Tag: Australia

Trade Deals Study

The Scottish Government has published a study on the impact on Scottish agriculture of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) between the UK and four selected non-EU partners, namely: Australia; New Zealand (NZ); Canada; and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).  It found that these free-trade deals could have a significant negative impact on certain sectors of Scottish farming, particularly sheep.  The study was undertaken, in 2022, by Andersons and Wageningen University and Research (WUR).

The study quantifies the FTA impacts on selected Scottish agricultural sectors namely: cereals (wheat and barley); livestock (dairy, beef, and sheep); and potatoes.  This was done using two FTA scenarios; high and low liberalisation.  These were modelled alongside the current status quo (UK has left the EU but the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) is in place).  An Alternative Baseline (No-Brexit) scenario was also briefly examined.

The research was undertaken in collaboration with Wageningen University and Research (WUR) and used a combination of MAGNET, a computable general equilibrium economic model to assess the individual and aggregated impacts of each FTA, as well as desk-based research and interviews with industry experts based in Scotland, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the Gulf region.

Key Results

  • Impact of the selected FTAs is generally limited, but significant in some sectors: as Table A depicts, the projected long-term impact of the FTAs on Scottish output is relatively small in most cases. The exceptions are sheepmeat, where output is forecast to fall by around 10.5% to 11% under the Low and High Liberalisation scenarios. Beef and wheat are also projected to fall (both by around 3% to 6% depending on the scenario). Conversely, liquid milk output is forecast to grow by 3% to 9% in value terms, indicating significant FTA opportunities for dairy products. Barley is forecast to show a small long-term gain.
  • Cumulative impacts of future FTAs will be more significant: although the aggregated impact of the selected FTAs is relatively limited, the cumulative effect of multiple trade deals over the longer term should not be underestimated. This is especially so if the UK agrees FTAs with agricultural powerhouses such as the US and Mercosur (including Brazil and Argentina).
  • FTAs with Australia and NZ are main drivers of declines Scottish sheepmeat output: the new FTA is seen by many as a strong signal for NZ businesses to recapture trade with the UK, which was lost when the UK joined the EEC. Australia will also be keen to increase sheepmeat exports to the UK.
  • Beef sector will come under pressure but some opportunities also exist: whilst imports from Australia and NZ will create more competition, a trade deal with Canada is likely to generate some export opportunities. Given the brand recognition of Scotch beef, it should be relatively well-positioned to exploit such niches. That said, safeguarding domestic sales, particularly to UK retailers, from overseas competitors will remain most crucial.

  • The FTAs with Australia and NZ set important precedents: the recently agreed FTAs with Australia and NZ give important signals to other countries on what the UK is willing to cede in trade negotiations. Therefore, the standards that the UK is willing to accept for imports is pivotal, especially as other FTA partners will likely push for more concessions during negotiations. Any significant changes to standards relating to food safety and hygiene, the environment and animal welfare will have major implications for Scottish produce. This is not just on the home market, but overseas as well, especially in terms of highly-renowned brands such as Scotch Beef.
  • FTA opportunities for dairying the dairy sector is best positioned to see export growth, particularly to the GCC, where Scottish dairy produce has already gained traction in high-end segments. UK exports to GCC in 2018-20 are valued at £38m and could rise by as much as 49% in a High Liberalisation scenario. Opportunities theoretically exist to export to Canada, but, as it is highly protectionist, sales are likely to be limited to select niches.
  • Long-term impact of Brexit is deemed to be limited: Table A also shows relatively small differences in output under the Main Baseline (incorporating Brexit) and the Alternative Baseline (No-Brexit scenario). Although seed potatoes were not modelled, the loss of the EU markets for Scottish seed potato exports is significant and the restoration of this market access is a key goal for the sector. It should also be a primary objective for policy-makers.
  • Significant Farm Business Income (FBI) declines: of up to 60% in some sectors, in both the Main Baseline and FTA Scenarios in comparison with the Base Year (2019/20) although the differences between the Main Baseline and FTA scenarios are quite small. This is chiefly linked with declining prices.
  • New FTAs to have negligible impact on potatoes: industry input suggests that the new FTAs will have minimal impact on seed potatoes’ profitability. Instead, the impact of the loss of the EU market for Scottish seed potatoes is estimated to have led to a decline in seed potato prices of approximately 4%. Restoring market access to the EU27 and Northern Ireland is a priority for the sector.

