more emphasis on food production and food security, help for farmers to better manage risk and periods of poor market returns.

It is important to bear in mind that farm businesses vary considerably and this affects their ability to respond to Brexit. Some of the variations include climate/terrain; soil type; ownership structure: owned, tenanted, mixed (increasingly common).

Resilience enables farmers to withstand unexpected shocks and changing conditions. Farmers are being urged to unite, build resilience and look after one another, but there is a limited record of cooperation in the UK. It can lead to an emphasis on survival rather than adjustment and adaptation.

Farms are reliant on EU subsidies

16 per cent of farm business make a loss, but that is forecast to increase to 42 per cent as basic payments are phased out. Direct payments account for 61 per cent of farm net profits. An accountant who represents 100 agricultural businesses in the Highlands estimates just one would be profitable without subsidy. Average Highland estate receives two-thirds of its income from EU subsidies.

Some farms and sectors are more challenging than others, but enterprises can be well managed in difficult conditions. AHDB/Andersons study found that top-performing farms are generating £50,000 more, on average, than those in the bottom 25 per cent.

Top beef and sheep farms in less favourable areas (LFA) yielded an income of £45,200 a year compared with -£1,600 in the bottom 25 per cent. On lowland grazing systems, the difference between top and bottom was £55,100. The study states, ‘Almost all the determinants of success are down to the individual; the decisions made on the farm and how they are implemented.'

Brexit

Farmers Weekly sentiment tracker for April shows a continuing upturn in how farmers view their prospects (+3.18). There has been a slight improvement in commodity prices. Even though more see input prices rising faster than outputs, the gap is narrowing. There has been a slight improvement in how they think Brexit will affect their business. Overall producers remain more negative than positive about Brexit with half thinking it will be bad for their businesses, compared with 21 per cent who think it will be positive. Index (1.0 negative, 5.0 positive) has increased from 2.51 at the beginning of the year to 2.66.

It is difficult to get good data on how farmers voted in the referendum or what they think now. The Knight Frank rural sentiment survey (N just 200) shows they are deeply divided (as is the country). 26 per cent want a hard ‘no deal’ Brexit; 25 per cent want a second referendum leading to ‘remain’ (would it?); 22 per cent the EU/May deal; 16 per cent soft Brexit customs union;10 per cent other; 2 per cent, 2nd referendum leading to leave.

How are farmers preparing for Brexit? 51 per cent said they were making not making any preparations, which may not be irrational given the prevalent uncertainty. Top changes: Diversification; more land into conservation; make existing business more efficient; plant more trees; buy/sell land (the 'bigger is better' orthodoxy is being challenged, although there are still economies of scale).

As far as diversification is concerned, most low hanging fruit has been taken. It does require different business skills and capital costs can be high. Popular options include farm contracting; tourism; on farm niche food production (ice cream; yoghurt; cheese); farm shops; storage facilities or office space; leisure activities; eventually the farm can be just a context for the business.

We should not forget that 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 were poorly designed and often impact farm businesses without securing desired outcomes. It encouraged intensification of agriculture.

New policies in England

In England current land-based payments to farmers will be phased out over a seven-year period starting in 2021. They will be succeeded by public funding for public goods at the core of which will be the Environmental Land Management System (ELMS). Under the new system, farmers and land managers can enter into a contractual agreement with the government to produce environmental land management plans providing outcomes, for which they will be paid.

The National Audit Office has issued a highly critical report. Farmers will have little time to prepare for participation in a three year national pilot of ELMS, which will run from 2021 to 2024, because Defra is not planning to set out the environmental outcomes it will pay for or how much it will pay until April 2020. This is less than a year before the start of the pilot and when their payments will start to be reduced. Defra has consulted with farmers as it designs the Programme, but it has not provided the necessary guidance to enable farmers to plan how to adapt their businesses or how to work collaboratively with other farmers.

Defra has recently scaled back its ambitions for the level of take-up of ELMS during the first year of the three-year national pilot, from 5,000 farmers to 1,250, but is seeking to increase participation as the pilot progresses. It is not clear whether this lower number in the first year of the pilot will provide sufficiently robust evidence across the range of farm types and locations to inform further development of the Programme. This means that Defra only has two years to test how well ELMS will work at scale.

What the NAO is saying in coded language is that preparation is poor and it could blow up in Defra's face. Defra currently has no plans to test its assumptions about the level of take-up of the new system. If take-up is low, Defra will need to find alternative ways to achieve environmental benefits. Farmers that do not participate may leave farming or replace direct payment income by adopting more intensive farming methods that could damage the environment.

