IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/eurcho/v18y2019i2p11-16.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Finally Free to Green Agriculture Policy? UK post‐Brexit Policy Developments in the Shadow of the CAP and Devolution

Author

Listed:
  • Viviane Gravey

Abstract

Since the EU referendum, the UK government has pledged to deliver a ‘Green Brexit', with a profound rethink of agricultural policies in line with a ‘public money for public goods' agenda. Will Brexit finally set the UK government free to green its farming policies? To answer this question, this article looks back at the UK's Common Agricultural Policy greening record and at early proposals for future UK policy. It shows that while UK governments have pioneered and pushed for many green instruments in the CAP, their overarching priority remained to limit funding – both EU and national – for agriculture. After Brexit, the UK will be leaving the CAP, yet early policy discussions in the UK show that UK decision‐makers face very similar challenges to their EU counterparts: how should agriculture policy be funded and how should funding be shared between the UK four nations? How much divergence in policy is acceptable without threatening the level playing field? In the UK these challenges are compounded by, first, the devolution settlements, with agriculture and environment in devolved competences while trade is reserved to the UK government; and second, the uncertainties surrounding the future trading relationships among the UK, the EU and the wider world. Depuis le référendum sur l'Union européenne (UE), le gouvernement britannique s'est engagé à mettre en place un «Brexit vert», repensant en profondeur les politiques agricoles conformément au programme «Des fonds publics pour les biens publics». Le Brexit va‐t‐il enfin permettre au gouvernement britannique de verdir ses politiques agricoles? Pour répondre à cette question, cet article se penche sur le bilan de la politique agricole commune du Royaume‐Uni en matière de verdissement et sur les premières propositions relatives à la future politique du Royaume‐Uni. Cela montre que les gouvernements du Royaume‐Uni ont été des pionniers dans ce domaine et ont poussé à l'adoption de nombreux instruments verts dans la PAC, mais que leur priorité absolue restait de limiter le financement ‐ à la fois européen et national ‐ de l'agriculture. Après le Brexit, le Royaume‐Uni quittera la PAC. Pourtant, les premières discussions au Royaume‐Uni montrent que les décideurs de l'action publique britanniques sont confrontés à des défis très similaires à ceux de leurs homologues de l'UE: comment financer la politique agricole et partager les fonds entre les quatre nations du Royaume‐Uni ? Quelle divergence dans les politiques est acceptable sans menacer les règles du jeu équitables? Au Royaume‐Uni, ces défis sont aggravés par, premièrement, les accords sur la décentralisation, l'agriculture et l'environnement étant des compétences dévolues, le commerce étant réservé au gouvernement britannique; et deuxièmement, les incertitudes entourant les futures relations commerciales entre le Royaume‐Uni, l'UE et le monde entier. Seit dem EU‐Referendum hat sich die britische Regierung dazu verpflichtet, einen “Grünen Brexit” umzusetzen, bei dem die Agrarpolitik in Übereinstimmung mit der Agenda “Öffentliche Gelder für öffentliche Güter” grundlegend überdacht werden soll. Wird der Brexit der Regierung des Vereinigten Königreiches endlich die Freiheit geben, ihre Agrarpolitik umweltfreundlicher zu gestalten? Um diese Frage zu beantworten, blickt dieser Beitrag auf die ökologische Bilanz der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik des Vereinigten Königreichs und auf erste Vorschläge für eine zukünftige Politik des Vereinigten Königreichs zurück. Es stellt sich heraus, dass die britischen Regierungen zwar Pionierarbeit geleistet und sich für viele grüne Instrumente in der GAP eingesetzt haben, dass aber ihre übergeordnete Priorität nach wie vor darin besteht, die Agrarausgaben ‐ sowohl die der EU als auch der Mitgliedsstaaten ‐ zu begrenzen. Nach dem Brexit wird das Vereinigte Königreich aus der GAP ausscheiden. Frühe politische Diskussionen im Vereinigten Königreich zeigen jedoch, dass die Entscheidungsträger dort vor sehr ähnlichen Herausforderungen stehen wie ihre EU‐Pendants: Auf welche Weise soll die Agrarpolitik finanziert werden und wie sollten die Mittel zwischen den vier britischen Nationalstaaten aufgeteilt werden? Wie viele Politikabweichungen sind vertretbar, ohne dass die Chancengleichheit gefährdet wird? Im Vereinigten Königreich werden diese Herausforderungen noch folgendermaßen verschärft: erstens durch die Dezentralisierungsabkommen, wobei Landwirtschaft und Umwelt in dezentralen Zuständigkeitsbereichen liegen, während der Handel der Regierung des Vereinigten Königreichs vorbehalten ist. Und zweitens durch die Unsicherheiten in Bezug auf künftige Handelsbeziehungen zwischen dem Vereinigten Königreich, der EU und dem Rest der Welt.

