APPENDIX 2
Memorandum submitted by the Council for
the Protection of Rural England (S 3)
INTRODUCTION
1. CPRE is a national charity which helps
people to protect their local countryside where there is a threat,
to enhance it where there is opportunity and to keep it beautiful,
productive and enjoyable for everyone. CPRE therefore has a particular
interest in the implications of agricultural trade policy for
the countryside.
2. We welcome the opportunity to submit
our views and comments to the Committee on the implications for
UK agriculture and EU agricultural policy of trade liberalisation
and the WTO Round.
AGRICULTURAL TRADE
LIBERALISATION AND
THE RURAL
ENVIRONMENT
3. Agriculture was first fully included
in global trade negotiations in the Uruguay Round of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Since the agreement on
the Uruguay round in 1994 the net environmental impact of agricultural
trade liberalisation has been highly contested and the subject
of considerable research and economic analysis. Early studies
highlighted the environmentally beneficial outcomes of greater
trade liberalisation, particularly with regard to reductions in
fertiliser and pesticide use in response to the falling market
prices that liberalisation would bring. More recent studies (particularly
those undertaken by the UK countryside agencies and research by
the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
) have been far less strident in their claims that trade liberalisation
is universally beneficial for the environment.
4. These more recent studies have highlighted
the view that while lower prices and more competitive markets
may cause the use of agro-chemical inputs to fall, particularly
in intensive arable areas such as East Anglia, the net impact
on biodiversity, landscape and historic and cultural resources
is far less predictable and likely to be highly damaging in certain
circumstances. These risks appear to be high in areas where marginal
agriculture is a critical factor in the maintenance of landscapes
and habitats, for example the UK uplands. Other areas at particular
risk are those where farming is less specialised and farms tend
to be in the small to medium categories, such as the South West
of England.
5. There are also serious concerns that
increased access to EU markets from some countries with poor animal
welfare standards or weak environmental protection legislation.
These imports are likely to undercut UK production systems that
operate to much higher standards and regulation.
6. Much of this research and evidence emphasises
the need to ensure that the next round of trade talks gives greater
consideration to the environmental, animal welfare and social
implications of liberalisation. The EU negotiating stance should,
therefore, ensure that the impact on both the rural environment
and those farms that are operating to higher environmental and
welfare standards is taken into account and appropriate protection
and mitigatory measures adopted.
THE SCOPE
OF THE
GOVERNMENT'S
CONSULTATION
7. In August the Ministry of Agriculture
Fisheries and Food (MAFF) launched a consultation document on
WTO negotiations on agriculture which set out:
— the background and context for the
next round of negotiations;
— the nature of earlier trade commitments;
— the issues likely to arise as a result
of the next reform process; and
— details "other issues"
seen as important in terms of the UK and the EU establishing a
negotiating position.
8. While the consultation identifies animal
welfare and plant health concerns as issues to be taken into account
in the negotiating stance, it does not, at any stage mention environmental
concerns or the need to include any environmental considerations.
The consultation assumes that debate about the liberalisation
of agriculture is focused on net economic gain or loss from trade
in agricultural commodities. While this is an important dimension,
it is by no means the only set of concerns. For many, perhaps
the majority of people, issues of environment, animal welfare
or the social consequences of liberalisation both within Europe
and in developing countries are major issues of concern.
9. This very narrow scope is not only very
disappointing but also fails to join up with the Government's
own sustainable development commitments:
"Success has been measured by economic
growth—GDP—alone. We have failed to see how our economy,
our environment and our society are all one. And that by delivering
the best possible quality of life for us all means more than concentrating
solely on economic growth." Foreword by The Prime Minister,
Tony Blair MP, to A better quality of life, the UK strategy
for sustainable development.
RESPONSE
10. CPRE is very concerned at the lack of
environmental content of the MAFF consultation paper for three
key reasons:
— the outcome of the next round of
WTO negotiations will set the background to further reform of
the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), it will therefore be important
to ensure that the EU negotiations safeguard the important role
of farmers as managers of our countryside and producers of landscape
and environmental public goods;
— the environmental impact of the various
options under consideration in the negotiations should be assessed,
where this is possible, and appropriate protection and mitigation
measures should be included in the negotiations; and
— the lack of any reference to the
environmental consequences of further liberalisation of environmental
trade suggests a failure by MAFF to recognise the current debate
and research on the issue; to fully consult on policy development
within MAFF; or to consult with the DETR or statutory advisors
on the environmental consequences of major areas of policy development.
11. This last point is particularly disappointing
in light of the statement by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries
and Food, Nick Brown, at the conclusion of the Government's comprehensive
spending review, that there will be close co-operation between
MAFF and DETR on areas of joint interest.
30 September 1999
| 