Trade effects

Under a no deal scenario, tariffs would apply to UK food exports (I do not think GATT 24 applies). Fresh lamb carcase and barley exports are likely to feel the largest impact given that the UK is a net exporter The sector facing the most challenges in a ‘no deal’ scenario is sheep meat. Tariffs under a ‘no deal’ Brexit would make exports uncompetitive, the sector is very reliant on exports to the EU.

There is concern about terms of trade agreements with third countries (the focus is often on the US, but there are problems elsewhere). Agriculture may be sacrificed for gains in other areas of the economy. There is concern about price competition from countries with lower standards, e.g., on animal welfare. But some countries are simply more price competitive.

The AHDB suggests that critical to doing things better on farms is to minimise overhead costs. Higher outputs account for 10-30 per cent of higher profits in top quartile farm businesses, but lower costs contribute 65-95 per cent. Farmers should set goals and budgets (business plan); benchmark; improve people management; be self-critical and use skills effectively.

It is difficult to say what the future holds. A no deal Brexit would be damaging. Perhaps Boris could deliver a compromise that he could get past the hard line Brexiteers, but the chances aren't good.

As far as the EU are concerned, the negotiated deal is one between the EU and the UK and it won’t be re-opened. Why would a different PM be able to persuade them otherwise? They will not abandon a small peripheral member state like Ireland. They don’t want to encourage others to exit.

A no deal Brexit is not in the EU’s interests, particularly Germany. There is scope for further negotiation on the political arrangements. It might be possible to offer a timetable on the backstop and alternative arrangements. The changing dynamics of the Franco-German relationship is the biggest uncertainty.

In questions, I was asked if I would advise sheep farmers to bail out now, given that production decisions need to be taken well in advance. My advice on balance was to hang in there.

I was asked how the attitude of banks and other finance providers might change. This is something I have researched in the past. The attraction of agriculture for lending is that it has been a stable sector with asset security. This will change to some extent after Brexit, but banks have considerable understanding of the sector and will be able to make informed decisions about future lending.

Brave new world in farming

Beverley: Max Perris of Crawford and Company gave a fascinating presentation on the technological frontier in agriculture at the Geo-Agriculture conference here today. I will deal with what he had to say about robotics below, but his overall theme was that there is going to be more technological change in farming in the next twenty years than in the last two hundred.

He forecast that by 2040 only forty per cent of protein would come from animals produced for meat. Insects would become important as they offered protein, well balanced nutrients and were high in fibre along with low carbohydrates. We had a sample of crickets on our table. I must say they reminded me of the fried wasps I was offered as a delicacy in a remote part of China: fortunately my driver ate them. But attitudes could change. The Guardian reckons that the 'yuk' factor could decline: Fashionable food of future

Vertical farming using hydroponics offered many possibilities with the speaker referring to an operation under Clapham Junction in London. The produce was non-seasonal, there were fewer food miles and uniformity of product was achievable. However, the initial capital cost was high and it was important to get the lighting right. One could produce crops like salads and tomatoes but not wheat.

Risks included machinery breakdown with replacement parts having to be sourced from abroad. If there was a fire, debris removal would be costly. I wouldn't like to be one of the troglodytes that worked there!

What are the pros and cons of robotic milking?

Some dairy farmers see this as a way of 'Brexit proofing' their businesses. It is. however, a relatively expensive solution and one more appropriate to larger units. It requires a different style of working and presents new animal welfare challenges.

As far as cost is concerned, a farmer would need one unit per 55 low yield milkers. Each unit costs £100k - £120k and a new shed may be needed as well. So a farm with 100 milkers, not a particularly large farm by today's standards, would need to invest £300k. This would be spread over 15-20 years with bank borrowing, but units typically have a life of 10-15 years.

EU productivity grants have been available which cover 40 per cent of the capital cost, but I am uncertain whether these would be available after Brexit, although they would be consistent with a technology oriented investment strategy. No one knows what will happen to the milk price over the next decade, but I would be surprised if it went up in real terms.

With a robotic unit the cow is typically asked to find her own way to the milking unit and milk herself. This necessitates training for the herd person and the cow. It is important that there are no obstacles in the way of the cow, hence the need for a new shed in many cases. The cow will need access several times a day during an unhindered and uncomplicated route.