Overall, the findings that more pressure will be exerted on the Scottish (and UK) beef and sheepmeat sectors are unsurprising as Australia and New Zealand are widely regarded as significant and highly competitive players on the world markets.  That said, the projected extent of declines on output is perhaps not as pronounced as some might have feared, although the declines are still significant.  The report also suggests some opportunities for dairy products, particularly in the Gulf region. 

The Summary Report is available on the Scottish Government website via: https://www.gov.scot/publications/analysis-impact-future-uk-free-trade-agreement-scenarios-scotlands-agricultural-food-drink-sector/

 

Trade Update

After a relatively quiet few months on the trade policy front, recent weeks have seen a resurrection of previous debates around the future long-term relationship that the UK should have with the EU as well as the impact of new trade deals that the UK is in the process of concluding.

Talk of a Swiss-Style Relationship

Following the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement, rumours emerged from Government circles of a change in approach towards the long-term relationship that the UK would have with the EU.  This would see it move towards something more akin to Swiss-style relationship.  This would mean accepting free movement, contributions to the EU budget, dynamic alignment with EU regulations for goods, and European Court of Justice (ECJ) oversight in return for being part of the Single Market.  Whilst some welcomed this, others claimed it was a betrayal of Brexit.

What many failed to acknowledge was that the EU is dissatisfied with how its relationship with Switzerland is structured as it requires more than 100 bilateral deals to replicate Single Market requirements and which constantly need to be renegotiated.  It is unlikely to want to replicate this with the UK.  In any event, the UK Government later denied that it was seeking to move to a Swiss-style relationship.

That said, and from an agri-food perspective, there is merit at looking at elements of the EU-Switzerland relationship and replicating aspects that make sense for both parties.  In previous articles, we have advocated a Swiss-style Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) agreement with the EU, whereby the EU would permit frictionless access for UK agri-food goods in return for the UK dynamically aligning with EU regulations.  Whilst previous Tory administrations (i.e. under PMs Johnson and Truss) dismissed this approach, it would appear that the Sunak administration is at least considering it.

Such an SPS agreement would greatly assist UK exports to the EU, its biggest trading partner and it would also overcome key hurdles in the ongoing NI Protocol negotiations, which have shown some tentative signs of progress recently.  Whilst it would mean the UK mirroring EU laws, it would still leave scope, albeit more limited, for the UK to negotiate separate trade deals and trading arrangements, as the Swiss have done with the US.  The UK could also give notice (e.g. of one year) if it wanted to discontinue this arrangement. 

Overall, the talk of using existing templates in framing the future UK-EU relationship is becoming unhelpful.  The sooner a bespoke UK-style relationship emerges the better.  This could incorporate key aspects of other templates, but it will need to respect key EU principles, meaning that further negotiation is needed.  It will also need to incorporate the closer relationship that NI will have with the EU, as it is de-facto part of the Single Market for goods by virtue of the NI Protocol.

Eustice Attack on Recent Trade Deals

On 14th November, during a House of Commons debate on the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill, the former Defra Secretary George Eustice severely criticised the UK Government’s negotiating strategy for both trade deals.  He singled out the then Trade Secretary, Liz Truss, for particular criticism, especially for imposing an arbitrary target of concluding negotiations with Australia ahead of the 2021 G7 summit.  He thought that this severely weakened the UK’s bargaining power.  Mr Eustice recalled that there were ‘deep arguments and differences in cabinet’, which were mirrored by friction between Defra and the Department for International Trade (DIT) during the negotiations.  He also claimed that the ‘Australia trade deal is not actually a very good deal for the UK’ and that he tried his best when Defra Secretary to address its shortcomings.  Specifically, he claimed that there was no need to give Australia (and New Zealand) unlimited access over the longer term for sensitive sectors such as beef and lamb.

From a farming perspective, it is all well and good to criticise the deal.  But during his time in Government, Mr Eustice defended it – his comments, therefore, offer scant consolation to farmers who perceive these deals to be a significant threat.  Both the Australian and New Zealand agreements will increase the competitive pressure on UK agriculture, particularly in grazing livestock.  However, recent studies looking at the impact of these trade deals projected that the impact may be lower than some fear.  That said, being the first new trade deals that the UK has negotiated from scratch since leaving the EU, they create an important precedent, and the cumulative impact of multiple trade deals can have a more significant impact. 

