APPENDIX 8
Memorandum submitted by English Nature
(S 13)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 English Nature is the statutory body
responsible for advising both central and local government on
nature conservation and for promoting the wildlife and natural
features of England. In fulfilling its duties, English Nature:
— advises Ministers on the development
and implementation of policies for nature conservation;
— advises Ministers on other policies
affecting nature conservation;
— identifies, notifies and safeguards
Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs);
— establishes, maintains and manages
National Nature Reserves;
— provides guidance and advice on the
principles and practice of nature conservation to a wide constituency;
— commissions and supports a wide range
of research and other projects relevant to nature conservation.
1.2 Through the Joint Nature Conservation
Committee, English Nature works with sister organisations in Scotland,
Wales and Northern Ireland to advise Government on UK and international
nature conservation issues.
1.3 Our interest in trade negotiations concerns
their possible effects on biodiversity in England resulting from
the impact of trade agreements on the agriculture sector, on agri-environment
programmes, and on the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
In association with the other UK Wildlife and Countryside Agencies
(Countryside Agency, Countryside Council for Wales and Scottish
Natural Heritage), we have undertaken innovative research on the
potential environmental effects of agricultural liberalisation
(Potter et al, 1999). This submission concentrates on the potential
impact of trade rules on biodiversity in England. However, our
work with the other Agencies suggests similar issues relating
to landscape and other rural policy issues.
1.4 In responding to the Select Committee's
inquiry, this submission focusses on three issues raised in the
inquiry press notice. First, the effect of trade liberalisation
on the agriculture sector and the environment; secondly, environmental
support regimes; thirdly, restrictions on trade in genetically
modified (GM) foodstuffs and issues relating to scientific dispute.
We have no comment on the other issues raised, which mainly involve
human health matters beyond our remit.
1.5 The UK Government's new strategy on
sustainable development states that, "Liberalising trade
can help to ensure that resources are used efficiently, to generate
the wealth necessary for environmental improvement, for development,
for the spread of cleaner technology and for improved social conditions.
On the other hand, where economic activity is unsustainable, trade
can act to magnify this, increasing pollution and depletion of
natural resources such as forests, fish and other wildlife, and
minerals". We support this balanced interpretation of the
potential effects of trade on the environment and suggest that
this should be a key statement guiding UK and EU trade negotiations.
2. SUMMARY OF
OUR SUBMISSION
The general approach to trade and environment
relationships
The key immediate priority is that the agenda
for the next trade round, including that for the "built-in"
agenda, should make the promotion of sustainable development a
specific objective and outcome for the negotiations.
We recommend that all new trade measures, individually
and as a whole, be appraised in terms of sustainable development
including direct and indirect effects (see Annex A).
We welcome the EU's suggestion that the new
trade round investigates the relationship between Multi-lateral
Environmental Agreements (MEAs) and trade agreements. We recommend
that the EU should as a negotiating goal ensure that the trade
round takes account of the overall objectives of MEAs, in particular
the Biodiversity Convention (Rio 1992).
The effect of trade liberalisation on the agriculture
sector and agri-environment policy
Agriculture should be multi-functional. Many
of the most important wildlife habitats in England have been created
by environmentally sustainable agricultural practices over hundreds
of years.
Maintaining this link is essential if the UK
is to achieve its international commitments under the 1992 Biodiversity
Convention.
We support the desire to reshape further the
current system of EU agricultural subsidies, the majority of which
remain production related and stimulate environmental damage.
However, research for the UK Wildlife and Countryside
Agencies indicates that simple removal of existing subsidies will
not deliver the necessary environmental gains. There is no evidence
to support the assertion that trade liberalisation in itself will
deliver a win-win solution for the economy and the environment
on a scale necessary to achieve our international biodiversity
commitments. The evidence to date points to environmental risks
resulting from accelerating the process of structural change in
farming, and the need to redirect support towards environmentally
sensitive farming.
This emphasises the need for a precautionary
approach to trade liberalisation involving sufficient accompanying
policy measures, including a radically increased agri-environment
programme.
Environmental support regimes
It is essential that new trade rules enable
the application of domestic subsidy regimes that are genuinely
aimed at delivering our national and international environmental
commitments. Trade negotiations must recognise the inherent links
between agriculture and biodiversity in Europe. Biodiversity benefits
have strong "public good" characteristics, indicating
the need for public subsidies. In addition, since biodiversity
benefits are jointly produced with sustainable agriculture, it
is inevitable that delivering biodiversity protection will have
some effect on agricultural production levels.
