19 research outputs found
The Fischler's Proposals for the Common Agricultural Policy: Paving the Way for the Future?
The Mid-Term Review proposals presented by the European Commission in July 2002 and January 2003 correspond no doubt to the most radical CAP reform since the latter was established in the early 1960's. This is not because these proposals include firm commitments on market access and export competition dossiers in the perspective of WTO talks. The proposals are silent on these points. This is because they finally achieve the shift from product to producer support by replacing all existing or newly introduced direct income payments, with a few exceptions, by a single decoupled payment per farm, based on historical references and conditional upon cross-compliance to environmental, animal welfare as well as food security and quality criteria. In addition, they expand the scope of rural development instruments to promote food quality, meet higher standards and foster animal welfare and they increase amounts available for rural development by transferring funds from the first to the second pillar via the introduction of an EU-wide system of degression and modulation. This paper discusses these proposals from both an external and internal point of view. We analyse to what extent the MTR proposals could facilitate the EU negotiation position in the WTO. From a domestic point of view, these proposals correspond to appropriate changes in the right direction with however some important qualifications. We analyse these qualifications. We also discuss to what extent the MTR proposals should be considered as the ultimate reform of the CAP or as the third step, after 1992 and 1999, in the long-term process where public intervention would be mainly reserved for correcting market failures, notably the promotion of positive externalities and public goods as well as the reduction in risk and instability faced by agricultural producers.Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), decoupling, cross-compliance, modulation, WorldTrade Organisation (WTO)
Multilateral Agricultural Negotiations and Multifunctionality: Some Research Issues
International Relations/Trade,
Multifunctionality, Agricultural Trade and WTO Negotiations: A Review of Interactions and Issues. ENARPRI Working Paper No. 4, December 2003
When the Doha Round was undertaken in November 2001, non-trade concerns (NTCs) were specifically recognised and integrated into the negotiation process, albeit to a limited extent. In a general way, multifunctionality opponents see arguments put forward by the multifunctionality proponents as an attempt by the corresponding countries to resist agricultural trade liberalisation and continue protecting and supporting agriculture. This paper contributes to the debate by considering the broad set of issues associated with the design and implementation of trade, support and multifunctionality policies in the hope providing policy-makers with a notion of the issues and the trade-offs involved
Les réformes de la PAC de mars 1999 et de juin 2003 : principales dispositions
Les rĂ©formes de la politique agricole commune (PAC) de mars 1999 (rĂ©forme Agenda 2000) et de juin 2003 (compromis de Luxembourg) s'inscrivent dans un processus commencĂ© quelques annĂ©es plus tĂŽt avec la rĂ©forme de 1992 (rĂ©forme MacSharry). Loin de supprimer l'intervention et de libĂ©raliser totalement les marchĂ©s, la rĂ©forme de 1992 constitue nĂ©anmoins une rupture. Elle propose en effet de diminuer le soutien par les prix et de compenser les pertes induites de revenu par des aides directes assises sur les facteurs de production terre (cĂ©rĂ©ales et olĂ©oprotĂ©agineux) et cheptel (viande bovine). La rĂ©forme de 1999 correspond Ă un pas de plus dans la mĂȘme direction, avec de nouvelles baisses des prix institutionnels et la compensation partielle des pertes de revenu par des aides directes toujours assises sur les facteurs primaires de production. La rĂ©forme de 2003 va encore plus loin en supprimant le lien entre les aides directes et les choix de produits, en d'autres termes en "dĂ©couplant" les aides directes de soutien des revenus agricoles. Cette note prĂ©sente les principales dispositions des deux rĂ©formes de 1999 et de 2003
Multifonctionnalité, échanges agricoles et négociations à l'OMC : une synthÚse des interactions et des enjeux
ENARPRI Working paper ; 4Contrat ; B04817 ; European network of agricultural and rural policy research institutes [ENARPRI]International audienceL'article de synthÚse analyse les problÚmes posés par la prise en compte explicite de la multifonctionnalité dans les négociations agricoles multilatérales à l'Organisation mondiale du commerce
Les propositions "Fischler" de réforme de la politique agricole commune : une solution pour l'avenir ?
