Britain Joins CPTPP
- This is a blockbuster trade deal, the biggest since Brexit
- Some people are upset
|
|
|
UK joins CPTPP in biggest trade deal since Brexit
Britain is joining CPTPP.
So what the hell is it? POLITICO’s question and guide to the major Indo-Pacific trade bloc provides a good backgrounder.
Why did Britain want to join the CPTPP?
Joining the CPTPP would mean UK businesses could sell nearly all of their goods without tariffs to 500 million customers, according to the Department of Business and Trade.
The Government has also made deeper engagement with the rapidly growing Indo-Pacific region part of its foreign policy.
What does it mean for the UK?
Ministers however argue it is a gateway to the wider region, which has 60% of the world’s population and is set to account for more than half of global economic growth in the decades ahead.
They say membership will also enable the UK to shape its development as more nations join and resist “unfair and coercive” trading practices.
The British government shared its opinion on the biggest trade deal since Brexit with a side shot at the EU for unfair and coercive economic pressures.
"CPTPP was created to grow and as a member, we will help shape its development and fight unfair and coercive trading practices. As more economies join the bloc, UK businesses will benefit from access to new markets."
National Farmers Union President Minette Batters “acknowledged that “compared to the deals struck with Australia and New Zealand, the government has negotiated a far more considered and balanced outcome, particularly with respect to managing market access in our most vulnerable sectors.
The South East Asian economies present the most opportunity for UK exports.
Joining the CPTPP will make this trade easier and should help grow the value and volume of our dairy exports to the Americas, poultry to Vietnam, or sheep meat to Malaysia.”
The UK’s ascension into CPTPP may well benefit the British meat and dairy industry which has claimed to be more sustainable for Britons than Australia beef or New Zealand lamb. Deforestation caused by the Australian beef industry is a major concern for British consumers.
Similar issues have been raised in the UK-New Zealand trade deal where some Ministers have said that New Zealand lamb has a lower environmental impact than Welsh lamb, despite the transportation footprint.
But the noisiest part about the UK’s ascension into CPTPP, is one that carries no impacts on British farmers. The noise is coming from eco campaigners who are crying that the deal, in the words of this online petition targeting Trade Minister Kemi Badenoch:
“...would be a green light to deforestation and destruction of habitats for endangered animals like orangutans. It would be a disaster for the natural world, and set a terrible precedent for future trade deals. The EU already bans palm oil imports unless they can be proven to be sustainable. We - the public - do not want to be left behind, forced to use products without any environmental safeguards.”
Minister Badenoch, in her defense of the trade deal took another shot at the EU’s unfair and coercive trade measures and told Sky News the difference between being part of the CPTPP and the EU is that:
"We make the rules and regulations on our standards.
She promised the deal is "not going to displace farmers in the UK" and said it will provide more competition for EU countries so "people don't have to buy what they don't want".
Ms Badenoch admitted the lower tariffs will apply to palm oil, which is responsible for destroying orangutan habitats, but said you "have to make trade-offs" when doing a deal and said the UK currently buys 1% of Malaysia's exports and "moving to 2% from 1% is not what is going to cause deforestation."
She claimed the UK will have "more influence" on sustainability as part of the bloc - despite Greenpeace calling the deal "outrageous".
"Palm oil is actually a great product, it's in so many of the things we use," she added.
"This is not some illegal substance we're talking about and actually there are other crops in the EU that are causing deforestation that fit within EU rules."
Her position on palm oil is sure to be welcomed by Malaysia which has long argued that its palm oil is sustainable. Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, Datuk Fadillah Yusof, who holds the Ministerial portfolio for plantations and commodities welcomed Minister Badenoch's statements and "hoped both countries could collaborate to change the negative perception of palm oil and promote it as a healthy product."
UK-Malaysia Collaboration on Negative Perceptions of Palm Oil
A collaborative effort to dispel the myths on Malaysian palm oil is clearly needed when mainstream media in the UK quotes groups like Greenpeace UK which said "cutting palm oil tariffs will only incentivise further destruction and runs completely counter to the government’s promise to embed the environment at the very heart of trade. At the Cop26 summit in Glasgow in 2021, the UK government spearheaded a global forests initiative, aimed at halting deforestation, and ministers have also brought in new rules to prevent goods from deforested areas being sold in the UK."
This may apply to deforestation in the Australian beef industry but it doesn't apply to Malaysian palm oil which pledged to cap palm oil planted areas at 6.5 million hectares after indigenous farmers protested the earlier cap of 6 million hectares.