Current and future trade rules may constrain
the Government's ability to implement the necessary environmental
programme. We believe they need to be revised to enable the implementation
of legitimate environmental subsidies at the necessary scale.
We believe that there is scope for an alternative
win-win solution through the next trade round. This could involve
significant reduction in the current level of market support,
and increased access to domestic markets, but must ensure a sufficient
programme of environmental payments, on a considerably greater
scale.
Genetically modified organisms
We are concerned about the possible effects
of GM crops grown in England on wildlife, and support the need
for a halt on herbicide tolerant and insect resistant GM crops
grown in England until the farm scale trials are completed, which
will demonstrate the level of risk to wildlife.
It is essential that this policy is not constrained
by trade rules. We believe the precautionary principle to be a
legitimate approach in trade policy and that its application should
be clarified in the new trade round.
3. THE EFFECT
OF FREE
TRADE ON
THE UK AGRICULTURE
SECTOR AND
THE ENVIRONMENT
European agriculture should be multi-functional
3.1 A large proportion of the most valued
wildlife habitats and associated species in England has arisen
from agricultural management of the natural environment over hundreds
of years (see annex B). While this "multi-functionality"
can be contested in terms of its uniqueness, it is indisputable
that England, and other parts of Europe, is characterised by an
"old-settled" agricultural system, one that has developed
over a period of many centuries. However, this multi-functionality
is threatened by the recent intensification of agricultural production.
3.2 The UK Biodiversity Action Plan includes
the protection of farmland habitats and species. This represents
our international commitments under the Biodiversity Convention
(1992), signed by 175 nations. It is precisely this semi-natural
character and mosaic of habitats which makes them unusual and
important in a world context. These commitments require both maintenance
of the remaining resource and recovery of former losses.
The policy implications of the links between biodiversity
and farming
3.3 Maintaining these links is essential
to achieving our commitments under the Biodiversity Convention.
Agricultural goods and biodiversity can be seen as "joint
products" of a sustainable agricultural system. Protection
of this wildlife is difficult to achieve in other ways. Attempting
to recover and maintain former levels of biodiversity, without
the use of sustainable agricultural practices, carries high risks
in terms both of environmental effectiveness and cost effectiveness.
We are, for example, committed to the protection of certain species
and habitats that rely on specific cattle grazing regimes.
3.4 A wide area approach is needed to maintain
existing conservation resources, to prevent further damage through
habitat fragmentation effects, and to recover former losses. This
needs to be based on the conservation of remaining semi-natural
habitats and widespread use of sustainable agricultural practices
across the countryside as a whole, not just in isolated areas
covered by statutory designations.
The effects of trade liberalisation
3.5 Trade negotiations may lead to some
further reform of subsidy payments under the Common Agricultural
Policy (CAP), many of which cause environmental damage. The recent
Agenda 2000 package will do little to deliver environmental benefits
and does not support the multi-functional objectives described
above. The balance of support remains strongly production linked
and too few resources are devoted to the delivery of environmental
public goods. To the extent that trade liberalisation may drive
further subsidy reform, this is supported by English Nature. However,
the analysis below indicates that simple removal of existing subsidies
will not achieve our biodiversity objectives.
3.6 Recent research for the UK Wildlife
and Countryside Agencies attempts to understand the possible effects
of free trade in agriculture (Potter et al, 1999). It analyses
the possible economic response of farmers and then predicts the
environmemtal consequences. The study covered 244 farms in five
European study areas, of which three were in the UK. A summary
is at Annex C. The research categorised farmers' response to free
trade as follows: "business as usual"; changes to farm
management; farm household response (such as lower spending or
additional sources of income); and structural change (such as
early retirement and change of farm ownership): Different places
indicate different effects: in East Anglia, the "business
as usual" response will probably predominate. However, upland
and pastoral areas such as the Welsh and Scottish case studies
indicate significant structural change.
3.7 Some have argued that trade liberalisation
will lead to win-win gains in terms of both economic and environmental
benefits, simply through the removal of these environmentally
damaging subsidies. However, this research challenges that view.
