IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/eurcho/v19y2020i1p4-10.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Defending British Farming Standards in Post‐Brexit Trade Negotiations

Author

Listed:
  • Derrick Wilkinson

Abstract

After 47 years of membership, the UK has left the EU, and plans to quickly negotiate new trade agreements with the EU, US, Australia, New Zealand and others. This unique challenge has caused legitimate concerns about the UK opening its market to agri‐food products produced to lower standards. Consumers are concerned about the possible loss of valued assurances about how their food is produced, and producers are concerned about losing domestic market share to cheaper imports. Demands by farming leaders and others for legally binding assurances from the government that they will ban imports of foods produced in ways not allowed in the UK, are unrealistic. If British farmers want to defend their high production standards in the impending trade negotiations, they need to up their game, understand the legal constraints within which UK trade policy will develop, and find new and creative solutions. Equally, a great start for the UK's new trade policy would be for the UK government to provide the leadership needed to better integrate the public's new environmental and animal welfare priorities with the WTO rules. This could also be an area of trade policy that the UK and EU might work together closely to advance. Après avoir été membre de l'Union européenne pendant 47 ans, le Royaume‐Uni l'a quittée et prévoit de négocier rapidement de nouveaux accords commerciaux avec l'Union européenne, les États‐Unis, l'Australie, la Nouvelle‐Zélande et d'autres pays. Ce défi unique a suscité des inquiétudes légitimes quant à l'ouverture du Royaume‐Uni à des produits agroalimentaires fabriqués selon des normes inférieures à celle du pays. Les consommateurs s'inquiètent de la perte éventuelle de précieuses garanties quant à la façon dont leurs aliments sont produits, et les producteurs craignent de perdre des parts du marché intérieur au profit d'importations moins coûteuses. Les demandes des dirigeants agricoles et d'autres partenaires au gouvernement pour avoir des assurances juridiquement contraignantes que les importations d'aliments produits d'une manière non autorisée au Royaume‐Uni seront interdites, sont irréalistes. Si les agriculteurs britanniques veulent défendre leurs normes de production élevées dans les négociations commerciales prochaines, ils doivent améliorer leurs arguments, comprendre les contraintes juridiques dans lesquelles la politique commerciale britannique se développera et trouver des solutions nouvelles et créatives. De même, un bon début pour la nouvelle politique commerciale du Royaume‐Uni serait que le gouvernement britannique fournisse le leadership nécessaire pour mieux intégrer les nouvelles priorités de la société en matière d'environnement et de bien‐être animal aux règles de l'OMC. Cela pourrait également être un domaine de la politique commerciale sur lequel le Royaume‐Uni et l'Union européenne pourraient travailler en étroite collaboration pour le faire progresser. Das Vereinigte Königreich hat nach 47 Jahren Mitgliedschaft die EU verlassen und plant nun schnell neue Handelsabkommen mit der EU, den USA, Australien, Neuseeland und anderen Ländern abzuschließen. Diese besondere Herausforderung hat zu berechtigten Sorgen dahingehend geführt, dass das Vereinigte Königreich seinen Markt für landwirtschaftliche Erzeugnisse mit geringeren Produktionsstandards öffnet. Die Konsumenten sind über den möglichen Verlust von Zusicherungen, über die Art und Weise wie Lebensmittel erzeugt werden, beunruhigt. Die Produzenten machen sich hingegen darüber Sorgen, inländische Marktanteile durch günstige Importe zu verlieren. Forderungen aus der Landwirtschaft und von anderen beteiligten Akteuren nach rechtlich bindenden Zusicherungen von der Regierung, dass solch Importe von Lebensmitteln verboten werden, die auf eine im Vereinigten Königreich nicht erlaubte Weise produziert wurden, sind unrealistisch. Falls die britischen Landwirte und Landwirtinnen ihre hohen Produktionsstandards in den anstehenden Handelsverhandlungen verteidigen wollen, müssen sie ihre Bemühungen verstärken, die rechtlichen Beschränkungen, in denen sich die britische Handelspolitik entwickeln wird, akzeptieren und neue und kreative Lösungen finden. Zugleich wäre es ein guter Beginn für die neue Handelspolitik des Vereinigten Königreichs, wenn die britische Regierung die Führungsaufgaben übernähme, die für die Einbeziehung der neuen Umwelt‐ und Tierschutzprioritäten der Öffentlichkeit in die WTO‐Regeln notwendig wären. Dies könnte auch ein Bereich der Handelspolitik sein, in dem das Vereinigte Königreich und die EU eng zusammenarbeiten könnten, um derartige Aspekte voranzubringen.