The UK-Australia trade deal was ratified by the Australian Parliament on 22nd November.  The Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill is making its way through Westminster.  It is currently at the Report Stage, where amendments can still be made to the Bill, before a final third reading and subsequent vote on the Bill in the House of Commons – the date of which has yet to be announced.  The House of Lords will also have to vote on the final Bill and they could delay it for up to a year before it would receive Royal Assent (assuming it is passed by the House of Commons).

UK/Australia FTA Analysis

On 13th April, the Trade and Agriculture Commission (TAC) published its advice to the International Trade Secretary (Anne-Marie Trevelyan) on the UK-Australia Free Trade Agreement (FTA). This is the first such piece of advice that the TAC has compiled and its findings have been presented to Parliament to aid its discussions on ratifying the trade deal. 

The Terms of Reference for this TAC report focused on assessing whether, in relation to agricultural products, the new FTA is consistent with the maintenance of UK levels of statutory protection in relation to three key areas;

  • Animal or plant life or health,
  • Animal welfare, and
  • Environmental protections

The TAC report addressed three questions which are set-out below, with the TAC’s conclusions on each question summarised in italics. 

  1. Whether the FTA requires the UK to change its levels of statutory protection in relation to the three areas above? The TAC has found that the FTA does not require the UK to change its existing levels of statutory protection in relation to animal or plant life or health, animal welfare, and environmental protection. 
  2. Whether the FTA reinforces the UK’s levels of statutory protection in these areas? The TAC’s view is that the FTA reinforces the UK’s statutory protections in the areas covered.  It cites two reasons.  First, the FTA contains environmental and animal welfare obligations that require the UK to maintain its statutory protections in the areas covered.  Second, these obligations also ensure that Australia will not gain a trade advantage by lowering its standards of protection or not properly implementing its domestic laws in the areas covered. 
  3. Whether the FTA otherwise affects the ability of the UK to adopt statutory protections in these areas? The FTA does not otherwise affect the UK’s ability to adopt statutory protections in the areas covered.  It does not restrict the UK’s WTO rights to regulate in these areas, and potentially enhances these rights in some respects.  However, the UK is able to adopt decisions under the agreement, together with Australia, that may constrain its freedom to regulate in future.  Therefore, the TAC believes that it is important to ensure that the UK’s import control systems are properly resourced to manage increased imports under the FTA.

 The TAC report also examines a number of other issues which have caused concern. These include;

  • Pesticides: the TAC finds that the FTA is likely to lead to increased imports of products from Australia using pesticides which are banned in the UK.  Whilst there are Commonwealth laws concerning the environment and pesticides use which Australia has obligations under, these laws are limited. 
  • GMOs: although there is negligible GMO production in the UK, it is currently legal to import and market GMO products, provided that it is labelled as such.  The TAC suggests that it is possible that GM canola oil (from oilseed rape) from Australia could be imported in increased quantities under the FTA.  However, imports of cotton and safflower, the other two major Australian GMO crops, will not be imported in increased quantities.  Furthermore, the UK’s WTO rights to regulate the import of GM products remain the same under the FTA.
  • Hormone-fed beef: the importation of such products would remain illegal in the UK and the FTA does not change this legal position.
  • Feedlot beef: would inevitably increase under the FTA and it would be difficult under WTO law for the UK to impose restrictions.
  • Hot branding: whilst legal in Australia, the UK requires electronic identification of cattle for export to UK, thus hot branding is unnecessary.
  • Slaughterhouse CCTV and stunning: CCTV is not required in Australia and meat from these premises could not be restricted from being imported into the UK.  The TAC also state that it is illegal to export meat from non-stunned animals so such meat should not enter the UK as a result of the FTA.
  • Mulesing: is the practice of removing wool-bearing skin, without pain relief, from the buttocks of a live animal and is done by Australian sheep farmers to prevent flystrike. The TAC found that the likelihood of mutton from mulesed sheep being imported into the UK is negligible but there is a “much higher chance” of wool from mulesed sheep being imported. 

