The environmental impact of EU green box subsidies

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511674587.017

16 - The environmental impact of EU green box subsidies

from PART IV - Green box subsidies and the environment

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 May 2010

Ariel Brunner and

Harry Huyton

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

With over €372 billion to be spent over the 2007 to 2013 budget period on agricultural subsidies in the European Union (EU), these subsidies have become a key determinant of farmers' incomes, frequently accounting for over one-half of European farmers' annual earnings, and thus of land use decisions. The way in which these subsidies have been allocated has therefore shaped land use patterns across the EU and consequently had a resounding impact on wildlife and the environment in rural areas. At the same time, these subsidies have been accused of heavily distorting world trade to the detriment of farmers in developing countries and have become one of the principal stumbling blocks in the Doha Round of negotiations at the World Trade Organization (WTO).

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) underwent significant reform in 2003. This reform was driven by negotiations at the WTO and, to a lesser extent, by the environmental impacts of the CAP. It resulted in a shift of CAP spend from traditional market and product support measures to green-box-compliant schemes, namely, subsidies that are considered to be non-trade-distorting. It also saw the introduction of minimum environmental standards for all farmers in receipt of subsidies, known as cross-compliance, and the strengthening of environmental schemes.

These trends are likely to continue with the ongoing “health check” of the Common Agricultural Policy as well as the post-2013 EU budget review, which provides an opportunity for substantial reform.

Type: Chapter
Information: Agricultural Subsidies in the WTO Green Box
Ensuring Coherence with Sustainable Development Goals
, pp. 468 - 495

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511674587.017 [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

ActionAid, CIDSE and Oxfam, (2005), “Green but not Clean: Why a Comprehensive Review of Green Box Subsidies is Necessary”, Oxfam, ActionAid, http://www.oxfam.org/en/policy/bn051115-green-box-subsidies.Google Scholar

Baldock, D., Beaufoy, G. and Clark, J. (1995), “The Nature of Farming: Low Intensity Farming Systems in Nine European Countries”, Report IEEP/WWF/JNRC, London.Google Scholar

Brunner, A. and Huyton, H. (2005), “Agri-Environment Schemes and Biodiversity: Lessons Learnt and Examples from Across Europe”, BirdLife International, Brussels, http://www.birdlife.org/eu/pdfs/Agrienvironment_schemes_lesson_learnt.pdf.Google Scholar

Wit, A. M. W. and Brouwer, L. C. (1998), “The Effect of Afforestation as a Restoration Measure in a Degraded Area in a Mediterranean Environment Near Lorca (Spain)”, in Uso, J. L., Brebbia, C. A. and Power, H. (eds.), Ecosystems and Sustainable Development, Computational Mechanics Publications, Southampton, UK, pp. 165–70.Google Scholar

Donald, P. and Evans, A. (2006), “Habitat Connectivity and Matrix Restoration”, Journal of Applied Ecology 43 (2): 209–18.CrossRef Google Scholar

Donald, P., Green, R. and Heath, M. (2001), “Agricultural Intensification and the Collapse of Europe's Farmland Bird Populations”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 268 (1262): 25–9.CrossRef Google Scholar

,DLG: Government Service for Land and Water Management (2005), Land Abandonment, Biodiversity and the CAP: Outcome of an International Seminar in Sigulda, Latvia, 7–8 October, 2004, DLG publication service, Utrecht, Netherlands.Google Scholar

,European Commission (2003), Overview of the Implementation of Rural Development Policy 2000–2006, European Commission, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar

,European Court of Auditors (2006), “Special Report No. 7 Concerning Rural Development Investments: Do they Effectively Address the Problems of Rural Areas?”, European Court of Auditors, Luxembourg.Google Scholar

,European Environment Agency (2004), High Nature Value Farmland, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar

,European Environment Agency (2006), “Integration of Environment into EU Agriculture Policy: The IRENA Indicator-Based Assessment Report”, Report no. 2, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar

Evans, P. et al. (2002), “The Role of Research and Development in the Evolution of a ‘Smart’ Agri-environment Scheme”, Aspects of Applied Biology 67: 253–62.Google Scholar

