The Need for Comprehensive Climate Change Mitigation Policies in European Agriculture

During the last decade the European Union has shown a firm determination to move to a low carbon economy. Since 2008 the agricultural sector has been part of this strategy and is included in the EU effort sharing decision. Introducing specific GHG mitigation obligations for agriculture could be one option to achieve an overall GHG emission reduction target. One argument for this strategy would be that the agricultural sector is the main contributor of non‐CO₂ greenhouse gases. Nevertheless, a comprehensive EU mitigation policy would most likely have to take into account the particularities of its diverse agricultural sector, reflected by different trends in historical GHG emission reductions, and a varied mitigation cost structure between farming systems. Consequently, using targeted but flexible policy instruments may more equitably distribute the mitigation efforts across Member States and reduce cost inefficiencies. The increased uptake of technological and management emission mitigation measures would be crucial to keep mitigation costs for EU farmers at a minimum. However, while unilateral action would initially signal the EU's commitment to serious GHG mitigation effort in the sector, ultimately a multilateral agreement is needed to minimise emission leakage and to reduce global GHG emissions effectively.     

EU‐wide Economic and Environmental Impacts of CAP Greening with High Spatial and Farm‐type Detail

In this paper we analyse the economic and environmental impacts of CAP greening introduced by the 2013 CAP reform using the CAPRI model. CAPRI captures the farm heterogeneity across the EU and it allows to depict the implementation of the greening measures in high detail while integrating the environmental effects and the market feedback of the simulated policy changes. The simulated results reveal that the economic impacts (land use, production, price and income) of CAP greening are rather small, although some farm types, crops (fallow land and pulses) and Member States may be affected more significantly. The CAP greening will lead simultaneously to a small increase in prices and a small decrease in production. Farm income slightly increases because the price effects offset the production decline. Similarly to economic effects, the environmental impacts (GHG emissions, N surplus, ammonia emissions, soil erosion, and biodiversity‐friendly farming practices) of CAP greening are small, although some regions may see greater effects than others. In general, the environmental effects at EU level are positive on a per hectare basis, but the increase in UAA can reverse the sign for total impacts. Overall, simulated GHG and ammonia emissions decrease in the EU, while the total N surplus, soil erosion and biodiversity‐friendly farming practices indicator slightly increase due to the CAP greening.     

Smallholder farms’ adaptation to the impacts of climate change: Evidence from China’s Loess Plateau

The impacts of climate change on agriculture in developing countries will depend on the extent to which agricultural production in those regions adapts to climate change’s influences. This study uses a whole-farm land use optimisation approach to explore climate change impacts, when including adaptation, on farm profitability, production and associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the Loess Plateau of northern China. The results show that with adaptation activities, the losses in smallholder farm profitability caused by the climate change could be moderate. Declining rainfall results in land use changes that generate higher on-farm GHG emissions with the most economically beneficial adaptations. With 5 % or 10 % decline in annual rainfall, the introduction of agricultural carbon tax would generate substantial reduction in on-farm GHG emissions. With 30 % rainfall reduction, agricultural carbon tax is not likely to bring about considerable emission reduction. The economically optimised land uses are generally sensitive to potential changes. When rainfall reductions appear, there is a clear trend toward reducing cropping area and transiting to pasture. With 5–10% rainfall reductions, increasing agricultural carbon tax with same rainfall reduction leads to the expansion in cropping enterprises. However, with 30 % rainfall reduction, land allocations are not sensitive to agricultural carbon tax. When with declining annual rainfall, in the optimal enterprises more oats-pasture rotations are employed to reduce wheat dominated rotations. Besides land use patterns, adaptations through altering farm management practices are also necessary. The economically optimised sheep flock would be increased considerably with declining rainfall. Overall, policymakers are suggested to initial more educational schemes to tell smallholder farmers how to make the best use of available adaptation strategies and consider changes in climate when design and implement agricultural policy.     

Quantifying the impact of farmers' social networks on the effectiveness of climate change mitigation policies in agriculture

To reduce agricultural greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, farmers need to change current farming practices. However, farmers' climate change mitigation behaviour and particularly the role of social and individual characteristics remains poorly understood. Using an agent-based modelling approach, we investigate how knowledge exchange within farmers' social networks affects the adoption of mitigation measures and the effectiveness of a payment per ton of GHG emissions abated. Our simulations are based on census, survey and interview data for 49 Swiss dairy and cattle farms to simulate the effect of social networks on overall GHG reduction and marginal abatement costs. We find that considering social networks increases overall reduction of GHG emissions by 45% at a given payment of 120 Swiss Francs (CHF) per ton of reduced GHG emissions. The per ton payment would have to increase by 380 CHF (i.e., 500 CHF/tCO₂eq) to reach the same overall GHG reduction level without any social network effects. Moreover, marginal abatement costs for emissions are lower when farmers exchange relevant knowledge through social networks. The effectiveness of policy incentives aiming at agricultural climate change mitigation can hence be improved by simultaneously supporting knowledge exchange and opportunities of social learning in farming communities.     