Staff need to be available 24/7 as the units send out alerts if there is any kind of problem and they need to be able to sort out software glitches. We all know how IT problems can drive us crazy, especially in the early hours of the morning. Staff need to learn new skills.

It does imply a new way of working with less repetitive work: being in a traditional herring bone parlour with cows urinating in all directions can be challenging. However, farmers need to think through how well they would adapt to this new technology and about its impact on impact on animal welfare, potentially positive but with new challenges.

Pesticide rules could be weakened after Brexit

Concern has been expressed about the way in which EU pesticide rules are being translated into UK law by the University of Sussex Trade Policy Observatory: Not just a technical exercise

The commentary notes, "These changes to pesticide regulation in the UK can hardly be characterised as ‘technical’; they will weaken the rigour of the process by which pesticides are approved and monitored in the UK."

The EU could, of course, prohibit the import of crops from the UK produced with pesticides of which it did not approve.

Farmers divided about Brexit options

Farmers are divided about how or whether they want Britain to leave the EU according to the Knight Frank 2019 rural sentiment survey. It should be noted that the sample size is just 200, but it probably does reflect a measure of confusion and uncertainty among farmers.

26 per cent of farmers wanted a 'no deal' Brexit, which would certainly be damaging for at least some of them, but 25 per cent wanted a second referendum leading to a remain conclusion. 22 per cent backed the deal with the EU negotiated by Theresa May and 16 per cent preferred a softer Brexit including a customs union.

30 farmers said they would change how they voted in 2016 and 80 per cent of them would switch from remain to leave. They blamed Brussels for the UK's inability to reach a deal.

51 per cent of respondents said they had no plans to adapt how they farmed to deal with leaving the EU. Those planning for Brexit envisaged diversification, putting more land in conservation schemes and making existing businesses more efficient.

The report can be read here: Knight Frank

Warning on government's new farm policy

The National Audit Office has issued a report on the government's new farming policy. Gareth Davies, the head of the NAO comments, 'Defra is moving forward with a policy which is a radical departure from the CAP farm payment regime we have known for forty years. Because it is such a big change, from acreage-based direct payments to an environmental stewardship scheme, we have looked at Defra’s approach to implementing its policy at an early stage.'

'We urge Defra to give itself time and space to fully test and evaluate the policy, and for comprehensive planning, to avoid any unintended consequences for the farming community, our environment or ability to feed ourselves.'

The report notes that 'The government’s new farming policy will be a significant change for farmers in England and the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) has a lot to do to prepare for its implementation at a time when its resources are already under immense pressure from its preparations for EU Exit. The National Audit Office warns that government must approach its roll-out carefully to ensure farmers can prepare in the way they need to.'

'The UK farming industry provides over half of the food the UK eats, employs 474,000 people and comprises 217,000 farms. While a member of the EU, the UK takes part in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Under CAP, farmers in England received €2.4 billion in subsidies in 2017. To prepare for exiting the EU, Defra is developing the Future Farming and Countryside Programme (the Programme) to implement a new agricultural policy and regulatory arrangements to replace CAP.'

'The key part of this new programme is the Environmental Land Management System (ELMS). Defra hopes to have 82,500 farmers enrolled on ELMS by 2028. Under CAP, most payments to farmers are based on the amount of land they farm. These direct payments will be gradually phased out over a seven-year period starting in 2021. Under ELMS, farmers will be encouraged to enter into a contract with the government to produce environmental land management plans, and be paid for the environmental outcomes they deliver, often working in collaboration with other farmers. The policy represents a major shift away from traditional farming towards a system that pays public money primarily for delivering environmental benefits.'

'Farmers will have little time to prepare for participation in a three year national pilot of ELMS, which will run from 2021 to 2024, because Defra is not planning to set out the environmental outcomes it will pay for or how much it will pay until April 2020. This is less than a year before the start of the pilot and when their payments will start to be reduced. Defra has consulted with farmers as it designs the Programme, but it has not provided the necessary guidance to enable farmers to plan how to adapt their businesses or how to work collaboratively with other farmers.'

'Defra has recently scaled back its ambitions for the level of take-up of ELMS during the first year of the three-year national pilot, from 5,000 farmers to 1,250, but is seeking to increase participation as the pilot progresses. It is not clear whether this lower number in the first year of the pilot will provide sufficiently robust evidence across the range of farm types and locations to inform further development of the Programme. This means that Defra only has two years to test how well ELMS will work at scale.'

