Cymraeg Last week UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Australian PM Scott Morrison elbow-bumped on an ‘agreement in principle’ for a future of free trade between the two countries, despite the prospect of such a deal generating major backlash from British farmers.
The UK Government claims that the transition to a zero-tariff trade deal will ultimately save British consumers up to £34 million a year; which equates to a measly 52p per person. Although this is little more than pocket-money in real terms, the potential cost to British farmers – especially small-scale agroecological food producers who value high standards, fair prices and small supply chains- could be huge.
Farmers fear that they face being undercut by cheaper imports from large-scale farms in Australia, who are held to far lower production standards than their UK counterparts. Rebecca Laughton, a member of the campaigns team at LWA, put it simply: “In a country like the UK, which has plentiful rainfall and grows great grass, how can it be sensible or sustainable to undercut our beef and sheep farmers by allowing cheap imports of Australian meat?”
Futile safeguards
In an attempt to soothe concerns, the Government has reassured British farmers that they will be protected by a cap on tariff-free imports for the first 15 years, through the implementation of tariff-quotas and other (yet to be defined) safeguards.
According to figures released by the Australian Government, however, beef tariff-quotas will rise from 5,000 tonnes as they currently stand, to 35,000 tonnes as soon as the deal is signed. This amount will then continue to rise over the 15 year transition period. But in 2019, UK beef and veal imports from Australia only amounted to 1,766 tonnes – well below even the current cap. Understandably, there are concerns that these caps are therefore nowhere near low enough, and will actually place no meaningful limit on tariff-free imports in the future, with such high caps only serving to suggest that overall meat imports are likely to increase.
Concerns over standards
Although there is still a lack of detail, the deal’s ‘agreement in principle’ leaves uncomfortable scope for the dismantling of UK food standards. The UK Government has promised to uphold UK food standards, so no hormone-fed beef for example, but this far from the only concern. Australia is far more relaxed in its use of antibiotics, for example, and the liberal use of antibiotics in their meat and poultry production means that animals are packed more tightly together, and animal welfare standards are severely compromised as a result.
There are also fears, expressed by Pesticide Action Network UK among others, that the deal will weaken UK pesticide standards. One example might be the import of foodstuffs that contain residues of the toxic herbicide paraquat; a chemical which is used on crops in Australia but is banned for use in the UK due to the serious risks it poses to human health and the environment.
Reorienting in the wrong direction
Although the 15 year transition period may soften the immediate blow for UK food producers, this transition period is intended to encourage farmers to ‘adapt’ to the new changes. Farmers will essentially be expected to adapt, or die, and adaptation in this case means reorienting production towards an export market.
As the UK Government said in its statement: “We are also supporting agricultural producers to increase their exports overseas, including to new markets in the Indo-Pacific.” But the LWA maintains that undercutting domestic markets while transitioning UK food producers towards export-oriented production is the wrong way to go.
Jyoti Fernandes, head of policy for the LWA commented: “Exports massively increase the carbon footprint of food at a critical time for reducing transportation and refrigeration emissions. Why should we be importing beef from the other side of the world when we should be selling the highest standard beef to our local communities, pubs, schools and hospitals?”
Local food systems are the answer
Now more than ever there is an urgent need to buttress local food economies. The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed weaknesses in our over-reliance on long supply chains which rely on international trade, and has served as a harsh yet serious reminder of the importance of local food supply systems in meeting domestic needs.
The need for shorter supply chains is further compounded by the fact that we are living in a state of climate emergency. Importing food from other countries – especially as far away as Australia – will only serve to increase greenhouse gas emissions, contradicting any government claims that they are ‘tackling climate change head on’.
The resistance to this free trade deal, and the others that are likely to follow in its footsteps, must be firmly rooted in a wider demand to transition away from long supply chains, and a need to ground food production in localised, agroecologically produced food systems which value local producers, animal welfare and environmental integrity.
The LWA recently launched its Vocal for Local report, which outlines the benefits of decentralised local food systems in six key areas: economy, waste, environment, food justice, culture and health. You can read it here.