This puts Greenpeace UK completely off-base in saying that the UK's preferential treatment of Malaysian palm oil will incentivise further destruction of forests. Green groups in the UK should read this report from the Pulitzer Centre which explains the dynamics of palm oil and forests in Malaysia.
The stark contrast between what is happening on the ground in Malaysia and the fear-mongering of Greenpeace shows that the Malaysian palm oil industry has to take on extra measures to change the perception of palm oil.
During the same time that the UK was accepted into the CPTPP, the Malaysian palm oil industry issued a series of reassurances this past week through the Malaysian Palm Oil Green Conservation Fund (MPOGCF)
The MPOGCF provides funding for a variety of conservation efforts in Malaysia, notably the funding of Sabah’s Wildlife Rescue Unit and tree plantings. Its latest tree planting initiative supports Sime Darby Plantation’s drive towards net zero palm oil with the rehabilitation of peatlands in Malaysia. What the MPOGCF does is all part and parcel of making Malaysian palm oil sustainable.
Going back to the petition targeting Minister Badenoch which said:
The EU already bans palm oil imports unless they can be proven to be sustainable. We – the public – do not want to be left behind, forced to use products without any environmental safeguards.”
38DegreesUK should have noted that the EU’s Ambassador to Malaysia, Michalis Rokas, has already explained that there is no “ban” on Malaysian palm oil. Restrictions bound by evidence of sustainability, yes, but no “ban.”
As for the concerns of 38DegreesUK about being forced to use products without any environmental safeguards, Britons concerned by the UK’s preferential tariff for Malaysian palm oil under CPTPP, should have a look-over the Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil certification standards. Quoting the Malaysian Palm Oil Council on the matter:
'Noting that Malaysia’s track record on forest protection and sustainable production is clear, she said: “Malaysian palm oil is one of the most-certified vegetable oils in the world today. The Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO) standard already guarantees Malaysia’s commitment to comprehensive sustainability standards.”
British consumers would be hard-pressed to find an imported product within the CPTPP, that has higher environmental safeguards than Malaysian palm oil.
So, relax 38DegreesUK, tariffs on palm oil imports from Malaysia need not be kept in place – because they can be proven to be from sustainable sources.
So what the hell is it? POLITICO’s question and guide to the major Indo-Pacific trade bloc provides a good backgrounder.
Why did Britain want to join the CPTPP?
Joining the CPTPP would mean UK businesses could sell nearly all of their goods without tariffs to 500 million customers, according to the Department of Business and Trade.
The Government has also made deeper engagement with the rapidly growing Indo-Pacific region part of its foreign policy.
What does it mean for the UK?
Ministers however argue it is a gateway to the wider region, which has 60% of the world’s population and is set to account for more than half of global economic growth in the decades ahead.
They say membership will also enable the UK to shape its development as more nations join and resist “unfair and coercive” trading practices.
The British government shared its opinion on the biggest trade deal since Brexit with a side shot at the EU for unfair and coercive economic pressures.
"CPTPP was created to grow and as a member, we will help shape its development and fight unfair and coercive trading practices. As more economies join the bloc, UK businesses will benefit from access to new markets."
National Farmers Union President Minette Batters “acknowledged that “compared to the deals struck with Australia and New Zealand, the government has negotiated a far more considered and balanced outcome, particularly with respect to managing market access in our most vulnerable sectors.
The South East Asian economies present the most opportunity for UK exports.
Joining the CPTPP will make this trade easier and should help grow the value and volume of our dairy exports to the Americas, poultry to Vietnam, or sheep meat to Malaysia.”
The UK’s ascension into CPTPP may well benefit the British meat and dairy industry which has claimed to be more sustainable for Britons than Australia beef or New Zealand lamb. Deforestation caused by the Australian beef industry is a major concern for British consumers.
Similar issues have been raised in the UK-New Zealand trade deal where some Ministers have said that New Zealand lamb has a lower environmental impact than Welsh lamb, despite the transportation footprint.
But the noisiest part about the UK’s ascension into CPTPP, is one that carries no impacts on British farmers. The noise is coming from eco campaigners who are crying that the deal, in the words of this online petition targeting Trade Minister Kemi Badenoch:
“...would be a green light to deforestation and destruction of habitats for endangered animals like orangutans. It would be a disaster for the natural world, and set a terrible precedent for future trade deals. The EU already bans palm oil imports unless they can be proven to be sustainable. We - the public - do not want to be left behind, forced to use products without any environmental safeguards.”
