For the past 15-20 years, globalisation was heralded by economists and politicians as inevitable, a trend that could not be reversed given the bounty that would be delivered. It was based on the belief that the removal of trade barriers would allow for the globalisation of services, capital and food production, giving consumers access to cheaper imports.

The benefits were most attractive where production could be moved from wealthy countries to poorer regions, where both regulations and labour were more cost-effective. This is one of the main reasons access to the EU agricultural market always takes centre-stage in trade talks with South American countries.

The economists’ solution to the job losses was to retrain those working in sectors that are in decline, or “sunset industries”, allowing them secure higher-skilled jobs. It is a lesson in the difference between theory and reality. The reality is the only dividend swathes of society in developed regions enjoyed from globalisation was increased unemployment and the societal challenges this presents. The effect of this was masked by national averages which took no account of regional impacts.

While there continues to be much head-scratching at the turmoil caused by Brexit and Trumpism, perhaps we should question if each reflects a public backlash to globalisation?

In the US, Trump galvanised widespread support during his election campaign from the rust-belt and coal mining states with his slogan “Americanism not globalism” and a commitment to “tilt the terms of trade” as part of his America First campaign. He continued to court this section of society this week in his address at the UN General Assembly in New York, rejecting the idea of globalism and praising the virtues of patriotism.

Closer to home and in the UK, it was the areas of heavy industries such as coal, iron and textiles in northern England and Wales that opted for Brexit. In contrast, areas that benefited from the technology-based industries and services that prospered from a more globalised market, such as California, New York and London, rejected Trump and Brexit.

It is clear that governments grossly underestimated the impact on those whose lives have been disrupted by globalisation, leaving a vacuum that has allowed populism gain traction. While globalisation is not without fault, an environment where politics – and in particular international trade policy – is being determined by populist agendas will be even more damaging in the long term.

Limitations

EU policy needs to accept the limitations and fully understand the consequences of globalisation if the rise of populist politics is to be curtailed. This starts by acknowledging the fact that the dividend and societal impact of globalisation is not equally distributed. For example, in the case of a multi-component industry such as the airline industry, where individual parts are constructed all over the world, the globalisation of what is an international assembly line has obvious benefits. It is a different scenario in the case of a single-component industry such as agriculture, where production is localised and the impact of a globalisation agenda that changes normal trade patterns is much more concentrated.

In the context of EU food production, which is seen as a “sunset industry” by many, we should question whether globalisation has or will ever deliver for EU consumers, farmers and/or the environment.

From an environmental perspective, we should question the wisdom of a globalisation strategy that sees the outsourcing of an environmentally sustainable EU food production model in favour of imported produce from South America. Such a clear lack of policy coherence only serves to provide ammunition to those looking to advance the populist agenda.

EU policymakers also need to be conscious of undermining a sector that has been shown to be the main source of income for over 20% of the EU population, predominately concentrated in rural areas where alternative income sources are limited.

Again, lessons should be learned as to how the migration of manufacturing jobs in the US and UK disenfranchised swathes of society and destabilised mainstream politics.

Consumer protection

Ultimately, protecting and delivering a dividend to the consumer takes centre stage in any globalisation strategy. With EU consumers paying less than 10% of their household income on food, the risk/reward from any further globalisation of EU agricultural markets needs careful consideration.

Numerous reports by the EU Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) have highlighted that, in the context of agricultural produce, lower regulator and production costs correspond with lower food safety standards.

Instead of dismissing the election of Donald Trump and Brexit, we should be learning from the political mistakes that led to both. For globalisation to work, international trade policies must be coherent, aligned to domestic policies and provide a dividend to society that far outweighs the negative consequences. Clearly the EU’s globalisation strategy for food production falls well short on a number of fronts. It is time for a rethink.

Is there the appetite to build a exhibition centre for Irish ag

Once again the weather is dominating discussion in farming circles. This time it is the impact of storm Ali on the National Ploughing Championships. Its arrival last Wednesday saw the decision finally taken to cancel the event due to the structural damage caused to a number of stands.