While caution is required in interpreting the results, the following
conclusions are suggested:
— No economic changes can be identified
that are likely to lead, in themselves, to the replacement of
"lost" conservation features on the scale that it necessary
to achieve our biodiversity objectives;
— There are likely to be some environmental
gains from a reduction in the intensity of farming. However, there
are also likely to be losses, for example from reduced labour
time for conservation management. More importantly, the dominant
effect will be long term structural changes in farming, which
carries significant environmental risks from processes of amalgamation,
changes in farm layout and management and loss of land out of
farming.
3.8 The "win-win" interpretation
is based on too narrow an interpretation of environmental effects
and fails to understand the potential risk of irreversible habitat
loss through the processes of structural change. More research
is required in this area, but the current evidence suggests the
need for a precautionary approach, recognising the need for sufficient
protection measures to accompany trade liberalisation, until further
information is available. This should include an English agri-environment
programme in the future that is significantly greater in scale
than the current level of payments.
4. THE IMPLICATIONS
FOR TRADE
POLICY AND
ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT
REGIMES
4.1 Trade policy may cause significant structural
change in agriculture which could threaten the existence, maintenance
and recovery of important conservation features on all types of
farm, and especially the economically vulnerable farms. Negotiations
must allow legitimate and sufficient domestic support measures
to ensure environmental protection.
4.2 Biodiversity benefits have strong public
good characteristics, which means that they will be under-provided
by free markets and public subsidy is necessary to provide the
level of benefits that society wants.
4.3 Current "green box" rules
seek to restrict any domestic support measures that will have
a more than negligible impact on agricultural output, and there
is a move to make these even tighter in the new round. However,
biodiversity protection policies inevitably specify certain farming
processes and are likely, therefore, to have an effect on agricultural
production levels. The provision of countryside services may either
tend to increase or reduce agricultural output depending on the
technical relationships between the agricultural system and the
environment. Where measures have a negative effect on production,
for example by reducing fertilizer use, the conflicts with trade
policy are less acute. However, in some cases biodiversity protection
will inevitably have a positive effect on production levels compared
with a "without biodiversity scenario". These cases
include the maintenance of farm landscapes and provision of sufficient
grazing levels in vulnerable farming areas. Although this positive
effect will be much less overall than the current subsidy regime,
it may mean that trade rules will conflict with our environmental
priorities.
4.4 These rules fail to recognise the relationship
between agriculture and the environment in Europe. It is necessary
to distinguish between "domestic support measures" and
other payments made to farmers for the provision of public goods.
The latter may well have effects on production but should not
be included within the Aggregate Measure of Support (AMS). Legitimacy
of domestic support payments should be based on whether their
size and form is appropriate in relation to environmental and
other rural support objectives. Legitimate public good subsidies
should be seen as correcting market failures rather than as introducing
trade distortions.
"Blue Box"
4.5 We support the use of precautionary
but well-targeted measures to protect the environment from any
risks from an accelerated process of structural change. However,
the current "blue box" payments allow a subsidy regime
which remains too closely linked with production and does little
to use public funds in a creative way to protect and enhance biodiversity.
4.6 We believe our proposals for the Less
Favoured Areas may provide a useful more general model for the
long term and would want this model to be developed in trade negotiations.
This involves:
— Flat rate area payments, zoned according
to environmental priorities;
— Supplementary additional area payments
which focus on existing habitats and landscape features and on
beneficial elements of extensive farming systems.
"Green box"
4.7 The "green box" rules, agreed
in the previous trade round, may constrain the implementation
of legitimate public good subsidies in pursuit of our international
commitments. Our specific concerns are:
— Even legitimate environmental payments
may be ruled out if they have a more than "minimal trade
distorting effect" (Uruguay Round Agriculture Agreement,
annex 2, paragraph 1). As argued above, biodiversity protection
policies will inevitably have an indirect effect on agricultural
production levels. This criterion needs to be amended.
— Instead, the key issue should be
whether the payments are legitimate in terms of the environmental
criteria, amongst others, set out in the green box rules (URAA,
annex 2, paragraph 12). However, to meet the concerns of member
states about the real legitimacy of such payments, we would support
a better definition of the environmental criteria, subject to
important caveats set out at annex D.
4.8 Such changes would allow the new green
box rules to be defined appropriately to distinguish "true"
environmental support programmes. Having done so, the "green
box" should facilitate the expansion of such programmes in
order to allow member states to take the necessary action to protect
the environment.
