Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- List of abbreviations
- 1 Overview
- PART I The recent evolution of agricultural trade policy reform
- PART II The focus, extent and economic impact of green box subsidies
- PART III Green box subsidies and developing countries
- PART IV Green box subsidies and the environment
- 15 The environmental impact of green box subsidies: exploring the linkages
- 16 The environmental impact of EU green box subsidies
- 17 The environmental impact of US green box subsidies
- 18 Biofuels subsidies and the green box
- PART V Looking forward: how can change take place?
- Appendix: Text of Annex 2 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture (“the green box”)
- Index
- References
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
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- List of abbreviations
- 1 Overview
- PART I The recent evolution of agricultural trade policy reform
- PART II The focus, extent and economic impact of green box subsidies
- PART III Green box subsidies and developing countries
- PART IV Green box subsidies and the environment
- 15 The environmental impact of green box subsidies: exploring the linkages
- 16 The environmental impact of EU green box subsidies
- 17 The environmental impact of US green box subsidies
- 18 Biofuels subsidies and the green box
- PART V Looking forward: how can change take place?
- Appendix: Text of Annex 2 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture (“the green box”)
- Index
- References
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 BoxEnsuring Coherence with Sustainable Development Goals, pp. 468 - 495Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2009
References
and (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
, and (1995), “The Nature of Farming: Low Intensity Farming Systems in Nine European Countries”, Report IEEP/WWF/JNRC, London.Google Scholar
and (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
and (1998), “The Effect of Afforestation as a Restoration Measure in a Degraded Area in a Mediterranean Environment Near Lorca (Spain)”, in , and (eds.), Ecosystems and Sustainable Development, Computational Mechanics Publications, Southampton, UK, pp. 165–70.Google Scholar
and (2006), “Habitat Connectivity and Matrix Restoration”, Journal of Applied Ecology 43 (2): 209–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(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
(2003), Overview of the Implementation of Rural Development Policy 2000–2006, European Commission, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
(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
(2006), “Integration of Environment into EU Agriculture Policy: The IRENA Indicator-Based Assessment Report”, Report no. 2, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
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
, , 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
(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
(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
, . and (2007), “Phasing out of Environmentally Harmful Subsidies: Consequences of the 2003 Reform”, Ecological Economics 60(3): 3.Google Scholar
(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
(2004), Afforestation and Reforestation for Climate Change Mitigation: Potentials for Pan-European Action, IUCN, Warsaw, Poland.Google Scholar
et al. (2006), “Farmland Birds and Agri-environment Schemes in the New Member States: A Report for the RSPB”, CREX, Anglesey, UK.Google Scholar
, , et al. (2001), “Agri-environment Schemes do not Effectively Protect Biodiversity in Dutch Agricultural Landscapes”, Nature 413: 723–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , et al. (2004a), “Ecological Effectiveness of Agri-environment Schemes in Different Agricultural Landscapes in the Netherlands”, Conservation Biology 18(3): 775–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , 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
(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
(2002a), Environmentally Harmful Subsidies: Policy Issues and Challenges, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, France.Google Scholar
(2002b), Methodology for Measurement of Support and Use in Policy Evaluation, OECD Directorate for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, Paris, France.Google Scholar
and (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
, , 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2005), Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Desertification Synthesis, World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
(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
(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
- 3
- Cited by