The CAP for Turkey? Potential Market Effects and Budgetary Implications

EU accession negotiations with Turkey are scheduled to start in October 2005. The period of accession negotiations will probably last for ten years or longer, but the effects of applying the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) to Turkey are currently a controversial discussion in the EU. Effects of Turkish accession on EU agricultural markets are likely to be small. The EU would gain additional export opportunities for cereals and animal products. On the other hand, Turkish agricultural exports to the EU are projected to increase for only a few fruit and vegetable products. EU budgetary outlays for the application of the CAP to Turkey could total between £3.5 and £6.3 billion in 2015 – depending on whether direct payments are phased in or not – and £5.4 billion in 2025. Most of these outlays would be for direct payments to agricultural producers and that may not be in Turkey's best interest. This is because direct payments tend to be capitalized in land prices and may thus inhibit the necessary process of improving the Turkish agricultural structure. Transfers under the second pillar of the CAP may hold more interest for Turkey, because they can be targeted at improving productivity and thereby income. Projected outlays for the CAP take a backseat to projected transfers to Turkey under the structural policy of the EU.     

Livestock intensification as a climate policy: Lessons from the Brazilian case

Brazil is trying to identify ways to ally economic growth with climate change mitigation. Productivity gains in livestock have been pointed out as a promising alternative to achieve that goal. Thus, this paper analyses the economic impacts of a policy of productivity gains in the Brazilian livestock. Besides, we evaluate if the policy may conciliate agricultural growth and deforestation control, bearing in mind the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from land-use changes. The analysis was carried out through a computable general equilibrium (CGE) model, tailored to represent land-use changes, GHG emissions and removals. Besides, it made progress modeling the heterogeneity of climate, soils, and emissions in inter-regional models with many regions. The results show that productivity gains can effectively “save” land and thus avoid deforestation, especially in the Amazon and Cerrado (savannah) biomes. The policy also may boost the economic growth, spreading it to other regions of Brazil, like Centre-West and North, and increasing income and consumption in those places. However, as a climate policy, focused on the reduction of GHG emissions, the results may be counterproductive. The net amount issued may increase, as a result of the positive stimulus of the policy on the economy, and GHG emissions are directly related to the economic growth.     

Sustainability impact assessment using integrated meta-modelling: Simulating the reduction of direct support under the EU common agricultural policy (CAP)

Assessing the impact of macro-level policy driven land use changes on regional sustainability is an important task that can facilitate complex decision making processes of introducing reforms. The research work demonstrates the ability of Sustainability Impact Assessment Tool (SIAT), a meta-model, in conducting ex ante spatially explicit cross sectoral impact assessments of changes in common agricultural policy (CAP). The meta-model is able to appraise impacts of CAP amendments on land use and their repercussions on multiple indicators of sustainability. The presented study comprehensively analyses the possible impacts of discontinuing direct financial support to farmers under CAP. The simulations of the meta-model are able to reveal the land use changes both at EU and regional levels as well as to bring forth the subsequent changes in a number of indicators representing the regional sustainability (for five case study regions). In a nutshell, the simulations indicate that a reduction in direct support brings in general, a decrease in farmed area, an increase in forested land, less fluctuation in natural vegetation coverage, increase in abandoned arable land area and negligible changes in built-up area despite regionally diverging land use trends. The simulated changes in sustainability indicators for the study regions in consequence to these land use changes show that the discontinuation of subsidies evokes responses that are in general climate friendly (reduction in methane and N₂O emissions, diminishing energy use and reduction in global warming potential), economically beneficial (increase in gross value of agriculture) and socially desired (decrease in unemployment rate) as well as environmentally harmful (increase in pesticide use). Even though the appraisals of diversity indicators such as forest deadwood and farmland birds are not conclusive for all regions, the changes are positive for the former indicator and slightly negative for the latter in general. The trade-offs among these regional sustainability indicators using their directional associations are also presented for a comprehensive assessment of the impacts.     