'Defra currently has no plans to test its assumptions about the level of take-up of the new system. If take-up is low, Defra will need to find alternative ways to achieve environmental benefits. Farmers that do not participate may leave farming or replace direct payment income by adopting more intensive farming methods that could damage the environment.'

'The success of the Programme depends on government assumptions about how the farming community will respond to the new policy. Direct payments from the EU currently account for an average of 61% of farms’ net profit. Without these, 42% of farms would have made a loss between March 2014 and February 2017. The Department expects the withdrawal of direct payments to be offset by improved business approaches, new entrants to the sector taking over farms that have ceased to be viable, and productivity gains across the sector. However, there is limited evidence that many farms are equipped to increase their productivity.'

'Defra is starting to specify its digital requirements for the Programme before key decisions have been made about how the new policy will work in practice, increasing the risk that it will need to make significant technology changes late in the Programme. For example, Defra has not yet decided which environmental outcomes will be rewarded or how much farmers will be paid.'

'The NAO recommends that Defra gets a plan in place with realistic timescales, that has sufficient flexibility to allow changes to be made as more is learned about how farmers react to the new farming policy. It should extend participation in its pilots to a wider range of farmers and land managers to test their willingness and ability to participate in ELMS, and determine the level of ELMS take-up it needs to justify investment in its design and development.'

The report can be found here: New farming programme

Defra pledges to cushion basic payment withdrawal

Defra has pledged to cushion the impact of the withdrawal of the basic payment against a background of concern about the mental health and well-being of farmers: Defra pledge

Defra’s own statistics show that 16% of farm businesses are already unprofitable – even while direct payments continue to be made. That would rise to 42% without direct payments, which the government intends to phase out over seven years from 2021.

Much emphasis seems to be placed on resilience, and farmers are resilient, perhaps sometimes too much so for their own good. However, resilience can turn into a resistance to adaptation to changing circumstances.

Spanish interlude

I recently spent a few days in the vicinity of Alcalali in the Jalon Valley in Spain which is roughly halfway between Alicante and Valencia. Farming in this area is focused on fruit and vineyards. Oranges are not getting a good return with competition from South Africa and it is sometimes hardly worth picking them: I saw 5 kilos of oranges for converting into juice offered at one euro and there weren't many takers. Almonds, lemons and avocados are among the other crops grown.

In many ways vineyards are potentially a commercial crop and I saw an extensive flat area planted with vines. I visited the cooperative in Jalon (aka Xalo, depending on the language used).

This was set up in 1962 and takes grapes from a radius of 15-20 kilometres, all organically grown. The plant is highly mechanised.

In some ways it was the marketing techniques that interested me. They have a very impressive shop, beautifully laid out, with a range of wines (and spirits). This generates 20 per cent of their revenue. It is possible to fill reusable plastic containers of wine for just a few euros and this is clearly a very popular offer. A very acceptable bottled white retails for just under three euros.

However, they do have high end wines at, for example, 18.5 euros. I saw a case of a dozen of these being dispatched to a purchaser in the United States. Once again farmers outside the UK show an ability to cooperate which is far less common here.

Farm income drops under two Brexit scenarios

The AHDB has modelled two Brexit scenarios, UK-EU free trade area and WTO UK tariffs: Assessment report

Farm business income drops under both Brexit scenarios for nearly all of the farm and enterprise types covered. For most sectors the main driver of the fall is expected increase in labour costs. However, in the Less Favoured Area (LFA) and lowland beef and sheep farms falls in production returns (from cattle and sheep sales) are much more substantial.

Most sectors fare significantly better under a UK-EU FTA scenario. In general terms trade impacts vary depending on whether the UK is a net importer or net exporter. Net importing sectors generally gain from rising prices, whereas net exporting sectors see falls. Under the WTO: UK tariffs scenario some net importing sectors (beef and pigs) also experience a price fall as the model expects cheaper world market product to make its way to the UK market.

As with the original 2017 study there is substantial variability of results by farm size and performance levels. The high performing farms, in terms efficiency of converting inputs to outputs, remain profitable under both scenarios.

US opens offensive on agricultural trade

The United States is playing hardball on agricultural trade as part of any future US-UK trade deal after Brexit. Last week the office of the US trade representative (in effect, America's trade minister) issued a document that said the US was seeking 'comprehensive market access for US agricultural goods in the UK' through the reduction or elimination of tariffs. The US is also looking for the removal of 'unwanted barriers' related to 'sanitary and phytosanitary' standards.