Overall, whilst the TAC has found that whilst imports using the most controversial practices (e.g. hormone-fed beef) will continue to be prohibited, there is scope for increased competition from Australian imports, particularly beef, lamb and wheat, which sometimes will be produced to lower animal welfare and environmental standards.  However, it is worth acknowledging that Australian beef and lamb is currently achieving high prices in the global market (particularly Asia), thus making exports to the UK somewhat less attractive, at least in the short-term.  Of course, in the long-term, supply/demand and geopolitical influences can change the market situation significantly.  Importantly, the UK-Australia FTA creates a precedent for other trade deals.  Whilst this FTA alone does not alter the playing-field that significantly, the cumulative impact of trade deals will have a much more influential impact. 

For full detail on the TAC’s advice, please visit: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1068872/trade-and-agriculture-commission-advice-to-the-secretary-of-state-for-international-trade-on-the-uk-australia-free-trade-agreement.pdf

Also, please note that the TAC has launched a similar consultation on the UK-New Zealand trade deal. More detail via: 

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/uk-new-zealand-fta-trade-and-agriculture-commission-call-for-evidence

UK:Australia Trade Agreement Signed

The UK-Australia Free Trade Agreement (FTA) was signed virtually on 17th December.  It is the first FTA that the UK has negotiated from scratch since its departure from the EU.  It means that all chapters of the agreement have now been agreed by both parties following the agreement-in-principle in June (click here for previous article).  From an agri-food standpoint, much of what was agreed in principle is now contained within the detailed agreement and will now be laid before Parliament for scrutiny.

The key points relating to agri-food are;

  • Tariffs:
    • UK Imports: there will be an immediate elimination of 99% of tariffs on goods imported from Australia to the UK upon entry into force (potentially sometime in 2022).  Pork, poultry and eggs are not included so the UK Global Tariff will continue to apply. However, restrictions will remain for other sensitive agricultural products as specified below.
    • UK Exports: almost all tariffs on UK goods will be eliminated upon entry into force. Tariffs on whisky, confectionary and biscuits will be phased out over 5 years. 
  • Tariff Rate Quotas (TRQs): the duty-free TRQs remain largely the same as previously outlined in the agreement-in-principle. These are summarised in the Table below.

  • More detail has been provided on what is included within each TRQ:
    • Beef (TRQ 1): the products (commodity codes) which are applicable include fresh/chilled beef (0201); frozen beef (0202); and a range of other chilled and frozen beef offal, preserved beef, beef-based meat mixtures and selected blood preparations.
    • Sheep meat (TRQ 2): products applicable include chilled lamb carcases/half-carcases (020410); chilled sheep carcases (020421); other sheep meat cuts with bone-in or boneless (020422; 020423); frozen sheep meat; edible flours/meals of sheep meat offal; and blood preparations.
    • Milk, Cream, Yoghurt and Whey (TRQ 3): applicable products are milk/cream whether concentrated or unconcentrated (0401; 0402); buttermilk and yoghurt (0403); and whey (0404 (excluding 0404.10.48)).
    • Butter (TRQ 4): all products under the 0405 HS code.
    • Cheese and Curd (TRQ 5): all products under the 0406 HS code.
    • Wheat (TRQ 6): this 80Kt TRQ applies to all types of common wheat but excludes seed (HS code 1001.99).  Wheat seed will have its £79 per tonne duty removed in 4 equal instalments and after Year 4, the duty will be removed. 
    • Barley (TRQ 7): this 7Kt TRQ applies to malting and other (feed) barley (HS code 1003.90), but excludes seed. Barley seed will also have its £77 per tonne duty removed in 4 equal instalment and will be duty free after Year 4.
    • Long-grained Rice (TRQ 8): a 1Kt TRQ applying to selected commodity codes.
    • Broken Rice (TRQ 9): an 11.5Kt TRQ applying to broken rice of all varieties (HS code 1006.40).
    • Sugar (TRQ 10): the TRQ is 80Kt (Year 1) rising to 220Kt (Year 8). It includes cane sugar, white sugar and other sugar (HS codes 1701.13; 1701.14; 1701.91; 1701.99). Beet sugar (1701.12) is excluded.
  • Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures: both parties emphasise their commitments to a science and risk-based approach to implementing SPS measures.  However, there is no mention of any changes to import standards.  Such changes, if they were to be introduced, would be set-out separately in future either by the UK or Australian Governments.  Therefore, this area will need to continue to be monitored closely. 
  • Rules of Origin: there is some more flexibility for UK exporters in terms of percentage of processed food ingredients that must be of UK origin, with a greater focus on the production process as opposed to the list of ingredients. This means that biscuits made from imported flour will qualify for tariff-free access to Australia under the FTA. It is also notable that whiskey from the Republic of Ireland used as inputs into Northern Irish whiskey will qualify for preferential access to the Australian market.  Effectively, NI whiskey will enjoy the same tariffs as Scotch whisky. 