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture: Avoiding trivial solutions to a global problem

Three steps are required to successfully and efficiently reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from agriculture: (i) identification of the most GHG polluting farms, (ii) determining appropriate mitigation options for these farms, and (iii) selection between these options on the basis of their cost effectiveness. Carbon footprints of a sample of farms together with an analysis of the Kyoto Protocol show the difficulties encountered at each step. These difficulties are caused by: (i) failure to agree which functional unit to use to measure GHG emissions and pollution swapping; (ii) weaknesses in the Kyoto Protocol's territorial/production based accounting methodology, and (iii) lack of cost-effectiveness data. One consequence is that farmers may adopt mitigation activities that reduce their farm's, the UK agriculture sector's and the UK's emissions whilst inadvertently increasing global emissions: a trivial solution because it fails to address GHG emissions as a global problem. These difficulties, together with estimated agriculture sector marginal abatement cost curves that suggests emission reduction from all cost effective mitigation activities will not deliver targeted GHG emission reductions, means policy focus must be on demand rather than supply-side measures: the benefits and disadvantages of cap and trade mechanisms and carbon taxes are briefly discussed within an agricultural context.     

Information about Climate Change Mitigation: What Do Farmers Think?

The adoption of new practices by farmers is one of the key strategies to lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from food production. In this context, effective knowledge transfer systems are essential to inform farmers about climate change, and to convince them of the benefits of new technologies. In this article, farmers’ opinions about climate change, their own efforts to mitigate climate change, and their suggestions on how to improve agricultural advice were assessed. To this end, a survey with over 500 livestock farmers was conducted in Ireland. The findings reveal a high awareness of the urgency to address climate change in general, but many farmers also think agricultural GHG emissions are an overstated problem. In addition, half of the surveyed farmers believe that implementing GHG mitigation measures will lower their profits. These findings underline the need to provide effective knowledge transfer to facilitate the uptake of GHG mitigation measures. When asking farmers directly, by way of text analysis, it emerges that simple messages, group and practical advice that is tailored to individual farming situations is important to farmers. As such, this article provides important insights that are of relevance for designing advisory campaigns to promote climate change mitigation.     

The impact of climate and price risks on agricultural land use and crop management decisions

This article aims to investigate the impacts of climate change and of lower and more volatile crop price levels as currently observed in the European Union (EU) on optimal management decisions, average income and income risks in crop production in Western Switzerland. To this end, a bioeconomic whole-farm model has been developed that non-parametrically combines the crop growth model CropSyst with an economic decision model using a genetic algorithm. The analysis focuses on the farm level, which enables us to integrate a wide set of potential adaptation responses, comprising changes in agricultural land use as well as crop-specific fertilization and irrigation strategies. Furthermore, the farmer's certainty equivalent is employed as objective function, which enables the consideration of not only impacts on average income but also impacts on income variability.The study shows that that the effects of EU crop prices on the optimal management decisions as well as on the farmer's certainty equivalent are much stronger than the effects of climate change. Furthermore, our results indicate that the impacts of income risks on the crop farm's optimal management schemes are of rather low importance. This is due to two major reasons: first, direct payments make up a large percentage of the agricultural income in Switzerland which makes Swiss farmers less vulnerable to market and climate volatility. Second, arable crop farms in Switzerland have by law to cultivate at least four different crops. Due to these diverse cropping systems and high government direct payments risk does neither under climate change, market liberalization nor combinations thereof, play a very decisive role in arable farming in Switzerland.     

The Role of the Common Agricultural Policy in Enhancing Farm Income: A Dynamic Panel Analysis Accounting for Farm Size in Italy

As a multi-objective policy, the EU Common Agricultural Policy continues to secure significant income support for farmers as one of the nine specific objectives. We estimate the income transfer efficiency of a broad set of pivotal policy measures, focusing on the effects of farm structure on income transfer efficiency. We use dynamic modelling, based on a micro-data panel of Italian farms for the period 2008–2014, allowing for endogeneity, simultaneity bias, and omitted variables. In line with previous studies and economic expectations, we find that decoupled direct payments provide the highest contribution to agricultural incomes, followed by agri-environmental payments and on-farm investment subsidies. Coupled payments have no significant impacts on farmers’ income. Generally, for all analysed Common Agricultural Policy measures, large farms benefit from greater transfer efficiency levels compared with medium and small farms. These differences among instruments and across farms suggest that policy-participation costs may play a pivotal role, together with the economic structure of farms, in determining the income transfer efficiency of CAP policies.     

The EU Budget and the CAP: An Agenda for the Review?

