Brexit: rewilding opportunity or environmental paradox?

I’ll be the first to admit it - I’m the ultimate Europhile. However, even an EU enthusiast like myself can recognize the downsides to being part of a political union. Like all relationships, membership of the EU involves cooperation which inevitably requires compromises and concessions to be made. Perhaps the EU’s biggest pitfall is its consistent “one size fits all” policy making approach that fails to acknowledge the heterogeneity between the different member states. 

The Communal Agricultural Policy (CAP) is no exception to this rule. Over the last 40 years it has been responsible for shaping rural landscapes across Europe. In the UK, the majority of CAP spending consists of direct subsidies to farmers, known as tier I payments. Meanwhile, a much smaller proportion is spent on environmental initiatives or tier II payments. Tier I payments have been widely criticized for their economic inefficiencies and environmental negligence. Many experts see Brexit as an opportunity to revamp Britain's approach to agriculture and the environment. 

Michael Gove, self-styled eco-warrior in chief, has been tasked with setting the new agricultural agenda. The proposed Agriculture Bill sets out how farmers will be paid for “public goods” such as clean air, flood preventions and improved water quality. The proposal to pay farmers for the delivery of alternative eco-system services could see the diversification of land away from traditional agricultural practices. This represents a real opportunity for rewilding projects like the one at Knepp Castle Estate to thrive. Indeed, some estimates predict that as much as 10% of previously farmed land could be converted into rewilding projects. Moreover, Gove suggests that the remaining agricultural production will be subject to more stringent environmental regulation to encourage innovative practices like those used at Tablehurst’s biodynamic farm. 

However, “greener” farming often comes at a premium which either needs to be absorbed by the producer or passed on to the consumer. Combined with lower import tariffs, there is real concern amongst the farming community about how they will remain competitive and profitable. Faced with these dilemmas and the opportunities to be paid for the provision of public goods, there is a strong possibility that Britain will become heavily reliant on food imports.

 Food imports are fraught with environmental issues many of which are already faced by the UK as a net food importer. Firstly, it is almost impossible to regulate the standards by which food imports are produced. Environmentally damaging practices that are banned in the UK are still permitted in many import countries. For example, the USA, who currently account for 4% of UK imports, opted out of the Stockholm Convention banning the use of persistent organic pollutants (POPs).  

Another major concern is the carbon footprint associated to the transportation of goods across the globe. For example, asparagus from Peru will have travelled 6,312 miles from field to fork. Moreover, a “no-deal Brexit” would exacerbate these issues as EU imports would no longer benefit from preferential tariffs, meaning that a greater proportion of imports would come from less regulated markets further afield.

Perhaps the biggest issue of all is that decreasing domestic production means increasing it elsewhere. Land conversion for agriculture is the leading cause of the loss of biodiversity. So, whilst environmental conditions will improve in the UK, they will almost certainly do so at the detriment of the environment elsewhere. It is hard to predict or even measure the offshore consequences of these agricultural reforms but surely, they should at least be considered.  The ultimate question remains; are greener pastures at home a good enough justification for the displacement of our environmental damage?