Overall, the UK-Australia FTA is significant as it is the first trade agreement negotiated independently by the UK in nearly 50 years.  The UK farming sector, particularly grazing livestock and sugar beet will be more exposed to competitive pressure from Australian imports in the long-term.  However, it is worth emphasising that Australia is currently heavily focused on the Asia-Pacific region and that having generous quota access with eventual full liberalisation does not necessarily mean that Australian imports will reach these levels.  That said, from an Australian perspective, the UK market is an important diversification opportunity, particularly given its recent tensions with China. 

From a UK farming standpoint, the Australian FTA of course sets an important precedent, that other deals are likely to follow.  We’ve already seen this with the NZ agreement-in-principle.  The UK has also relented on its efforts to base beef and sheepmeat import TRQs on carcase weight equivalent.  The HS codes included show that the TRQs will be based on product-specific weight.  This is unsurprising as both Australia and NZ have been digging their heels in on this.  They also have leverage with the UK in terms of its application to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP).

The deal will now go before both the UK and Australian Houses of Parliament for further scrutiny and ratification.  Once domestic ratification has been completed, both parties will notify each other.  The agreement could enter into force as soon as 30 days after both parties have completed ratification.  Some anticipate that entry into force could occur as soon as the middle of 2022, others think the process might take longer.  More detail is available via: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/uk-australia-free-trade-agreement

Australia and NZ Trade Agreements

Trade deals with Australia and New Zealand (NZ) have been announced with much fanfare over recent months.  However, progress has stalled in converting these agreements-in-principle into legal texts.  The target that this would be concluded by the end of the year now looks unlikely.

It is claimed that this is chiefly due to the UK rowing-back on the market access offered on beef and lamb so that the annual tariff-free quotas are based on carcase weight equivalent and not product weight (i.e. products shipped such as boneless beef or legs of lamb).  A carcase weight equivalent basis would essentially mean that there would be less scope for Antipodean suppliers to export high-value beef and lamb cuts to the UK market and capture the shares of British producers.

Whilst the proposed EU-Mercosur trade agreement (which is being stalled by EU Member States) provided tariff-free quotas based on carcase weight equivalents, such arrangements are the exception in international Free-Trade Agreements (FTAs).  As the UK has formally applied to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), which Australia and NZ are members of, both countries are threatening to stall the UK’s application if their tariff-free market access for beef and lamb are calculated on this basis.

It remains to be seen how the impasse will be resolved, but one suspects that given the UK Government’s eagerness to join the CPTPP, it will concede on offering both countries access based on product weight.  This would mean some increased competition for UK producers and exporters from the EU but, as previous articles have noted, both Australia and NZ are heavily focused on the Asia-Pacific markets presently, thus limiting their capability to supply the UK market as well.

UK – Australia Trade Deal

The UK and Australia have agreed the outline terms of an historic free-trade agreement – the first all-new deal signed by the UK since it left the EU.  As such, it is seen by many as an important precedent for future trade deals, particularly concerning agriculture.  Whilst the deal has been announced, it is an agreement in principle and subject to further negotiations on the legal text. There is an eventual aspiration to fully liberalise Australian goods entering the UK market.  However, there are lengthy adjustment periods for several agricultural products in an attempt to take account of UK sensitivities.  These include;

