Green-agri coalition launches last-second effort to delay UK-Australia trade deal amid food standards concerns
19 Jul 2022 --- Pressure is mounting from 15 organizations urging the UK’s Department for International Trade to extend the scrutiny period for the UK-Australia trade agreement before the clock runs out of time tomorrow, on July 20 – the last day for the House of Commons to schedule a debate on the matter.
The organizations – which include WWF-UK, PAN UK, Food Policy and Soil Association, World Farming UK and the Trade Justice Movement, among others – are demanding a delay given that “parliamentarians have not been able to give an appropriate amount of time to consideration of the deal,” according to a joint statement.
They are concerned that the deal may impact food standards while also having concerns over animal welfare issues.
“In the past week, new information has become available regarding a government analysis of the impact of the Australia and New Zealand deals on the UK’s farming and food production sectors,” say the signing bodies.
“The Australia deal has particularly worrying implications for important issues like food standards, climate emissions and animal welfare. Australia is a well-known climate laggard with serious issues in relation to the clearance of forest for cattle farming and the influence of mining lobbies which has halted progress on climate policy,” explains the Trade Justice Movement.
“The Government’s own commission acknowledged that it did not have sufficient resources to properly scrutinize the deal and that the deal could lead to unfair competition for farmers and an increase in imports of food grown using pesticides banned in the UK,” they continue.
“The Government has failed to set a trade policy, failed to consult the public and failed to give Parliament enough time” says Kath Dalmeny, CEO of Sustain.Aarhus convention into play
The signing parties state that their rights to participation in environmental decision-making have been breached under the international treaty of the Aarhus convention.
“Arrangements are to be made by public authorities to enable the public affected and environmental non-governmental organizations to comment on, for example, proposals for projects affecting the environment, or plans and programs relating to the environment,” establishes the convention.
“These comments are to be taken into due account in decision-making, and information to be provided on the final decisions and the reasons for it,” continues the international treaty.
Seven of the 15 signing organizations have filed a formal complaint accusing the UK government of breaching the Aarhus convention, and thus of breaching international law. If the effort succeeds, it might force future UK trade deals to take a higher input from civil society.
“It’s totally unacceptable that the public and parliament have been denied a say on these trade agreements when their consequences will be felt for generations to come – full scrutiny is essential if we are to avoid a deal by default,” highlights Katie White, executive director of advocacy and campaigns at WWF.
“The government has failed to set a trade policy, failed to consult the public and failed to give parliament enough time to consider the UK-Australia trade deal,” adds Kath Dalmeny, CEO of Sustain.
Not my cup of tea, say the Lords
The House of Lords, the upper chamber in the UK parliamentary system, agrees with the signing organizations that the new Australian government provides an opportunity to be more aggressive regarding climate provisions.
“The report raises concerns over the lack of ambition in the environmental chapter, and, further to the election of a new government in Australia, has urged the government to review commitments made as soon as possible,” according to the House of Lords’ International Agreements Committee.
The committee also notes that intensive monitoring will be required after trade deal implementation. This includes the effectiveness of agricultural safeguards, the impact of Australia’s production methods, levels of pesticides on imported goods from Australia and the impact on the environment and climate change.
“Given that we gave Australia generous agricultural market access, it is regrettable that the government did not press Australia for more ambitious commitments on climate change nor include any references to reducing Australia’s reliance on coal,” says Dianne Hayter, chair of the committee.
The House of Lords also accuses the UK government of lacking ambition regarding its climate efforts.
“There is a risk that this agreement could set a precedent for the negotiations with countries, particularly with other large agricultural producers, such as the US, Canada, Mexico, Argentina and Brazil. This is why we are urging the government to set out a clear policy against which future negotiations can be measured,” she continues.
The agri sector is also concerned about losing market share due to cuts in import taxes and a loss of share in the high-end meat cuts niche because of the way tariff-free quotas work by weight and not by quality.
Animal welfare under fire
When the trade deal was brokered one year ago, groups like Compassion in World Farming raised concerns about the standard difference in animal welfare between the two nations.
“A tariff-free trade deal on agri-food products from Australia risks completely decimating our hard fought for animal welfare standards and seriously undermining the UK’s network of extensive, pasture-based farmers,” explained the organization.
“Beef reared in feedlots, where the animals spend months in intensive conditions, fed largely on grain rather than grazing on pasture, should not be permitted tariff-free access into the UK.”
Compassion in World Farming also warned of the high antibiotic use in Australian agriculture, where they use 16 times more antibiotics for poultry and three times more for pigs, citing a report from Alliance to Save our Antibiotics.
By Marc Cervera