Suggested Citation

  • Derrick Wilkinson, 2020. "Defending British Farming Standards in Post‐Brexit Trade Negotiations," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 19(1), pages 4-10, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:19:y:2020:i:1:p:4-10
    DOI: 10.1111/1746-692X.12249
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12249
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1746-692X.12249?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. Arvind Subramanian, 1992. "Trade Measures for Environment: A Nearly Empty Box?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(1), pages 135-152, January.
    2. Derrick G. Wilkinson, 1994. "NAFTA and the Environment: Some Lessons for the Next Round of GATT Negotiations," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(3), pages 395-412, May.
    3. Candice Stevens, 1993. "The Environmental Effects of Trade," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(4), pages 439-451, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Syed Amir Manzoor & Geoffrey Griffiths & David Christian Rose & Martin Lukac, 2021. "The Return of Wooded Landscapes in Wales: An Exploration of Possible Post-Brexit Futures," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-15, January.
    2. Balcombe, Kelvin & Bradley, Dylan & Fraser, Iain, 2022. "Consumer preferences for chlorine-washed chicken, attitudes to Brexit and implications for future trade agreements," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    3. Kelvin Balcombe & Dylan Bradley & Iain Fraser, 2021. "Consumer Preferences for Chlorine Washed Chicken, Attitudes to Brexit and Trade Agreements," Studies in Economics 2112, School of Economics, University of Kent.

    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. Beladi, Hamid & Frasca, Ralph, 1996. "Regional pollution and multinational firms," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 117-125, May.
    2. Theodore Panayotou, 2000. "Globalization and Environment," CID Working Papers 53A, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    3. Brandi, Clara & Schwab, Jakob & Berger, Axel & Morin, Jean-Frédéric, 2020. "Do environmental provisions in trade agreements make exports from developing countries greener?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    4. Theodore Panayotou, 2000. "Globalization and Environment," CID Working Papers 53, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    5. Xing, Yuqing & Kolstad, Charles, 1996. "Environment and Trade: A Review of Theory and Issues," MPRA Paper 27694, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Álvaro Quijandría, 1993. "El comercio internacional y el medio ambiente," Apuntes. Revista de ciencias sociales, Fondo Editorial, Universidad del Pacífico, vol. 20(33), pages 49-59.
    7. Mattoo, Aaditya & Subramanian, Arvind, 1998. "Regulatory Autonomy and Multilateral Disciplines: The Dilemma and a Possible Resolution," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 1(2), pages 303-322, June.
    8. Nalin Kishor & Muthukumara Mani & Luis Constantino, 2004. "Economic and Environmental Benefits of Eliminating Log Export Bans – The Case of Costa Rica," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(4), pages 609-624, April.
    9. Jayadevappa, Ravishankar & Chhatre, Sumedha, 2000. "International trade and environmental quality: a survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 175-194, February.
    10. Rauscher, Michael, 2001. "International trade, foreign investment, and the environment," Thuenen-Series of Applied Economic Theory 29, University of Rostock, Institute of Economics.
    11. Juan He, 2019. "Do unilateral trade measures really catalyze multilateral environmental agreements?," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(6), pages 577-593, December.
    12. Peter A.G. van Bergeijk, 2009. "Economic Diplomacy and the Geography of International Trade," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13518.
    13. Jale Tosun & Christoph Knill, 2011. "The Differential Impact of Economic Integration on Environmental Policy," Chapters, in: Miroslav N. Jovanović (ed.), International Handbook on the Economics of Integration, Volume III, chapter 12, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Ottar MÆstad, 1998. "On the Efficiency of Green Trade Policy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(1), pages 1-18, January.
    15. Juan Huang & Kai Zhang & Hui Zhao & Rong Fu & Zhiguo Li, 2023. "Environmental Effects of China’s Export Trade to the Countries along Belt and Road: An Empirical Evidence Based on Inter-Provincial Panel Data," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(6), pages 1-15, March.
    16. Lee, James R., 1996. "Basic attributes of trade and environment: What do the numbers tell us?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 19-33, October.
    17. James Boyce, 1996. "Ecological Distribution, Agricultural Trade Liberalization, and In Situ Genetic Diversity," Published Studies ps14, Political Economy Research Institute, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
    18. Daniel C. Esty, 2001. "Bridging the Trade-Environment Divide," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(3), pages 113-130, Summer.

    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:19:y:2020:i:1:p:4-10. 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.