  • Beef: access would be limited by tariff rate quota (TRQ) in the first 10 years.  This would commence with access to a duty-free transitional quota of 35,000 tonnes in year 1, rising in equal instalments to 110,000 tonnes in year 10.  Any beef imports above the annual TRQ allowance would be subject to the UK Global Tariff (UKGT).  In the subsequent 5 years (year 11-15 after entry into force) a product-specific safeguard will be applied on any beef imports exceeding a further volume threshold rising in equal instalments to 170,000 tonnes, levying a safeguard duty of 20% for the rest of the calendar year, thus replacing the UKGT rate which will be eliminated after year 10.  All tariffs would be eliminated from year 16 onwards.
  • Lamb: access would operate in a similar manner to beef with an initial duty-free TRQ allowance of 25,000 tonnes in year 1, rising in equal increments to 75,000 tonnes in year 10, with imports above this volume being subject to the UKGT.  Again, a safeguard mechanism will apply from years 11 to 15, permitting up to 125,000 tonnes to lamb to access the UK market duty-free with a 20% tariff applying thereafter for the remainder of the calendar year.  Again, all tariffs would be removed from year 16.
  • Sugar: is set to have a shorter transitional period with duty-free access in year 1 of 80,000 tonnes rising in increments to 220,000 tonnes by the end of year 8.  Again, unlimited duty-free access is planned from year 9.
  • Dairy: similar structures will also operate for dairy products with unlimited access being phased in over 5 years.
    • Cheese: there will be an initial duty-free TRQ of 24,000 tonnes in year 1, increasing incrementally to 48,000 tonnes in year 5.
    • Butter: initial duty-free TRQ of 5,500 tonnes rising to 11,500 tonnes in year 5.
    • Other dairy: a duty-free transitional TRQ of 20,000 tonnes will apply.
  • Rice: interestingly, there will be a permanent TRQ of 1,000 tonnes for long-grained milled rice. How the rice sector has managed to achieve this whilst other food sectors have failed is a bit of a mystery!

Based on the above summary, it would appear that the UK grazing livestock and sugar sectors in particular will be exposed to increased competition from Australia in the long-term and additional competitive pressure is likely to emerge when the likes of New Zealand others strike trade deals with the UK.  Of course, having generous quota access with eventual full liberalisation does not necessarily mean that Australian imports will reach these levels, particularly as there is plenty of demand in Asia-Pacific.  That said, beef imports from the Republic of Ireland are in the region of 200,000 tonnes per annum.  Viewed in that context, the access offered to Australia is sizeable and of concern to British farming, particularly as it is the first of several trade deals.

For more detail visit: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-australia-free-trade-agreement-negotiations-agreement-in-principle/uk-australia-fta-negotiations-agreement-in-principle

Trade Agreements with Non-EU Countries

With the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) in place, attention will increasingly shift towards Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with non-EU countries.  These can be divided into two broad categories;

  • Rollover FTAs: these are agreements that the UK had access to when it was an EU Member State.  In recent weeks, there has been significant progress.  To date, the Department for International Trade (DIT) has already completed agreements with 63 countries, 60 of which became effective from 1st January. The other 3 (Canada, Mexico and Jordan) have been partially applied.  This is an impressive feat considering the enormous challenges associated with Brexit and Covid-19.  Discussions continue with 6 more countries including Serbia and Ghana.

As our previous article noted, although the negotiation with Japan was technically a ‘new’ FTA negotiation, the deal is essentially a rollover of the existing EU-Japan Partnership agreement.  The UK-Japan agreement has some slight adjustments in terms of UK access to Tariff Rate Quotas (TRQs) and market access for products such as cheese.

  • FTA Negotiations Underway: before the end of the Transition Period, DIT was already focusing on progressing FTA discussions with several countries.  From an agricultural perspective, the most notable of these are the US, Australia and New Zealand.  These negotiations will need to be watched closely as 2021 progresses.

Although the US trade deal negotiations get the most attention, progress may dissipate somewhat during 2021 as the Biden administration will have other priorities to deal with.  However, talks will continue particularly as the UK-EU TCA has largely safeguarded the Good Friday Agreement – a key ‘red-line’ for the US.

Perhaps the negotiations which are most likely to conclude in 2021 are those with Australia and New Zealand.  As the tables below show, both countries are major exporters of meat (beef and lamb), dairy products and wine.  A trade deal with these countries will exert the most pressure on UK grazing livestock.  Admittedly, imports of beef and lamb from both countries into the UK and EU have been below historic levels recently.  This is mainly a function of a greater emphasis being placed on the Asia-Pacific region.  However, if the UK agrees a FTA with these countries it will lower trade barriers significantly versus current arrangements which operate via TRQs and standard WTO terms. 