However, unlike when storm Ophelia swept across the country almost a year ago, the attitude by authorities towards Ali appeared somewhat more subdued. Albeit categorised as a status orange alert, compared to the red alert issued for storm Ophelia, the decision taken by the relevant authorities on Tuesday evening not to cancel the event scheduled for following day should be carefully reviewed. This was a decision that you would not expect event organisers, the National Ploughing Association, to have sole responsibility for - it was a matter of public safety and therefore responsibility rested with the relevant authorities including Met Éireann, Road Safety Authority and the gardaí.

If we look at Met Éireann’s advisory note in relation to a status orange weather alert, it states it is for “weather conditions which have the capacity to impact significantly on people in affected areas”. In addition, it states “ the issue of an Orange level weather warning implies that all recipients in the affected areas should prepare themselves in an appropriate way for the anticipated conditions”.

It was only by luck that none of the hundreds of trees that fell during the storm, and left almost 200,000 homes and business without power, didn’t strike any of the cars caught in the long tail backs on the way to the event

Was the decision taken by the relevant authorities merely to delay the opening of the National Ploughing Championships on Wednesday, initially to 11am, in keeping with this advice?

It is irrelevant that the storm passed over the site slower than expected. Authorities would have been well aware that even delaying the opening time to 11am would have brought thousands of people to the event in advance and many tens of thousands on to the roads over the course of the morning, during which time the storm was forecast to be at its peak.

The end result was that as Ali battered the Tullamore area, thousands of exhibitors and visitors were left stranded in their cars in exposed in fields around the site with many others stuck in traffic jams along the network of roads leading to the event. It was only by luck that none of the hundreds of trees that fell during the storm, and left almost 200,000 homes and business without power, didn’t strike any of the cars caught in the long tail backs on the way to the event.

It is disappointing that with the NPA putting farm safety at the centre of this year's event, we are left questioning the decisions taken in relation to the safety of exhibitors and visitors.

Against this backdrop, it is worth asking whether or not the Ploughing Championships has outgrown the ability to rotate the event around the country given the surge in visitor numbers in recent years. Can an event of such scale still be held in a field? Is it time to explore if Irish agriculture needs a dedicated exhibition centre?

Strategically located

In Northern Ireland, the recently built Eikon exhibition centre is strategically located beside the motorway network and used to host events such as the winter fair. In New Zealand, Fieldays, which receives less than half the visitors of the Ploughing, takes place at a purpose-built exhibition centre.

Is there an appetite among relevant stakeholders to develop a Government-supported plan that would allow for the establishment of a purpose-built exhibition centre strategically located near the motorway network and within the farming community. A centre designed to provide a suitable and safe venue with top-class facilities for farmer visitors and one that would allow exhibitors to showcase both equipment and livestock in a proper environment, not only to farmers but international buyers.

IFA turns up the heat

With the 2019 budget just weeks away, the heat has been turned up on Minister for Agriculture Michael Creed.

A high-level grouping established by the Department this week highlighted the challenges facing suckler farmers, putting further pressure on the minister to deliver increased funding for the sector in the 2019 budget. The heat was already on in this regard with more than 44,000 farmers signing our petition calling on the Government to support IFA calls for a €200 payment.

Meanwhile, the beef forum appears destined to collapse with the IFA set to pull out over the lack of delivery and the collapse in prices. While the forum has proved little more than a talking shop, it did prove a political mudguard for a minister keen to show concerns were being taken seriously.

The forum was set up just under four years ago to tackle issues that are still evident today – the key one being the price differential between Ireland and Britain. With Irish prices having fallen to an average of just over €3.73/kg, the differential with the equivalent steer in the UK is €200 according to Bord Bia figures. As was the case four years ago, farmers have zero insight into what the market is delivering and profits being harvested by processors. The minister’s response will be watched with interest.

Farming in a climate of change: focus on environmental issues

Thomas Hubert introduces a new weekly page dedicated to the links between agriculture and climate change, with further coverage online.

This section will explore the challenges farmers face in tackling greenhouse gas emissions and the opportunities available to them in storing carbon and replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy. Our aim with this page is to show agriculture can be part of the solution to climate change.

Feedback and suggestions are always welcome.