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
15 - The environmental impact of green box subsidies: exploring the linkages
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
Over the past decade, the WTO AoA has overseen significant reductions in the most trade-distorting forms of agricultural support. As WTO members continue reform in this direction, attention is being redirected towards forms of agricultural subsidy contained in the so-called green box (Annex 2) of the AoA. Anyone concerned with the environmental impacts of agriculture should welcome this development, as the most trade-distorting kinds of agricultural subsidy are often those that create the strongest incentives for increasing output, intensifying agricultural activities and thus adversely affecting the environment.
The shift from more to less trade-distorting forms of agricultural support can be seen both in the significant increases of green box subsidies during the implementation period of the AoA and in the very large total volume of green box subsidies today. In the US, green box subsidies nearly doubled, from US$26,151 million in the period 1986 to 1988 to US$50,057 million in 2000. Accounted for partly by the entry of three new members following the period 1986 to 1988, green box expenditure by the EU grew from €9.2 billion to €22.1 billion in 2000. The latter figure is equivalent to roughly half of all EU spending on amber box subsidies for that year. In Japan, green box subsidies represented nearly 24 per cent of its total subsidies in 2000. Given the sheer size of green box subsidies across the OECD economies, it is hard to imagine that its environmental impacts are insignificant.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Agricultural Subsidies in the WTO Green BoxEnsuring Coherence with Sustainable Development Goals, pp. 427 - 467Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2009
References
and (1992), “Environmental and Farm Commodity Policy Linkages in the US and the EC”, European Review of Agricultural Economics 19(2): 197–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, et al. (2005), Green but Not Clean: Why a Comprehensive Review of Green Box Subsidies is Necessary, ActionAid, Caritas, CIDSE and Oxfam, London, UK, http://www.wer-profitiert.de/de/hintergruende/Green-but-not-clean.pdf.Google Scholar
(1991), “Agricultural Trade Liberalisation and the Environment: A Global Perspective”, World Economy 15: 153–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2007), “Should the Green Box be Modified?” IPC discussion paper, International Food and Agricultural Trade Policy Council, Washington, DC., USA.Google Scholar
and (2007), The Environmental Impact of EU Agricultural Subsidies in the WTO Green Box, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
(2006), “Carbon Finance Could Mean Billions for Indonesia”, http://www.mongabay.com, 5 November 2006.Google Scholar
(2005), The Impact of Trade Liberalization on Agricultural Biological Diversity: Domestic Support Measures and Their Effects on Agricultural Biological Diversity, CBD technical series no. 16, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
(1991), “Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 Concerning the Protection of Waters against Pollution Caused by Nitrates from Agricultural Sources”, Official Journal of the European Communities L375/31, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
(2006), Agriculture and NAMA Negotiations: Searching for the Landing Zone, Centre for Trade and Development, New Delhi, India.Google Scholar
(2004), World Agriculture and the Environment: A Commodity-by-Commodity Guide to Impacts and Practices, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
(2003), “The Greening of the WTO: A Quantitative Appraisal of Agri-Environmental Policies in OECD Countries”, paper presented at the International Conference Agricultural Policy Reform and the WTO: Where Are We Heading? Capri, Italy, 23–6 June 2003.Google Scholar
(2007), “Agri-Environmental Policies in the Green Box in OECD Countries: An Overview”, paper presented at the ICTSD Workshop on Agricultural Subsidies in the WTO Green Box: Overview of Upcoming Issues from a Sustainable Development Viewpoint, Montreux, Switzerland, 16–17 April 2007.Google Scholar
, and (2003), “OECD, Domestic Support and Developing Countries”, discussion paper 2003/32, United Nations University World Institute for Development Economics Research, Helsinki, Finland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2005), The State of Food and Agriculture, FAO Agriculture series no. 36, Food and Agricultural Organization, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
and (2004), The Development And Implementation Of Cross Compliance In The EU 15: An Analysis, Institute for European Environmental Policy for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, London, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
and (1995), “The Invisible Resource Rent in Limited Entry and Quota Managed Fisheries: The Case of Norwegian Purse Seine Fisheries”, Marine Resource Economics 10: 341–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2004), “Progress in OECD's Work on Agri-environmental Indicators”, presented at the meeting of the working group Agriculture and Environment, with participation of the working group Environment and Sustainable Development/Pesticides, and the EEA Expert Network on Agriculture, Eurostat, Luxembourg, http://www.umweltbundesamt.at/fileadmin/site/umweltthemen/landwirtschaft/Umweltindikatoren/OECD_AEI_September_2004.pdf, 13–14 September 2004.Google Scholar
and (2003), Sustainability Impact Assessment of Proposed WTO Negotiations: Preliminary Overview of Potential Impacts of the Doha Agenda – Assessment of Individual Trade Measures, Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
, and (2006), “Paying for Environmental Performance: Investing in Farmers and the Environment”, WRI Policy Note – Environmental Markets: Farm Bill Conservation Programs 1, http://pdf.wri.org/pn_envmkts_paying_for_performance.pdf.Google Scholar
, and (2007), Agricultural Subsidies in the WTO “Green Box”: An Overview of the Key Issues from a Sustainable Development Viewpoint, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
(1998), “Evaluation of Current Agricultural Schemes and Premia Payments Operating in Ireland”, http://www.heritagecouncil.ie/publications/agriherit/8.html.Google Scholar
and (2004), “Government Financial Transfers to the Fish Harvesting, Processing and Aquaculture Industries Norway 1990–2002”, working paper series in economics and management no. 01/04, Department of Economics and Management, Norwegian College of Fishery Science, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway.Google Scholar
and (1997), Environmental Cross-compliance: The Impact at Farm Level, Oxford, UK, http://www.rics.org/NR/rdonlyres/4DD6A7BA-C257-4D82-B47B-DD29165D5A9B/0/environmental_crosscompliance_19970101.pdf.Google Scholar