Sources: Sources: Australian DFAT / NZ Government / Andersons

Australia has been particularly eager to progress trade negotiations with the UK.  Given the relatively high prices achievable in the UK, there is the potential for exports to be diverted from Asia-Pacific towards our market, particularly as China starts to recover from African Swine Fever and produces more of its own meat.  From an agri-food perspective, export opportunities to both countries are limited to niche areas.  Instead, the UK will use access to its food market as leverage to secure gains for its automotive and digital services sectors.

Longer-term, it inevitable that the UK will seek FTAs with other countries which will also exert significant competitive pressure on British farming.  Chief amongst these would be an FTA with Mercosur, which includes Brazil and Argentina – – both beef exporting powerhouses.  In recent years, Brazilian beef prices have been £1 per kg or more below the UK price.  So, whilst the UK might be a net importer of beef presently and there is some scope for prices to increase given the frictions now placed on imports from the EU, future FTAs with non-EU countries have the potential to torpedo such gains, given the large price differences.

The agri-food industry needs to play close attention to the progress of new FTAs during 2021 and beyond, as they will  have a huge influence over the future direction and competitiveness of British farming.  The Trade and Agriculture Commission (TAC) set-up by the UK Government in July 2020 to examine the impact of new trade deals on UK agriculture will have a central role to play.  However, it remains to be seen how much influence it will have in practice as Parliament will have the final say.

Trade Talks with Non-EU Countries

In recent weeks, there has been a noticeable increase in the pace at which the Department for International Trade (DIT) is seeking to conduct negotiations on free-trade with non-EU countries.  In addition to the highly-publicised negotiations with the US which commenced in mid-May, talks have also commenced, or are about to commence, with Australia & New Zealand and Japan.  This is in addition to negotiating ‘Continuity Agreements’ with various countries so that the UK can continue to trade with them after 31st December 2020 as it did when it was an EU Member State.  

UK-US Trade Negotiations

When the UK set out its negotiating objectives for a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the US back in March, it noted that US-UK trade was valued at nearly £221 billion and accounted for nearly 20% of the UK’s exports.  It claimed that, as a result of an FTA between both countries, trade could increase by £15.3 billion in the long-run.  It is therefore seeking to secure a comprehensive and ambitious FTA with the US, but was also keen to emphasise that it ensure high standards and protections for British consumers and workers.  This contrasts with the US negotiating objectives published in February 2019 which seek to ‘promote greater regulatory compatibility to reduce burdens associated with unnecessary differences in regulatory standards’ and to eliminate ‘unjustified trade restrictions’ (including labelling) that affect ‘new technologies’.

Although the UK Government have noted potential gains that could be achieved for British agriculture (e.g. increased access for lamb and cheese exports to the US), most debate has centred on the potential threat posed by permitting imports from the US which do not meet the standards that British farmers (or imports from the EU and elsewhere) currently adhere to.  In addition to issues posed by chlorinated chicken, there are also concerns around hormone treated and lactic-acid washed beef finding its way into the UK market.  It raises the prospect of UK farmers having to continue to adhere to current high standards on animal welfare and the environment whilst simultaneously being subject to competition from US importers producing to lower standards.

Whilst the UK Government might claim that it will seek for global food standards to be raised at the WTO level, relative to the US it is a small economy.  The US accounts for 23.7% of global GDP whilst the UK accounts for 3.4%.  Bargaining power is always crucial during trade negotiations and this dynamic becomes even more pronounced under an ‘America First’ US Presidency.  The threat to UK food standards is very real.  An FTA that permits significant volumes of US produce, produced to US standards, to enter the UK market would seriously erode the competitiveness of the British farming industry, not just domestically, but also in terms of exports to the EU.  For example, each year between 25% to 40% of the UK lamb crop is exported, almost entirely to the EU, which are valued at approximately £350 million per annum.  An FTA that gravitates towards US standards will significantly reduce access to the EU.  Increased access to the US market via UK-US FTA will not compensate.  For instance, the DIT estimates that lamb exports to the US would increase be £18m.

Australia and New Zealand Negotiations

On 17th June, the UK formally announced its objectives for the upcoming trade negotiations with Australia and New Zealand.  Again, agriculture is likely to feature prominently, especially given the historical trading relationships which existed before the UK joined the EEC.

