Search results

AbstractBrexit has the capacity to impact heavily on the agricultural sector across the United Kingdom in that it is a sector which has been both in receipt of substantial expenditure under the Common Agricultural Policy and subject to a pattern of close regulation at European Union level. This article will explore the legal implications for post-Brexit agricultural support, proceeding in three stages. First, there will be an outline of the current structure of the industry, with particular reference to its diversity in terms of physical landscape, operational scale and legal foundations. Secondly, there will be discussion of emerging policy within both central UK government and the devolved administrations. In this context, specific attention will be directed to the likely extent of funding and the proposed drive towards higher standards in environmental protection and animal welfare. And, in each case, account will also be taken of specific implications which flow from overarching World Trade Organization rules. Thirdly, there will be consideration of the potentially difficult issues which arise as a result of agriculture being a devolved matter, different policy imperatives already becoming evident across the constituent parts of the UK. For the present, the prospect is that a bespoke support regime will survive Brexit and, in this sense, agricultural 'exceptionalism' will continue. However, the more precise form of such a regime remains as yet work-in-progress and its realisation will present considerable challenges not only in political terms, but also by reason of the complex legal geometry in which World Trade Organization rules and the constitutional rights of the devolved administrations are weighty factors.

The level of support to agricultural producers in the Community has remained high notwithstanding the commitments imposed under the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture ('URAA'). Thus, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ('OECD'), the 'producer support estimate' for the period 1986–1988 amounted to 44 per cent of gross farm receipts and the proportion rose marginally to 45 per cent in 1998. It may also be noted that, while the proportion in the case of the United States was approximately half that of the Community, the figure for 1998 was likewise not dissimilar from that for the period 1986–1988 (respectively 22 and 25 per cent). As a result, Cairns Group countries have felt able to direct strong criticism against the two great exporters of agricultural produce. This state of affairs was not unanticipated.

AbstractThe WTO Agreement on Agriculture was designed to maximize trade flows at a time of surplus agricultural production. It required Members to open markets and to reduce domestic and export subsidies. Proposals for reform in the Doha Round negotiations largely adopt the same pattern. Yet, as surplus is replaced by shortage, Members are increasingly concerned about food security and the impact of agriculture on climate change. And contemporary agricultural policies crystallize around 'sustainable intensification', where domestic production is promoted, but not at the expense of future production. This article suggests that, although both the Agreement on Agriculture and the Doha Round proposals do provide some scope for measures to address this new policy paradigm, there are instances where they may work actively against it.