IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/eurcho/v19y2020i1p30-35.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reforming Agricultural Policies Will Help to Improve Environmental Performance

Author

Listed:
  • Gwen DeBoe
  • Koen Deconinck
  • Ben Henderson
  • Jussi Lankoski

Abstract

Agriculture is a major source of environmental pressure worldwide. At the same time, most countries support the farming sector through a variety of policy instruments. This article discusses the impact of agricultural policies on environmental performance. The available evidence as well as modelling studies undertaken at the OECD show that the way in which agricultural support is provided affects its environmental impact. Support coupled to production or input use is particularly harmful for the environment, while other instruments such as largely decoupled payments, which do not depend on current production choices, are among the least environmentally harmful forms of support. Yet the most environmentally harmful instruments remain widely used, although less so in the EU. Policies should therefore be reoriented towards more decoupled forms of support – a reform which would pay a ‘double dividend’ in terms of both improved economic efficiency and environmental performance. This would reduce the environmental harm created by agricultural activities, but additional policy measures are needed to address the remaining environmental externalities – both in providing public goods and reducing environmental damage – that are not reflected in prices received or paid by farmers. Policymakers also have an important role to play in designing policies that can be effectively monitored and evaluated in terms of both their economic and environmental consequences. Au niveau mondial, l'agriculture est une source importante de pression sur l'environnement. En même temps, la plupart des pays soutiennent leur secteur agricole par le biais de divers instruments de politique. Cet article examine l'impact des politiques agricoles sur la performance environnementale du secteur. Les données disponibles ainsi que les études de modélisation entreprises à l'OCDE montrent que l'impact du soutien agricole sur l'environnement dépend du type de mesure employée. Le soutien couplé à la production ou à l'utilisation d'intrants est particulièrement nocif pour l'environnement, tandis que d'autres instruments tels que les paiements fortement découplés de la production, qui ne dépendent pas des choix de production courants, figurent parmi les formes de soutien les moins préjudiciables à l'environnement. Pourtant, les instruments les plus nocifs pour l'environnement restent largement utilisés, bien que l'Union européenne le fasse dans une moindre mesure. Les politiques devraient donc être réorientées vers des mesures de soutien plus découplées – une réforme qui apporterait un « double avantage » en termes d'amélioration à la fois de l'efficacité économique et des performances environnementales. Cela permettrait de réduire les dommages environnementaux de l'activité agricole. Des mesures gouvernementales supplémentaires sont cependant nécessaires pour remédier aux externalités environnementales persistantes – concernant à la fois la fourniture de biens publics et la réduction des dommages environnementaux ‐ qui ne se reflètent pas dans les prix reçus ou payés par les agriculteurs. Les décideurs de l'action publique ont également un rôle important à jouer dans la conception de politiques dont les conséquences économiques et environnementales peuvent être suivies et évaluées de manière efficace. Die Landwirtschaft ist weltweit eine der Hauptursachen für die Belastung der Umwelt. Gleichzeitig unterstützen die meisten Länder den Agrarsektor durch eine Vielzahl von politischen Instrumenten. In diesem Artikel werden die Auswirkungen der Agrarpolitik auf Umweltleistungen diskutiert. Die vorliegenden Erkenntnisse sowie Modellstudien der OECD zeigen, dass die Art und Weise, wie Agrarsubventionen gewährt werden, ihre Auswirkungen auf die Umwelt beeinflussen. Die an die Produktion oder die Nutzung von Betriebsmitteln gekoppelten Beihilfen sind besonders schädlich für die Umwelt. Andere Maßnahmen, die nicht an die aktuellen Produktionsentscheidungen gekoppelt sind, gehören dagegen zu den am wenigsten schädlichen für die Umwelt. Dennoch werden die umweltschädlichsten Maßnahmen weiterhin in großem Umfang eingesetzt, wenn auch in geringerem Maße in der EU. Die Politik sollte daher mehr auf die „entkoppelten” Maßnahmen setzen; entsprechende Reformen versprechen eine „doppelte Dividende”, denn wirtschaftliche Effizienz und Umweltleistungen würden sich gleichzeitig verbessern. Dies würde die durch die Landwirtschaft verursachten Umweltschäden verringern. Es sind jedoch noch weitere politische Maßnahmen nötig, um die verbleibenden Auswirkungen auf die Umwelt zu begrenzen und zwar sowohl hinsichtlich der Bereitstellung öffentlicher Güter als auch in Bezug auf die Verringerung von Umweltschäden. Diese Maßnahmen sollten sich nicht in den Preisen und Kosten der Landwirte niederschlagen. Die politischen Entscheidungsträger spielen zudem eine wichtige Rolle bei der Ausgestaltung von Politiken, die sowohl im Hinblick auf ihre wirtschaftlichen Folgen als auch auf ihre Umweltauswirkungen effektiv überwacht und evaluiert werden können.