Farmer, M., Cooper, T., Swales, V. et al. (2008), “Funding for Farmland Biodiversity in the EU: Gaining Evidence for the EU Budget Review”, a report for the RSPB by the Institute for European Environmental Policy, http://www.birdlife.org/eu/pdfs/ieepreport.pdf.Google Scholar

Fischer-Boel, M. (2007), speech at “Mind the CAP” conference, Wageningen University, the Netherlands, 1 February 2007, http://ec.europa.eu/nederland/information/mind_the_cap/index_nl.htm.Google Scholar

,Group of developing countries seeking reform of developed country agriculture (2005), “Review and Clarification of Green Box Criteria”, paper presented by the G-20, http://www.iatp.org/tradeobservatory/library.cfm?refID=73230.Google Scholar

Hanski, I. (1999), Metapopulation Ecology, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar

Hofreither, M. F., Schmid, E. and Sinabel, F. (2007), “Phasing out of Environmentally Harmful Subsidies: Consequences of the 2003 Reform”, Ecological Economics 60(3): 3.Google Scholar

,Institute for European Environmental Policy (2006), An Evaluation of the Less Favoured Area Measure in the 25 Member States of the European Union, Institute for European Environmental Policy, London, UK.Google Scholar

,International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (2004), Afforestation and Reforestation for Climate Change Mitigation: Potentials for Pan-European Action, IUCN, Warsaw, Poland.Google Scholar

Keenleyside, C. et al. (2006), “Farmland Birds and Agri-environment Schemes in the New Member States: A Report for the RSPB”, CREX, Anglesey, UK.Google Scholar

Kleijn, D., Berendse, F., Smit, R. et al. (2001), “Agri-environment Schemes do not Effectively Protect Biodiversity in Dutch Agricultural Landscapes”, Nature 413: 723–5.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kleijn, D., Berendse, F., Smit, R. et al. (2004a), “Ecological Effectiveness of Agri-environment Schemes in Different Agricultural Landscapes in the Netherlands”, Conservation Biology 18(3): 775–86.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kleijn, D. and Zuijlen, G. J. C. (2004b), “The Conservation Effects of Meadow Bird Agreements on Farmland in Zeeland, the Netherlands, in the Period 1989–1995”, Biological Conservation 117(4): 443–51.CrossRef Google Scholar

Leitao, D., Jolivet, C., Rodriguez, M. et al. (2006), “Bustard Conservation in Europe in the last 15 Years: Trends, Best Practice and Future Priorities”, RSPB/BirdLife, Sandy, Bedfordshire, UK.Google Scholar

,La Société Oréade-Brèche (2005), “Evaluation of Agri-Environment Measures”, report for the European Commission, Auzeville, France, http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/measures/index_fr.htm.Google Scholar

,Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2002a), Environmentally Harmful Subsidies: Policy Issues and Challenges, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, France.Google Scholar

,Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2002b), Methodology for Measurement of Support and Use in Policy Evaluation, OECD Directorate for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, Paris, France.Google Scholar

Schimd, E. and Sinabell, F. (2007), “On the Choice of Farm Management Practices after the Reform of the CAP in 2003”, Journal of Environmental Management 82(3): 9.Google Scholar

Vickery, J. A., Bradbury, R., Henderson, I. G. et al. (2004), “The Role of Agri-Environment Schemes and Farm Management Practices in Reversing the Decline of Farmland Birds in England”, Biological Conservation 119(1): 19–39.CrossRef Google Scholar

,World Resources Institute (2005), Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Desertification Synthesis, World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar

,World Trade Organisation (2004), Doha Working Programme: Decision Adopted by the General Council on 1 August 2004, WLT/L/579 (“The July Framework”), WTO, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar

,World Trade Organisation (2005), Doha Working Programme: Ministerial Declaration Adopted on 18 December 2005, WT/MIN(05)/DEC, WTO, Geneva, Switzerland, http://www.wto.org/english/theWTO_e/minist_e/min05_e/final_text_e.htm.Google Scholar