Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-28T16:02:42.609Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

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

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

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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×