The promised review of the EU Budget in 2008 offers an opportunity to bring CAP financing into line with logic, justice and the rest of EU policy. Currently, the CAP is unique amongst European policies in being both mandatory and requiring 100 per cent financing by the EU budget. While this made good sense at the policy's inception, it is now an obsolete anachronism. A sensible and defensible agenda for financial reform, which is all that is on the reform agenda at present, is to make the EU budget responsible for only a fraction (say 25 per cent) of the costs of the current CAP, instead of the present 100 per cent. This would bring CAP financing into line with other EU policies, and make member states separately responsible for the balance for their own farmers, as they so wish, up to the CAP budgetary ceiling already agreed. Any resulting competition between member states in the extent and means by which they continue (or not) to support farmers through direct payments would be controlled through EU Competition and single market policies. Such competition would also provide a good opportunity for experiments with policy development, to the advantage of all, since different policies are required for the different stages of development and different local conditions now evident within the EU.     

Bilateral Information Asymmetry in the Design of an Agri‐Environmental Policy: An Application to Peatland Retirement in Norway

Agriculture is a significant source of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. GHG mitigation through agri‐environmental programmes could be important in achieving emission reduction targets under the 2015 UN climate agreement. This study uses the principal‐agent model to examine a peatland retirement programme to reduce agricultural emissions in Norway. The focus is on the role of the government's private information in programme design. Two cases are examined. First, optimal contracts are derived when farmers have private information about the costs of implementing peat land retirement, but the government reveals its information on the resulting public benefits through differentiated contracts. This corresponds to the standard targeting strategy with one‐sided information asymmetry. In the second case, an informed principal model developed by Maskin and Tirole in a 1990 study is employed to address bilateral information asymmetry. Using the informed principal model, the government offers the same menu of contracts to farmers in order not to disclose information on the public benefits from land retirement. Empirical results show that the government can achieve a higher payoff by using a pooling offer.     

European Agriculture after Brexit: Does Anyone Benefit from the Divorce?

The UK exited the EU on 31 January 2020, with a transition period agreed as part of the Withdrawal Agreement. During this transition period the UK and the EU will decide on their future trading relationship. No matter what form this relationship takes, there will be disturbances to agri‐food markets. This study analyses four different scenarios with increasing barriers to trade, ranging from a very close relationship similar to the European Economic Area to a distant relationship in which the UK and EU trade on Most Favoured Nation terms, using the EU focused global agricultural sector model CAPRI. In the UK, food prices will increase in all scenarios, making consumers in the UK the biggest losers. Only in a free trade agreement scenario does the UK show an unambiguous positive net welfare gain in just the agri‐food sector. In the case of the European Economic Area scenario, which assumes continued access to the single market, the net welfare impact would depend on the size of the UK’s continued contribution to the EU. In the EU, declining food prices would benefit consumers but the sum of the loss in farmers’ incomes and the UK’s EU CAP contribution would be much greater than the consumer’s gain. These impacts in agricultural markets under different future trade arrangements will also be influenced by the UK’s agricultural policy changes in direct payments as well as by possible further UK trade liberalisation after the end of the transition period.     

Energy productivity and greenhouse gas emission intensity in Dutch dairy farms: A Hicks–Moorsteen by-production approach under non-convexity and convexity with equivalence results

The agricultural sector is currently confronted with the challenge to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, whilst maintaining or increasing production. Energy-saving technologies are often proposed as a partial solution, but the evidence on their ability to reduce GHG emissions remains mixed. Production economics provides methodological tools to analyse the nexus of agricultural production, energy use and GHG emissions. Convexity is predominantly maintained in agricultural production economics, despite various theoretical and empirical reasons to question it. Employing non-convex and convex frontier frameworks, this contribution evaluates energy productivity change (the ratio of aggregate output change to energy use change) and GHG emission intensity change (the ratio of GHG emission change to polluting input change) using Hicks-Moorsteen productivity formulations. We consider GHG emissions as by-products of the production process by using a multi-equation model. Given our empirical specification, non-convex and convex Hicks-Moorsteen indices can coincide under certain circumstances, which leads to a series of theoretical equivalence results. The empirical application focuses on 1,510 observations of Dutch dairy farms for the period of 2010–2019. The results show a positive association between energy productivity change and GHG emission intensity change, which calls into question the potential of on-farm, energy-efficiency-increasing measures to reduce GHG emission intensity.     

Brexit: How Will UK Agriculture Fare?