The US Ambassador followed up with an article in the Daily Telegraph on Saturday which said that the UK risked getting trapped in the EU's 'museum of agriculture' approach: Smears on US farms

The EU has shown itself more than capable of innovation in agriculture with a new era opening up with the digital revolution. However, what the so-called 'museum of agriculture' about is a vision for European farming which emphasises the production of high quality products in an environmentally sensitive way, including observing animal welfare standards. An ecosystems compatible agriculture reflects the preferences of European consumers and voters who have no enthusiasm for corporate, industrialised American models.

Brexit and Wales

A vibrant and innovative food movement is growing in Wales and there could be new opportunities post Brexit. But is England holding Wales back? Brexit and Wales

The report argues that Brexit poses particular risks for Wales’s export-dependent farmers and food producers. It also gives Wales an opportunity to make a step-change into a new approach to food and farming. Wales has a forward-looking government with sustainability high on the agenda, and a diverse geography. The size of the country gives it an advantage: small enough for individuals and projects to make a difference, big enough for economies of scale, and diverse in its landscapes and culture.

It has several innovative pieces of legislation that could support a transition to fairer and more environmentally sustainable farming and food production, if political authority and public support can be mobilised to link them together.

Gove wins tariff battle

Recent events may give the impression that a no deal Brexit is off the table, but it may merely have been postponed until the end of June. It is therefore significant that Theresa May has ruled in favour of Michael Gove in a battle over tariffs on sensitive agricultural goods.

There was a clash between Gove and chancellor Philip Hammond with the latter taking what he saw as the side of consumers while Gove argued for tariff protection.

Existing high EU tariffs will be maintained on beef and lamb. General duties will retained for pork products, milk and cheese. Products such as sugar will have tariffs to maintain duty free access from developing countries.

Quite what the Irish Republic will make of the prospect of high tariffs on beef, which will have to apply to them, remains to be seen. It may increase their efforts to find a workable solution to the Irish border issue.

The perils of a no deal Brexit

Addressing the NFU conference yesterday, Michael Gove made it clear that a no deal Brexit would be highly damaging for UK agriculture. Tariffs of at least 40 per cent could be imposed on sheep meat and beef, rising to 100 per cent in some cases. SPS checks would be imposed on exports, slowing down their processing which would mean they would be less fresh on arrival: Full text of Gove speech

One piece of good news for farmers is that there will not be zero tariffs on food imports which might have been politically attractive as a way of reducing the price of food. However, as always, the devil is in the detail. It is not clear which sectors would benefit although Mr Gove implied it would be sheep meat, beef, poultry, dairy products and pig meat. There was no mention of grains, fruit, vegetables or flowers.

The Government could also provide direct cash support for hard hit businesses, although it is not clear what the budget would be or how it would be allocated. The vulnerable livestock sector would presumably benefit.

Farming on the edge

With Brexit uncertainty continuing, this analysis by well-known authors looks at the risks associated with Brexit for farming and the agri-food supply chain. In particular, zero tariffs for food might be politically attractive in a 'no deal' scenario but would hit farmgate prices hard: Farming on the edge

Public goods scheme may run into trouble

The Government's intention to switch to public goods payments for farmers after Brexit may fall foul of the poor record of implementation of existing agri-environmental schemes. About 30 per cent of the farmers signed up to the various green programmes are still waiting for payments from 2017.

Payments often come up to a year late. By the government's own assessment, delivery of the country stewardship scheme has 'fallen short' and 'the situation is unacceptable' according to the latest annual report from Natural England.

The new schemes are likely to be even more complex and will have more money going through them, making even more delays likely.

Given the likely complexities of making applications, farmers could simply opt to farm their land more intensively, reversing previous environmental gains.

Gove warns of Brexit farming woes

The text of Michael Gove's speech to the Oxford Farming Conference: Defra Secretary

He comments, 'I cannot, here, entirely pre-empt the outcome of the Government’s Spending Review.' Indeed, but it is of crucial importance and the Treasury has a long held suspicion of farming subsidies. Gove claims, 'Embracing change, supporting reform is the key to unlocking the Treasury’s special box.'

The Secretary of State admitted, 'It’s a grim but inescapable fact that in the event of a no-deal Brexit, the effective tariffs on beef and sheep meat would be above 40% - in some cases well above that. While exchange rates might take some of the strain, the costs imposed by new tariffs would undoubtedly exceed any adjustment in the currency markets.'