(2007), “Agricultural Subsidies in the WTO ‘Green Box’: An Overview of the Key Issues from a Sustainable Development Viewpoint”, ICTSD draft background paper, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
and (2005), Sustainability Impact Assessment of Proposed WTO Negotiations: Preliminary Overview of Potential Impacts of the Doha Agenda – Overall Project Final Report for Sector Studies: Agriculture. Distribution Services and Forestry, Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
(2006), Biofuels – At What Cost?: Government support for ethanol and biodiesel in the United States, prepared by Earth Track, Inc. Cambridge MA, United States for the Global Subsidies Initiative (GSI) of International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
, , et al. (2006), Reforming Agricultural Subsidies: “No Regrets” Policies for Livelihoods and the Environment, World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
(2007), “Agri-environmental Programs in OECD Countries” in , , and (eds.), US Agricultural Policy and the 2007 Farm Bill: Promoting the Economic Resilience and Conserving the Ecological Integrity of American Farmlands, Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.Google Scholar
and (2002), Farming and Free Trade: Effects of Trade Liberalisation and EU enlargement on the Dutch Agricultural Sector – an Exploratory Study, Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries, the Hague, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
, , et al. (2003), The Economic and Environmental Impact of Agricultural Subsidies: An Assessment of the 2002 US Farm Bill and the Doha Round, Unisféra International Centre, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
(2001), “Agri-environmental Statistics for Compilation of Indicators, Accounts and Meeting Other Needs of Decision Makers”, Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome, Italy, http://www.unescap.org/stat/envstat/stwes-032.pdf.Google Scholar
, , et al. (2006a), “Inhibition of Amazon Deforestation and Fire by Parks and Indigenous Lands”, Conservation Biology 20(1): 65–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, and (2006b), “Globalization of the Amazon Soy and Beef Industries: Opportunities for Conservation”, Conservation Biology 20(6): 1595–603.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1994), National Policies and Agricultural Trade: Country Study – Turkey, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, France.Google Scholar
(2005a), Environmentally Harmful Subsidies: Challenges and Outlook for Reform, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, France.Google Scholar
(2005b), Environmental Requirements and Market Access, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, France.Google Scholar
(2005c), Agriculture, Trade and the Environment: The Arable Crop Sector, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, France.Google Scholar
(2006), Decoupling: Policy Implications, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, France.Google Scholar
, , et al. (2000), “A Meta-analysis of Environmental Impacts of Agri-environmental Policies in the European Union”, Tinbergen Institute discussion paper no. TI 2000–083/3, Tinbergen Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
(2006), The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals, Penguin Press, New York, USA.Google Scholar
(2006), “Not all Environmental Programs May Be WTO-compliant”, MidAmerica Farmer Grower 23(36).Google Scholar
(1997), Australia and the Next Multilateral Trade Negotiations for Agriculture, ABARE research report 97.6, Canberra, Australia.Google Scholar
, and (2002), Development Box Proposals and their Potential Effect on Developing Countries, Oxford Policy Management, Oxford, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
and (2004), “Measuring the Success of Conservation Programs”, Amber Waves 2: 14–21, http://www.ers.usda.gov/Amberwaves/September04/pdf/feature_conserva-tionsept2004.pdf.Google Scholar
, , et al. (2003), Comparative Standards for Intensive Livestock Operations in Canada, Mexico and the United States, Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
and (2004), An Agenda for the Development Round of Trade Negotiations in the Aftermath of Cancun, Report for the Commonwealth Secretariat, Initiative for Policy Dialogue, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
(2005), How EU Agri-Environmental Policy Might Have Differed Under Various WTO Scenarios, Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.Google Scholar
(2006), Green Box Subsidies: A Theoretical and Empirical Assessment (draft), presented at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Geneva, Switzerland, 28 September 2006.Google Scholar
(2007), Green Box Subsidies: A Theoretical and Empirical Assessment, UN Conference on Trade and Development, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
(2000), Environmental and Trade: A Handbook, UN Development Programme and IISD, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
(2005), The Impact of Trade Liberalization on Agricultural Biological Diversity, CBD technical series no. 16, Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
and , (1998), “Environmental Policy and the WTO: Unresolved Questions”, Agricultural Outlook 256: 12–14.Google Scholar
(2002), Notification: India – Domestic Support, G/AG/N/IND/2, World Trade Organization Committee on Agriculture, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
(2004a), “Decision Adopted by the General Council on 1 August 2004, General Council, WT/L/579, World Trade Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
(2004b), Green Box Measures: Note by the Secretariat, TN/AG/S/10, World Trade Organization Committee on Agriculture in Special Session, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
(2005a), Ministerial Declaration Adopted on 18 December 2005, WT/MIN/(05)/DEC, World Trade Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
(2005b), Notification: Brazil – Domestic Support, G/AG/N/BRA/23, World Trade Organization Committee on Agriculture, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
(2006a), Notification: European Communities – Domestic Support, G/AG/N/EEC/53, World Trade Organization Committee on Agriculture, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
(2006b), Notification: People's Republic of China – Domestic Support, G/AG/N/CHN/8, World Trade Organization Committee on Agriculture, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
(2006c), Notification: United States – Domestic Support, G/AG/N/USA/51, World Trade Organization Committee on Agriculture, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
(2007), Notification: Japan – Domestic Support, G/AG/N/JPN/124, World Trade Organization Committee on Agriculture, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
, and (2003), Green Box Support Measures under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture and Chinese Sustainable Development, IISD and the Chinese Academy for International Trade and Economic Cooperation (CAITEC), Winnipeg, Canada.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by