There is little doubt that Brexit would have significant implications for UK agriculture, a sector with strong trade links to the EU and strong reliance on CAP income support. This article reports preliminary results from employing a Computable General Equilibrium Model, a Partial Equilibrium Model and Farm Level Models to explore selected trade and domestic policy scenarios post‐Brexit. These allow for the estimation of changes in producer prices, production and farm incomes against a baseline scenario of continued EU membership. Under a Free Trade Agreement with the EU, agricultural impacts are relatively modest. By contrast, unilateral removal of import tariffs has significant negative impacts on prices, production and incomes. Adoption of the EU's WTO tariff schedule for all imports favours net importers (e.g. dairy) and harms net exporters (e.g. sheep). Given the strong dependence of most UK farms on direct payments, their removal worsens negative impacts of new trade arrangements and offsets positive impacts. Impacts vary across different types and sizes of farm, but also regionally. However, the period of adjustment to new trade and domestic policy conditions may prove very challenging for a large number of farm businesses.     

The Effects of Direct Payments on Technical Efficiency of Irish Beef Farms: A Stochastic Frontier Analysis

The 2003 Mid‐Term Review of the CAP sought to refocus the EU's farm support policy to foster a more competitive and market‐orientated agricultural sector. The foundation of this reform comprised the introduction of decoupled payments to farmers, replacing the EU's previous system of supports that were directly linked to production of designated crops and livestock. This paper explores the effect of coupled payments and their subsequent replacement by decoupled support, on the technical efficiency of specialist beef farms in Ireland. Given the high reliance of beef farmers in Ireland on CAP payments, the decoupling of payments has been especially important for the sector. A stochastic production frontier is estimated using a panel dataset comprising detailed accountancy data for Irish beef farms between the years 2000 and 2013. Our results indicate that technical efficiency in the beef farming sector has been consistently poor, with an average efficiency score of only 0.53 during the period analysed. However, we found that direct income received in the form of coupled payments had a positive impact on farm efficiency, and that this positive effect was maintained after their replacement with decoupled income support.     

A Competitive,Sustainable and Diverse Agriculture: A View of the CAP Beyond 2013 Pour une agriculture compétitive,durable and variée : un point de vue sur la PAC après 2013 Eine wettbewerbsfähige,nachhaltige und vielfältige Landwirtschaft: Ein Ausblick auf die GAP nach 2013

A Competitive, Sustainable and Diverse Agriculture: A View of the CAP Beyond 2013 New challenges make clear that past achievements of the CAP cannot be taken for granted. A strong European agricultural policy remains necessary after 2013, at the service of Europe’s citizens and agricultural sector. However, in order to realise the vision embedded in the European agricultural model, the CAP will have to evolve. Beyond dealing with the negative consequences of the economic crisis, more attention should go to competitiveness and entrepreneurship. The functioning of the supply chain should be improved leading to a fairer distribution of costs and benefits. Producer organisations should be expanded and strengthened. Work is needed to put into practice the concept of green growth and to explore the synergy between the demand for public goods and the need for higher farm income. An improved system of direct support remains justified, to compensate for extra costs and to stabilise income. The CAP post-2013 should offer a strong EU framework, able to meet shared challenges, with clear objectives and sufficient funding. Within that framework, diversity is a fact, and regions should be able to deploy CAP policies and funds in a more flexible way to accommodate local needs and problems and to be able to react to changing circumstances.     

CAP Reforms in the 1990s and their Price and Welfare Implications: The Case of Wheat

We use a nonlinear commodity market model to assess, theoretically and empirically, the impacts of recent reforms of the CAP on prices and economic welfare in the EU. The empirical analysis is based on an aggregate structural econometric model of the EU wheat economy and its links to the rest of the world. Instability issues are also investigated. Impacts of CAP reforms on the variance of domestic and world prices are analysed and a Monte Carlo simulation is used to evaluate uncertainty in the model's welfare computations. Recent reforms led to a net welfare gain within the EU during the period 1993–2000. Additional budgetary costs are less than the welfare gains of consumers and producers. Producers gained as lower price support was overcompensated by additional direct payments.     

When Do Export Subsidies Have a Redistributional Role?

If an export subsidy is efficient, that is, has a surplus-transfer role, then there exists an implicit function relating the optimal level of the subsidy to the income target in the agricultural sector. If an export subsidy is inefficient no such function exists. We show that dependence exists in large-export equilibrium, not in small-export equilibrium and show that these results remain robust to concerns about domestic tax distortions. The failure of previous work to produce this result stems from its neglect of the income constraint on producer surplus in the programming problem transferring surplus from consumers and taxpayers to farmers.