In addition, 'The combination of significant tariffs when none exist now, friction and checks at the border when none exist now and requirements to re-route or pay more for transport when current arrangements are frictionless, will all add to costs for producers. As will new labelling requirements, potential delays in the recognition of organic products, potentially reduced labour flows and the need to provide export health certificates for the EU market which are not needed now.'

'Nobody can be blithe or blasé about the real impact on food producers of leaving without a deal.'

The CAP and farming resilience

What contribution does the CAP make to farming resilience? An in depth report on the subject: Resilience Assessment

The resilience of farms and farm systems has become more of a concern in agricultural policy-making. In recent years, European farming systems have generally experienced more pronounced and overlapping challenges: on the one hand, a build-up of shocks such as more frequent extreme weather events, increased price volatility on liberalised markets or unpredictable political interventions to trade policies.

These are accompanied by significant long-term stresses, such as changing consumer preferences, climate change, rural outmigration or the lack of skilled labour. The accumulation of these overlapping environmental, economic, social and institutional challenges could render many farming systems in Europe vulnerable and threaten their functions, i.e. the production of food and fibre as well as the provision of public goods.

The analysis reveals that the CAP and its national implementations do enhance the resilience of most farming systems in the case studies. However, there is a clear bias towards a robustness-cum-adaptability orientation. The main reason for this is that the bulk of resources go into payments that provide buffer resources for farms and enable the continuation of otherwise less profitable business models, thereby stabilising the status quo.

Fewer resources are funnelled into measures that enhance adaptability; this occurs mostly through rural development programs and in some cases producer organisations. An open question is whether the relatively ample support for robustness creates disincentives for adaptation or transformation and therefore impedes these other resilience dimensions.

Demand for oat milk oustrips supply

Global sales of liquid milk from cows fell by 3.5 per cent in the five years to 2017 and one factor has been the growing popularity of plant based alternatives. However, these have not been without their challenges.

Almond-based milk has the largest share of the plant-based market in the US with 64 per cent, but some consumers are concerned about the amount of water used in almond cultivation. Soya milk sales have fallen after a debate about its health benefit and risks.

In contrast oat milk sales surged almost 50 per cent in the US in the twelve months to August. That compares with 9 per cent growth in overall plant-based milk. One reason is that it is really good with coffee and consumers like its texture.

Demand has expanded rapidly that leading Swedish producer Oatly has been forced to pause international expansion so that it can supply existing markets in the US and UK. PepsiCo, owner of Quaker Oats, is hoping to cash in by launching oat milk lines to US consumers.

Biotech starts ups are developing dairy free proteins using biological fermentation techniques.

A crucial turning point for agricultural policy

Dieter Helm from Oxford University in a video presentation of policy options for agricultural policy after Brexit: Dieter Helm

He argues that we are at a critical historical turning point for agricultural policy, as important as the post-war settlement embodied in the 1947 Act and joining the then common market in 1973. We need to be clear about what the problem is you are trying to answer in agricultural policy. Why do we have to intervene at all? Post-war policy across Europe was influenced by a 'dig for victory' narrative which is no longer relevant.

He argues that we no longer need policies to deal with volatile prices given the availability of futures markets and financial instruments. I am not convinced that these address all the challenges, particularly for smaller farmers.

What earlier policies failed to address were negative externalities and public goods. Economists have a tight definition of public goods, but public perception equates public goods with the public interest. The Treasury may be tempted to transfer non-agricultural policies to the agricultural budget, e.g., rural broadband access.

There is an asymmetric information problem between farmers and those implementing public policies. Helm suggests the use of auctions and discusses this in the context of river catchment areas.

Pesticides policy after Brexit

The Food Research Collaboration has produced a briefing paper on pesticides policy after Brexit: Pesticides at a crossroads

It is noted, 'With Brexit looming, there is an opportunity for the UK to reshape its relationship with pesticides. It could choose to mirror or even surpass the standards of EU pesticide rules. On the other hand, it could bow to the pro-pesticide lobby and use Brexit as an opportunity to deregulate. This would allow a greater variety and larger quantity of harmful pesticides to be used, thereby putting the environment and the public’s health at risk.'

Among the recommendations are that the UK should maintain the EU’s hazard-based approach (rather than revert to a risk-based approach) to pesticide regulation and introduce a clear, quantitative target for reducing the overall use of pesticides in agriculture. A new government body should be created to support Integrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques. A pesticide tax should be introduced to drive reductions in pesticide use and fund research, development and innovation.

Farmers are, of course, concerned about the removal of active substances they see as essential to plant protection.