Another major focus of these negotiations will be the reduction in non-tariff barriers to trade as New Zealand in particular has embraced e-certification.  New Zealand’s standards are quite close to the status quo in the UK (and the EU); therefore its non-tariff barrier costs are already low for several products (e.g. lamb).

It is likely that increased access for beef, lamb, dairy and horticultural products will be amongst the key asks from Australia and New Zealand.  This would bring about increased competitive pressure on UK farmers but it is not attracting as much controversy because both countries’ production standards are perceived to be more acceptable than the US for example.  Geographic distance from the UK also limits their influence.  Indeed, both countries have been focusing more heavily on Asia in recent years.

From the UK side, its focus is on increased access for services, investment and digital trade.  Opportunities on the agri-food and drinks side appear to be limited to niche sectors such as the export of British sparkling wine and chocolate.

Japan Negotiations

These talks also commenced recently and, given that Japan recently concluded an FTA with the EU (which at the time included the UK), it is anticipated that such negotiations would be wrapped up quickly.  The Japanese Government is pushing for the talks to be concluded in approximately six weeks as it claims it needs to secure Parliamentary approval during the autumn session in order to be ready to become applicable in January.  The UK had initially hoped that it could roll-over the existing EU-Japan FTA into a UK-Japan equivalent, but the Japanese Government has sought separate negotiations in what is seen as a bid to secure greater concessions from the UK.  Like most FTAs, agriculture is a key issue.  Since the completion of the EU-Japan FTA, the Japanese Government has come under pressure from its highly protectionist domestic farming lobby to limit access to its market for agri-food.  The Japanese are also keen to secure the supply chains of its companies which use the UK as a base to supply into the EU so it is likely that it is also using these negotiations as leverage so that the UK secures a trade deal with the EU.

The UK Government claims that a UK-Japan FTA could increase trade between both countries by over £15 billion and that the UK economy could see a £1.5 billion benefit.  It remains to be seen what specific concessions Japan will seek on agri-food.  The UK already exports significant volumes of grain (e.g. wheat and barley) to Japan.  Export opportunities also exist for products such as whisky.

Other Negotiations

  • Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP): the UK has also reaffirmed its interest in becoming a member of the CPTPP which is one of the world’s largest free trade areas accounting for 13% of global GDP in 2018.  The CPTPP includes Japan, Australia and New Zealand amongst its members and negotiations with these countries are seen as a stepping stone towards joining this larger trade bloc which also includes Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, Singapore and Vietnam.
  • Continuity (Rollover) Agreements: with the UK leaving the EU, it is seeking to replace the FTAs which the EU had agreed with other countries whilst the UK was still a Member State.  To this end, it has been pursuing Continuity Agreements with these countries.  To date, agreements have been concluded with approximately 50 countries, including Switzerland, South Korea, Chile and South Africa, as part of the South Africa Customs Union and Mozambique (SACUM) trading block.  Negotiations are ongoing with 16 others, including Canada, Mexico and the Ukraine.  Such rollover agreements are anticipated to have a limited impact on agri-food as they are largely seeking to replace FTAs that the FTA was subject to as part of the EU.

Whilst pursuing trade deals around the world is a crucial aspect of the UK’s independent trade policy, one must not lose sight of the fact that exports to the EU (£300 billion) accounts for 43% of total UK exports.  Furthermore, imports from the EU, which accounts for 47% of the UK’s total, plays a crucial role in the supply-chains of numerous companies.  Any major disruption in the supply of inputs would inhibit UK manufacturers’ ability to assemble finished products for export.  This is also true within the agri-food sector.  Therefore, securing a comprehensive FTA with the EU should continue to be the priority.  This can be done whilst also securing FTAs elsewhere but a considered approach must be taken.

A key danger is that the UK Government agrees trade deals in haste and that this could come back to haunt the UK in decades to come.  The global geopolitical tectonic plates are shifting quite rapidly.  The danger of a new Cold War, between the US and China is emerging.  Trade between both countries could become seriously curtailed.  The US is already a big agri-food exporter to China.  If it needs to look elsewhere, the UK will be a key target market. 

In any trade deal there are (excuse the pun) trade-offs between different sectors to get an agreement.  The danger is that agri-food might be sacrificed to allow trade gains elsewhere.