Available here by the author if you don’t have access
https://dieterhelm.co.uk/natural-capital-environment/environment/agricultural-policy-after-brexit/
I voted for lexit on one issue, the common policies’ affect on the environment.
I work in agtech, brexit, covid and climate change are driving loads of investment into the sector. It’s a very positive sector to work in. Problems need solutions, solutions need research, one thing the UK is still great at.
I don’t understand your position on this, to be frank. The UK is a relatively small agricultural area when compared to the total CAP coverage area. Why opt to vote to exclude ourselves from that when the UK previously had reasonable influence on EU policy? Surely an approach of tactical voting to ensure both local and EU representation had a greener/longer-term approach to these types of policies rather than pushing the UK to go it alone?
While I don’t disagree that going it alone reduces the hurdles to this type of policy change (assuming political will), it does push the UK into a space of competitive disadvantage, does it not? Some of the investment and improvements the article points out (admittedly I have skimmed rather than read thoroughly) will come with time anyway, and having been part of a larger community could have been helpful in making the transition.
I’ve watched the attempted CAP and CFP reforms for decades. It just won’t happen, the agriculture lobbyists, vetoes and France ensure that.
There is no time left to save our soil, fewer than 100 harvests according to some.
The UK’s entire net contribution to the EU for the last budget, 66 billion, was wasted on failed policy to halt biodiversity loss according to the EU’s own auditors.
We assessed whether the EU’s agricultural policy has helped to maintain and enhance farmland biodiversity. We found that the formulation of the agriculture targets in the EU biodiversity strategy makes it difficult to measure progress; the way the Commission tracks biodiversity expenditure in the EU budget is unreliable; the impact of CAP direct payments is limited or unknown;
https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/publications?did=53892
The EU has funnelled €66 billion into farmland biodiversity since 2014 – and has little to show for it. That’s the conclusion of a special report released on Friday by the European Court of Auditors. The auditors slammed the half-baked targets of the EU 2020 biodiversity strategy, its odd-couple relationship with CAP, lack of monitoring, and some very un-smart spending by the European Commission
https://www.arc2020.eu/cap-billions-spent-on-biodiversity-with-little-impact-auditors/
However, in the early 70s it was already becoming apparent that the creation of this highly productive agricultural system brought with it some profoundly negative environmental effect
The agricultural Commissioner Sicco Mansholt recognised this as early as 1972, and appealed for a move towards circular agriculture as a way of preventing the destruction of natural resources.
Since 1972… I don’t hold out hope of them fixing it
The replacement Agriculture Policy has removed production subsidy. Problem solved. Now it’s time for solutions like regenerative farming and controlled environment agriculture.
Should have stayed in the single market though, unnecessary disruption. And I love disruption.
Fair enough, I just don’t really have faith that the UK is genuinely going to make any changes that have the desired positive impact, at least not on a national/regulatory level. I would be happy to be proven wrong on a large scale!!
We already have a new agriculture policy that does not incentivise production
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/how-has-uk-agricultural-policy-changed-since-brexit/
An interesting read and a thought provoking Pillar Three argument. Not something I was aware of to be honest. And bold of you to post something that might suggest Brexit could be beneficial.
