The distributional structure of green box subsidies in the European Union and France

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511674587.010

9 - The distributional structure of green box subsidies in the European Union and France

from PART II - The focus, extent and economic impact of green box subsidies

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 May 2010

Vincent Chatellier

Edited by

Ricardo Meléndez-Ortiz ,

Christophe Bellmann and

Jonathan Hepburn

Show author details

Ricardo Meléndez-Ortiz: Affiliation:
ICTSD, Geneva, Switzerland
Christophe Bellmann: Affiliation:
ICTSD, Geneva, Switzerland
Jonathan Hepburn: Affiliation:
ICTSD, Geneva, Switzerland

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Introduction

For the past 50 years, European agriculture has benefited from a Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) which aims to ensure food security (in terms of both quality and quantity) for consumers, to modernise the farming and agro-alimentary sector, to support farm revenue and, more recently, to take greater account of social concerns relating to the environment, land use, biodiversity and animal welfare. In pursuing these objectives, the CAP has three major principles: (i) market unity, which involves putting in place common administrative, health and veterinary regulations in all Member States, adopting identical prices between institutions and setting up a uniform customs tariff at the European Union's (EU) external frontiers; (ii) community preference, which encourages Member States lacking in certain products to give priority to obtaining supplies from a partner country (through taxing imports originating in third (non-EU) countries); (iii) financial solidarity, based on the premise that CAP agricultural expenses are shared, regardless of the agricultural specialisation of Member States.

The CAP has made it possible for agriculture within the community to develop and to move progressively from the deficit situation existing at the end of World War 2 (for the majority of temperate zone agricultural products) to a situation of surplus (Bureau, 2007). The EU, which is responsible for a quarter of all world agro-alimentary imports and exports, has become the largest actor in this sector, ahead of the United States (US).

Type: Chapter
Information: Agricultural Subsidies in the WTO Green Box
Ensuring Coherence with Sustainable Development Goals
, pp. 258 - 303

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511674587.010 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Andersson, F. (2004), “Decoupling: The concept and past experiences”, Working Paper 2004:1, the Swedish Institute for Food and Agricultural Economics.Google Scholar

Antón, J. (2007), “Agricultural support in the WTO green box: an analysis of EU, US and Japanese spending”, ICTSD expert meeting, Montreux, Switzerland, 16–17 April, p. 41.Google Scholar

Antón, J. and Mouël, C. (2003), “Do counter-cyclical payments in the FSRI Act create incentive to produce?” 25th International Conference of Agricultural Economists, Durban, August, pp. 16–23.Google Scholar

Berthelot, J. (2005), “La boîte verte: une boîte noire qui cache la boîte en or”, document de travail, Toulouse, 6 December, p. 18.Google Scholar

Blogowski, A. and Chatellier, V. (2004), “Les aides directes aux exploitations agricoles européennes et françaises depuis la réforme de la PAC de 1992” in Butault, J. P. (éditeur), Les soutiens à l'agriculture: théorie, histoire, mesure, pp. 223–275.CrossRef Google Scholar

Boinon, J. P., Kroll, J. C., Lépicier, D. et al. (2006), “La mise en oeuvre des DPU et de l'article 69 dans les Etats membres de l'Union européenne”, Rapport de l'ENESAD pour le Ministère de l'agriculture et de la pêche, p. 77.Google Scholar

Bureau, J. C. (2007), La politique agricole commune, Paris, p. 121.CrossRef Google Scholar

Butault, J. P. and Bureau, J. C. (2006), “WTO constraints and the CAP: Domestic support in EU-25 agriculture”, UMR INRA-INAPG d'économie publique, TradeAG Working Paper 06/11.Google Scholar

Butault, J. P., Drogué, S. and Mouël, C. (2004), “Les soutiens à l'agriculture: une mise en perspective internationale” in Butault, J. P. (éditeur), Les soutiens à l'agriculture: théorie, histoire, mesure, Paris, pp. 120–171.Google Scholar

Chantry, E. (2003), “Le Réseau d'information comptable agricole (RICA): un outil unique de connaissance des agricultures européennes”, Notes et Etudes économiques 18, pp. 11–17.Google Scholar

Chatellier, V. (2006), “Le découplage et les droits à paiement unique dans les exploitations laitières et bovins-viande en France”, Cahiers d'économie et sociologie rurales 78, pp. 53–80.CrossRef Google Scholar

Chatellier, V. and Delattre, F. (2006), “Le régime de paiement unique et l'agriculture de montagne en France”, Notes et Etudes Economiques 25, pp. 79–107.Google Scholar

Daniel, K. and Kilkenny, M. (2002), “Découplage des aides à l'agriculture et localisation des activités”, Économie internationale 91, pp. 73–92.CrossRef Google Scholar

Dervieux, L. (2007), “Les concours publics à l'agriculture se modifient avec les réformes de la PAC” in INSEE-Références, Paris, pp. 177–91.Google Scholar

,European Commission (2007), “Preparing for the ‘Health Check’ of the CAP reform”, Communication from the Commission to European Parliament and the Council”, COM(2007) 722 final, Brussels, p. 12.Google Scholar

Goodwin, B. K. and Mishra, A. K. (2002), “Are ‘decoupled’ farm program payments really decoupled? An empirical evaluation”, Working Paper, Ohio State University.Google Scholar

Guyomard, H., Chatellier, V., Courleux, F. et al. (2007), “La politique de soutien des revenus agricoles dans l'UE: quel avenir pour les droits à paiement unique?” in Perspectives agricoles en France et en Europe (sous la direction de D. Bureau et de P. Chalmin), Rapport du Conseil d'Analyse Economique (CAE) du premier ministre, Paris, pp. 125–79.Google Scholar

Guyomard, H., Levert, F. and Butault, J. P. (2007), “PAC et négociations agricoles du cycle de Doha: la question du soutien interne”, Journée INRA SAE2, Evolution de la PAC, Paris, 14 June, p. 5.Google Scholar

Hennessy, D. A. (1998), “The production effects of agricultural income support policies under uncertainty”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80, pp. 46–57.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kleinhanss, W. (2005), “Implementation of decoupling in Germany”, Colloque de la Société Française d'Economie Rurale, 23 June, p. 14.Google Scholar

Matthews, A. (2006), “Decoupling and the green box: international dimensions of the reinstrumentation of agricultural support”, 93rd EAAE seminar, 22–3 September, p. 28.Google Scholar

,Ministère de l'agriculture et de la pêche (2007), Les concours publics à l'agriculture, Paris, p. 73.Google Scholar

,Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2001), “Decoupling: A conceptual overview”, OECD Papers no. 10, OECD, Paris.Google Scholar

,Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2006), “Decoupling agricultural support from production”, policy brief, p. 8.Google Scholar

,Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2007), “Agricultural Policies in OECD Countries: monitoring and evaluation”, p. 284.Google Scholar

Oxfam et al. (2005), “Green but not clean: why a comprehensive review of green box subsidies is necessary”, p. 7.Google Scholar

Swinbank, A. (2007), “The reform of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy”, ICTSD expert meeting, Montreux, Switzerland, 16–17 April, p. 20.Google Scholar

Swinbank, A. and Tranter, R. (2006), “Decoupling EU farm support: Does the new Single Payment Scheme fit within the green box?” The Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy 6(1), pp. 47–61.Google Scholar

,World Trade Organisation (1995–04), “Notification report concerning domestic support measures in the European Union”.Google Scholar