Overall approach
4.9 Further research is needed to determine
the scale of payments to prevent damaging effects from structural
change and to achieve biodiversity objectives. However, English
Nature believes that a sufficient domestic support package to
achieve environmental objectives would cost much less than the
current level of subsidies. This suggests that much of the trade
liberalisation agenda could be implemented in a way that also
ensured environmental protection. However, it is essential that
reformed blue and green box rules are supportive of theses objectives,
and that trade liberalisation measures are accompanied by sufficient
domestic policy measures to ensure environmental protection and
enhancement.
5. GENETICALLY
MODIFIED ORGANISMS
5.1 English Nature is very concerned about
the potential environmental risks from the growing of GM crops
in this country. These risks include:
— The direct toxicity of GM crops to
wildlife, especially those containing insecticidal proteins;
— The transfer of genes to native plant
species either deliberately or inadvertently. The commercial introduction
of herbicide resistant grasses (which have recently been created
experimentally) would enable farmers to eliminate all other species
from pastures. Transfer of insect, virus and fungus resistance
genes to wild plants may disrupt their population dynamics to
the point that they would become more weedy.
— The potential for changes in agricultural
methods enabled by GM crops. Fields of herbicide resistant crops
would be sprayed with broad spectrum herbicides at the growing
stage, eliminating all weeds on which wildlife relies for shelter
and food. We view the commercial introduction of these crops as
a further step in increasing agricultural intensification. Evidence
relating bird declines to herbicide efficiency supports this view
(Campbell et al, 1997).
5.2 English Nature is not opposed to genetic
modification as a plant breeding technique but is concerned about
widespread release of certain GM crops. We support the need for
a halt before the commercial release in England of GM herbicide
tolerant and insect resistant crops to:
— allow time for research into their
effects on biodiversity in England to be completed and assessed;
— develop changes in the regulatory
system to take account of the wider environmental effects of GM
crops;
— encourage biotechnology companies
to develop crops which minimise gene flow and enhance in-crop
biodiversity.
5.3 It is essential that such a policy is
not compromised by trade rules. The use of a precautionary approach
is justified. We welcome the EU's suggestion that key principles,
such as the precautionary principle, be clarified in the new round.
We suggest that the reasonable application of the precautionary
principle should be recognised more clearly as a key principle
in trade policy. Recent rulings, such as in the beef hormone
dispute, suggest that the reasonable use of precaution is acceptable
providing proper risk assessment procedures have been followed.
However, we remain concerned about the body of evidence that may
be required before precautionary approaches are deemed to be reasonable.
Such judgements need to be recognised as inherently subjective
and contestable, and no single methodology for risk assessment
exists. With new technologies, there is often a period where environmental
concerns exist, justifiable on sound theoretical grounds, but
where direct scientific evidence in either direction is lacking.
5.4 Market access measures such as eco-labelling
may sometimes be necessary in order to provide a level playing
field between domestic operators whose production methods are
constrained by environmental policies, including GMO crops, and
overseas operators who are not. We believe that such measures
can be legitimate to protect domestic environmental objectives
assuming they are designed carefully so as not to impose any unfair
or unnecessary trade restrictions. The recent Shrimp-Turtle ruling
is helpful, to some extent, in defining possible circumstances
where such action may be legitimate.
However, we are concerned that this still imposes
too great a burden of proof, and of necessary process, on countries
who wish to impose environmental standards on domestic markets
and then level the playing field in terms of international competition.
The UK/EU need to ensure that the next trade round debates and
institutes a new process which agrees reasonable circumstances
where "level playing field" measures may be legitimate
and necessary in pursuit of domestic environmental objectives.
This is especially relevant where such measures support internationally
agreed environmental commitments.
REFERENCES:
Campbell et al, 1997. A review of the indirect
effects of pesticides on birds. Joint Nature Conservation Committee
report no. 227.
Doyle C, Ashworth S and McCracken D, 1997. Agricultural
trade liberalisation and its environmental effects. Report prepared
by the Scottish Agricultural College for the UK Wildlife and Countryside
Agencies.
Potter C, Lobley M and Bull R, 1999. Agricultural
liberalisation and its environmental effects. Report prepared
by Wye College, University of London for the UK Wildlife and Countryside
Agencies.
Tilzey M. Sustainable development and agriculture.
EN Research Report DETR, 1998.
English Nature
1 November 1999
| 
