Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vsgnj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T11:02:39.800Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - European Union

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 April 2011

Tim Josling
Affiliation:
Stanford University, California
Alan Swinbank
Affiliation:
Agricultural Economics at the University of Reading, UK
David Orden
Affiliation:
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)
David Blandford
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
Tim Josling
Affiliation:
Stanford University, California
Get access

Summary

Notifications of the level of domestic support by the EU to the WTO since 1995 reflect a substantial shift in the nature of domestic farm policy over that period. These policy changes have reduced the amount of support given by instruments that are most likely to distort trade. Though domestic support notifications are only one component of a full evaluation of the impact of policy changes on trade patterns, they are intended to indicate the extent to which such changes have moved countries along the path toward policies that have less impact on other countries. They monitor compliance with rules and commitments that were introduced to provide disciplines for certain types of domestic policies that were deemed to be particularly disruptive of trade. Other parallel disciplines that apply to tariffs (elimination of non-tariff barriers and binding tariff levels) and export subsidies (binding and reducing both expenditures and quantities of exports benefiting) have also impacted the levels of support and protection of EU agriculture.

The EU has in recent years expanded its membership to twenty-seven countries, in the process changing the nature of the agricultural sector. It has substantially reformed its Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), moving from price support for the major commodities to a comprehensive system of payments to farmers that are less related to present production. In addition, the EU has been the respondent in several challenges in the WTO that involve agricultural products.

Type
Chapter
Information
WTO Disciplines on Agricultural Support
Seeking a Fair Basis for Trade
, pp. 61 - 96
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

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

Anderson, K. (ed.) 2009. Distortions to Agricultural Incentives: A Global Perspective 1955–2007. London: Palgrave Macmillan, and Washington, DC: World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anton, J. 2009. An Analysis of EU, US and Japanese green box spending. In Agricultural Subsidies in the WTO Green Box: Ensuring Coherence with Sustainable Development Goals, ed. Meléndez-Ortiz, R, Bellman, C., and Hepburn, J.. Cambridge University Press .Google Scholar
Bureau, J. C., and Gohin, A.. 2009. Farm support policies in the European Union: An appraisal of their non-distortionary effects. In Non-distorting Farm Support to Enhance Global Food Production, ed. Elbehri, A. and Sarris, A.. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
Butault, J. P., and Bureau, J. C.. 2006. WTO constraints and the CAP: Domestic support in EU 25 agriculture. IIIS Discussion Paper 17, Trinity College, Dublin.
,European Commission. 2007. Implementation of the CAP reform in the Member States. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/markets/sfp/index_en.htm#capinfosheets (accessed March 23, 2008).
Jean, S., Josling, T., and Laborde, D.. 2008. Implications for the European Union. ICTSD/IPC/IFPRI Project on Draft Agricultural Modalities. Paper presented at a seminar in Geneva, March 12.
Josling, T. 2009. EU15 and EFTA. In Distortions to Agricultural Incentives: A Global Perspective 1955–2007, ed. Anderson, K.. London: Palgrave Macmillan, and Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
Josling, T., and Swinbank, A.. 2008. European Union: Shadow WTO agricultural domestic support notifications. IFPRI Discussion Paper 809.
McMahon, J. A. 2007. Trade policy reform through litigation. EuroChoices 6(2): 42–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,OECD. 2009. Agricultural Policies in OECD Countries: Monitoring and Evaluation. Paris.Google Scholar
Swinbank, A., 2008. Potential WTO challenges to the CAP. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 56(4): 445–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinbank, A., and Tranter, R.. 2005. 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): 47–61.Google Scholar
Swinbank, A. and Tranter, R. 2009. EU Support for biofuels and bioenergy, environmental sustainability criteria, and trade policy. Issue Paper 17, ICTSD Program on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development.
Swinnen, J. F. M. (ed.) 2008. The Perfect Storm: The Political Economy of the Fischler Reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy. Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies.
Swinnen, J. F. M. 2009. The growth of agricultural protection in Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries. The World Economy 32(11): 1499–1537.CrossRef
,WTO. 1994. Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations: The Legal Texts. Geneva.Google Scholar
,WTO 2008. Revised draft modalities for agriculture. TN/AG/W/4/Rev.4, 6 December.

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.

  • European Union
  • Edited by David Orden, David Blandford, Pennsylvania State University, Tim Josling, Stanford University, California
  • Book: WTO Disciplines on Agricultural Support
  • Online publication: 11 April 2011
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511794179.004
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.

  • European Union
  • Edited by David Orden, David Blandford, Pennsylvania State University, Tim Josling, Stanford University, California
  • Book: WTO Disciplines on Agricultural Support
  • Online publication: 11 April 2011
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511794179.004
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.

  • European Union
  • Edited by David Orden, David Blandford, Pennsylvania State University, Tim Josling, Stanford University, California
  • Book: WTO Disciplines on Agricultural Support
  • Online publication: 11 April 2011
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511794179.004
Available formats
×