Minister Badenoch, in her defense of the trade deal took another shot at the EU’s unfair and coercive trade measures and told Sky News the difference between being part of the CPTPP and the EU is that:
"We make the rules and regulations on our standards.
She promised the deal is "not going to displace farmers in the UK" and said it will provide more competition for EU countries so "people don't have to buy what they don't want".
Ms Badenoch admitted the lower tariffs will apply to palm oil, which is responsible for destroying orangutan habitats, but said you "have to make trade-offs" when doing a deal and said the UK currently buys 1% of Malaysia's exports and "moving to 2% from 1% is not what is going to cause deforestation."
She claimed the UK will have "more influence" on sustainability as part of the bloc - despite Greenpeace calling the deal "outrageous".
"Palm oil is actually a great product, it's in so many of the things we use," she added.
"This is not some illegal substance we're talking about and actually there are other crops in the EU that are causing deforestation that fit within EU rules."
Her position on palm oil is sure to be welcomed by Malaysia which has long argued that its palm oil is sustainable. Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, Datuk Fadillah Yusof, who holds the Ministerial portfolio for plantations and commodities welcomed Minister Badenoch's statements and "hoped both countries could collaborate to change the negative perception of palm oil and promote it as a healthy product."
UK-Malaysia Collaboration on Negative Perceptions of Palm Oil
A collaborative effort to dispel the myths on Malaysian palm oil is clearly needed when mainstream media in the UK quotes groups like Greenpeace UK which said "cutting palm oil tariffs will only incentivise further destruction and runs completely counter to the government’s promise to embed the environment at the very heart of trade. At the Cop26 summit in Glasgow in 2021, the UK government spearheaded a global forests initiative, aimed at halting deforestation, and ministers have also brought in new rules to prevent goods from deforested areas being sold in the UK."
This may apply to deforestation in the Australian beef industry but it doesn't apply to Malaysian palm oil which pledged to cap palm oil planted areas at 6.5 million hectares after indigenous farmers protested the earlier cap of 6 million hectares.
This puts Greenpeace UK completely off-base in saying that the UK's preferential treatment of Malaysian palm oil will incentivise further destruction of forests. Green groups in the UK should read this report from the Pulitzer Centre which explains the dynamics of palm oil and forests in Malaysia.
The stark contrast between what is happening on the ground in Malaysia and the fear-mongering of Greenpeace shows that the Malaysian palm oil industry has to take on extra measures to change the perception of palm oil.
During the same time that the UK was accepted into the CPTPP, the Malaysian palm oil industry issued a series of reassurances this past week through the Malaysian Palm Oil Green Conservation Fund (MPOGCF)
The MPOGCF provides funding for a variety of conservation efforts in Malaysia, notably the funding of Sabah’s Wildlife Rescue Unit and tree plantings. Its latest tree planting initiative supports Sime Darby Plantation’s drive towards net zero palm oil with the rehabilitation of peatlands in Malaysia. What the MPOGCF does is all part and parcel of making Malaysian palm oil sustainable.
Going back to the petition targeting Minister Badenoch which said:
The EU already bans palm oil imports unless they can be proven to be sustainable. We – the public – do not want to be left behind, forced to use products without any environmental safeguards.”
38DegreesUK should have noted that the EU’s Ambassador to Malaysia, Michalis Rokas, has already explained that there is no “ban” on Malaysian palm oil. Restrictions bound by evidence of sustainability, yes, but no “ban.”
As for the concerns of 38DegreesUK about being forced to use products without any environmental safeguards, Britons concerned by the UK’s preferential tariff for Malaysian palm oil under CPTPP, should have a look-over the Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil certification standards. Quoting the Malaysian Palm Oil Council on the matter:
'Noting that Malaysia’s track record on forest protection and sustainable production is clear, she said: “Malaysian palm oil is one of the most-certified vegetable oils in the world today. The Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO) standard already guarantees Malaysia’s commitment to comprehensive sustainability standards.”
British consumers would be hard-pressed to find an imported product within the CPTPP, that has higher environmental safeguards than Malaysian palm oil.
So, relax 38DegreesUK, tariffs on palm oil imports from Malaysia need not be kept in place – because they can be proven to be from sustainable sources.
|
|
|
Published April, 2023. CSPO Watch