Suggested Citation

  • Viviane Gravey, 2019. "Finally Free to Green Agriculture Policy? UK post‐Brexit Policy Developments in the Shadow of the CAP and Devolution," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 18(2), pages 11-16, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:18:y:2019:i:2:p:11-16
    DOI: 10.1111/1746-692X.12234
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12234
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1746-692X.12234?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matthews, Alan, 2013. "Greening agricultural payments in the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 2(1), pages 1-27, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Danilo Bertoni & Daniele Cavicchioli & Franco Donzelli & Giovanni Ferrazzi & Dario G. Frisio & Roberto Pretolani & Elena Claire Ricci & Vera Ventura, 2018. "Recent Contributions of Agricultural Economics Research in the Field of Sustainable Development," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-20, December.
    2. Thomas, Alban & Chakir, Raja, 2020. "Unintended consequences of environmental policies: the case of set-aside and agricultural intensification," TSE Working Papers 20-1066, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    3. Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe & Schulz, Norbert & Breustedt, Gunnar, 2014. "Assessing Farmers' Willingness to Accept "Greening": Insights from a Discrete Choice Experiment in Gremany," 88th Annual Conference, April 9-11, 2014, AgroParisTech, Paris, France 170560, Agricultural Economics Society.
    4. Alexander Gocht & Pavel Ciaian & Maria Bielza & Jean-Michel Terres & Norbert Röder & Mihaly Himics & Guna Salputra, 2017. "EU-wide Economic and Environmental Impacts of CAP Greening with High Spatial and Farm-type Detail," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 651-681, September.
    5. Vanni, Francesco & Cardillo, Concetta, 2013. "The effects of CAP greening on Italian agriculture," Politica Agricola Internazionale - International Agricultural Policy, Edizioni L'Informatore Agrario, vol. 2013(3), September.
    6. Simon R. Swaffield & Robert C. Corry & Paul Opdam & Wendy McWilliam & Jørgen Primdahl, 2019. "Connecting business with the agricultural landscape: business strategies for sustainable rural development," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(7), pages 1357-1369, November.
    7. Wrzaszcz, Wioletta, 2018. "Effectiveness of Greening in Poland," Studies in Agricultural Economics, Research Institute for Agricultural Economics, vol. 120(2), August.
    8. Paola Bertolini & Francesco Pagliacci, 2016. "Territorial Unbalances in Quality of Life. A focus on Italian Inner and Rural Areas," Department of Economics 0087, University of Modena and Reggio E., Faculty of Economics "Marco Biagi".
    9. Paola Bertolini & Francesco Pagliacci, 2016. "Territorial Unbalances in Quality of Life. A focus on Italian Inner and Rural Areas," Center for the Analysis of Public Policies (CAPP) 0140, Universita di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Dipartimento di Economia "Marco Biagi".
    10. Bonfiglio, Andrea & Arzeni, Andrea & Bodini, Antonella, 2017. "Assessing eco-efficiency of arable farms in rural areas," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 114-125.
    11. Cortignani, Raffaele & Dono, Gabriele, 2014. "Sustainability of greening measures by Common Agricultural Policy 2014-2020 in new climate scenarios in a Mediterranean area," 2014 Third Congress, June 25-27, 2014, Alghero, Italy 173098, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA).
    12. Viaggi, Davide & Raggi, Meri & Puddu, Marco & Bartolini, Fabio, 2013. "Farm/Household-level Simulation Results of Testing Policy and Other Scenarios," Working papers 157113, Factor Markets, Centre for European Policy Studies.
    13. Choi, Hyung Sik & Entenmann, Steffen K., 2019. "Land in the EU for perennial biomass crops from freed-up agricultural land: A sensitivity analysis considering yields, diet, market liberalization and world food prices," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 292-306.
    14. Robert Finger & Nadja El Benni, 2021. "Farm income in European agriculture: new perspectives on measurement and implications for policy evaluation," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 48(2), pages 253-265.
    15. Mizik, Tamás, 2019. "A közös agrárpolitika 2013. évi közvetlen támogatási rendszerének hatásai a magyar mezőgazdaságra [Impacts of the 2013 CAP direct-support system on Hungarian agriculture]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(11), pages 1210-1229.
    16. Martin Henseler & Ruth Delzeit & Marcel Adenäuer & Sarah Baum & Peter Kreins, 2020. "Nitrogen Tax and Set-Aside as Greenhouse Gas Abatement Policies Under Global Change Scenarios: A Case Study for Germany," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 76(2), pages 299-329, July.
    17. Stępień Sebastian & Czyżewski Andrzej, 2019. "Quo vadis Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union?," Management, Sciendo, vol. 23(2), pages 295-309, December.
    18. Tamás MIZIK & Anita KOLNHOFER-DERECSKEI, 2020. "Are We Ready For The New Challenges? The Case Of The Hungarian Agriculture," Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Institute of Agricultural Economics, vol. 17(1), pages 113-123.
    19. Berthet, Alice & Vincent, Audrey & Fleury, Philippe, 2021. "Water quality issues and agriculture: An international review of innovative policy schemes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    20. Burke, Thomas & Whyatt, J. Duncan & Rowland, Clare & Blackburn, G. Alan & Abbatt, Jon, 2020. "The influence of land cover data on farm-scale valuations of natural capital," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:18:y:2019:i:2:p:11-16. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.