Thread by @MLiebreich

This thread by @herdyshepherd1 has been getting a lot of airplay. I'm not a farmer but I have worked on trade and sustainability for over a decade, and I'm an advisor to the Board of Trade. Although I am a huge fan of James's books, I disagree with him on a number of counts. 1/13

https://twitter.com/herdyshepherd1/status/1405082723425951744

2/13. First, it's easy to rebut some of the claims James makes, or at least show that they are not relevant to the trade deal just struck with Australia. And for the record, I find mulesing a repellent practice that has no place in the 21st century.

https://twitter.com/alanbeattie/status/1405418516820463616

3/13. Let me also say that I think James and I would agree 100% on the need not just for there to be a competitive farming sector, but one that can contribute fully to the UK's environmental targets, including net zero emissions by 2050 and still be economically successful.

4/13. So far so good. But James assumes this can only be achieved by creating a protected market for his produce. He wants to charge consumers more so he can meet the costs of good environmental management. He's explicit about his desire to be protected:

https://twitter.com/herdyshepherd1/status/1405082699216343041

5/13. There are a number of problems with this. First, it's regressive: poor consumers paying more for food because we want farmers to help alleviate floods that mainly hit wealthier property owners, or to provide biodiversity, or cultural goods or carbon capture.

6/13. Second, its unfocused. If you want biodiversity, floodwater management, cultural goods or carbon capture, pay for those things. You can't just push up food prices by eliminating competition and hope for the best - you still need either a payment system or micro-regulation.

7/13. James also seems to make the common mistake of assuming that the only (or best) way of keeping out produce that violates our environmental or welfare rules is via trade deals. But it can be done via food standards or labeling - often more simply and allowed under WTO rules.

8/13. There is an alternative: public funding for public goods. Let competition set the price of produce, but supplement farmers' income to ensure they can earn a decent return. Now it's (wealthier) taxpayers, not (poorer) food consumers who pay - much fairer and more efficient.

9/13. This is the post-Brexit approach embodied in the 2020 Agriculture Bill, which is opening up new options to move fast on sustainability and which the Government is in the process of fleshing out via a range of Environmental Land Management schemes. 
gov.uk/government/pub…

10/13. Now, I can 100% understand the anxiety of farmers like James, because the Australia deal is done and guaranteed to expose them to competition, but the countervailing environmental payments are not yet in place. That is why the Australia deal is phased in over 15 years.

11/13. The government is so far only running pilots and learning by doing. I accept that it is incumbent on all of us, particularly supporters of the new framework, to make sure payments actually flow and are sufficient to ensure good farmers can thrive. gov.uk/government/pub…

12/13. But when James says there's now no case for higher standards, that he "can’t win that argument with my neighbours", the opposite should be true: he can promise them that unless they get good at delivering the public goods the country wants, they will be out of business.

13/13. And of course there will also be new export markets for James's fabulous lamb, something he didn't mention. Finally, let me say I have nothing but respect for what James does, and I absolutely understand the frustration of operating under such cosmic levels of uncertainty.