Les propositions de rĂ©forme de la politique agricole commune prĂ©sentĂ©es par la Commission europĂ©enne en juillet 2002 et en janvier 2003 peuvent ĂȘtre considĂ©rĂ©es comme une rĂ©volution. Non parce qu'elles contiennent des engagements Ă une plus grande ouverture du marchĂ© europĂ©en ou Ă une diminution des subventions Ă l'exportation dans la perspective des nĂ©gociations agricoles multilatĂ©rales du cycle de Doha, mais parce qu'elles achĂšvent le mouvement amorcĂ© en 1992 d'un soutien interne aux produits vers un soutien interne aux producteurs, via le remplacement des aides directes actuelles par un paiement unique par exploitation dĂ©connectĂ© des choix de production, calculĂ© sur une base historique. En outre, le versement de ce paiement serait conditionnĂ© au respect de normes en matiĂšre d'environnement, de bien-ĂȘtre animal, de sĂ©curitĂ© et de qualitĂ© des produits. Les propositions permettraient Ă©galement d'augmenter les ressources disponibles pour financer les mesures dites du deuxiĂšme pilier, i.e., les mesures liĂ©es Ă la politique de dĂ©veloppement rural. L'article analyse les propositions d'un double point de vue, externe et interne. Sur le premier point, il s'agit notamment d'examiner dans quelle mesure leur adoption permettrait de faciliter la position de nĂ©gociation de l'Union europĂ©enne Ă l'Organisation mondiale du commerce. Sur le deuxiĂšme point, les auteurs montrent qu'il s'agit d'un nouveau pas, aprĂšs ceux de 1992 et de 1999, dans la bonne direction mĂȘme si certains problĂšmes ne sont que trĂšs partiellement rĂ©solus (par exemple, celui de l'inĂ©gale rĂ©partition du soutien entre productions, exploitations, etc.), et mĂȘme si plusieurs interrogations mĂ©ritent une analyse approfondie (par exemple, l'impact de ces propositions sur le prix du foncier, le nombre de producteurs, l'abandon Ă©ventuel de surfaces, etc.)
The March 1999 and June 2003 CAP reforms: Main provisions
The CAP reforms of March 1999 (2000 Agenda reform) and June 2003 (Luxemburg compromise) are part of a process started a few years earlier with the 1992 Mac Sharry reform. Although it did not come close to suppressing intervention and wholly liberalizing markets, the 1992 reform did represent a turning point. It suggested the reduction of price support and the compensation of induced income losses through direct aids, founded on the land (cereals and oleo-proteaginous) and livestock (beef) factors of production. The 1999 reform was a further step in the same direction, with new falls ininstitutional prices and partial compensation for income losses through direct aid, still founded on primary production factors. The 2003 reform goes farther by suppressing the link between direct aid and product choices. In other words, the 2003 reform goes even farther by âdecouplingâ the direct support aids from agricultural incomes. This paper presents the main provisions of both 1999 and 2003 reforms
Multifonctionnalité, échanges agricoles et négociations à l'OMC : une synthÚse des interactions et des enjeux
International audienceL'article de synthÚse analyse les problÚmes posés par la prise en compte explicite de la multifonctionnalité dans les négociations agricoles multilatérales à l'Organisation mondiale du commerce
Multifunctionality, Agricultural Trade and WTO Negotiations: A Review of Interactions and Issues
The paper considers the set of issues associated with the design and implementation of support, trade and multifunctionality policies in agriculture. It first describes how non-trade concerns were taken into account in the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture and how they are currently integrated in the current round of negotiations through the opposition between multifunctionality proponents versus opponents. It briefly describes the main non-trade concerns that can be associated with agricultural production (food security, viability of rural areas, environment and natural resource protection) and concludes that a unambiguous resolution to the problems of identifying, measuring and valuing the externalities and/or the public goods associated with agricultural production is unlikely. It summarises some lessons that can be drawn from economic theory. If externalities are not adequately addressed, trade liberalisation may not be beneficial to some countries but even in that case, which corresponds to reality, trade policies are unlikely to be second-best instruments of dealing with externalities. According to the policy-targeting theory, non-trade concerns associated with agricultural production should be addressed through specific and targeted measures. Furthermore, policies are likely to be country specific reflecting differences in preferences among countries. As these normative conclusions rest on several assumptions, other criteria have to be taken into account for more complete evaluation of policy choices and policy impacts. Criteria include administrative efficiency, monitoring and enforcement, information and uncertainty, ethical and political considerations (notably political feasibility), distributional issues, other distortions (because markets are far from being perfect), as well as flexibility and dynamic adjustments