Suggested Citation

  • Gwen DeBoe & Koen Deconinck & Ben Henderson & Jussi Lankoski, 2020. "Reforming Agricultural Policies Will Help to Improve Environmental Performance," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 19(1), pages 30-35, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:19:y:2020:i:1:p:30-35
    DOI: 10.1111/1746-692X.12247
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12247
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1746-692X.12247?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kym Anderson & Gordon Rausser & Johan Swinnen, 2013. "Political Economy of Public Policies: Insights from Distortions to Agricultural and Food Markets," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 51(2), pages 423-477, June.
    2. Ben Henderson & Jussi Lankoski, 2019. "Evaluating the environmental impact of agricultural policies," OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers 130, OECD Publishing.
    3. Santiago Guerrero, 2018. "Farmland Birds under Pressure," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 17(3), pages 24-25, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kelly Parsons & David Barling, 2022. "England’s food policy coordination and the Covid-19 response," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 14(4), pages 1027-1043, August.
    2. Irina Pilvere & Aleksejs Nipers & Aija Pilvere, 2022. "Evaluation of the European Green Deal Policy in the Context of Agricultural Support Payments in Latvia," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-22, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wagener, Andreas & Zenker, Juliane, 2018. "Decoupled but not neutral: The effects of stochastic transfers on investment and incomes in rural Thailand," TVSEP Working Papers wp-008, Leibniz Universitaet Hannover, Institute of Development and Agricultural Economics, Project TVSEP.
    2. Cornelius Hirsch & Harald Oberhofer, 2017. "Bilateral Trade Agreements and Trade Distortions in Agricultural Markets," FIW Working Paper series 176, FIW.
    3. Johan Swinnen & Alessandro Olper & Senne Vandevelde, 2021. "From unfair prices to unfair trading practices: Political economy, value chains and 21st century agri‐food policy," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(5), pages 771-788, September.
    4. Eshita Gupta & Bharat Ramaswami & E. Somanathan, 2021. "The Distributional Impact of Climate Change: Why Food Prices Matter," Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 249-275, July.
    5. Christophe Gouel, 2016. "Trade Policy Coordination and Food Price Volatility," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(4), pages 1018-1037.
    6. Li, J. & Chavas, J.-P., 2018. "How Have China s Agricultural Price Support Policies Affected Market Prices?: A Quantile Regression Evaluation," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277557, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Hendricks, Nathan P. & Smith, Aaron D. & Villoria, Nelson B., 2018. "Global Agricultural Supply Response to Persistent Price Shocks," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274338, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Zulauf, Carl R. & Orden, David, 2014. "Assessing the Political Economy of the 2014 U.S. Farm Bill," 2014: Food, Resources and Conflict, December 7-9, 2014. San Diego, California 197160, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    9. C. Peter Timmer, 2014. "Food Security in Asia and the Pacific: The Rapidly Changing Role of Rice," Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 1(1), pages 73-90, January.
    10. Embaye, Weldensie & Hendricks, Nathan & Lilja, Nina, 2017. "Sorghum research and poverty reduction in the presence of trade distortions in Ethiopia," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 12(2), June.
    11. Garrone, Maria & Emmers, Dorien & Olper, Alessandro & Swinnen, Johan, 2019. "Jobs and agricultural policy: Impact of the common agricultural policy on EU agricultural employment," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-1.
    12. Kym Anderson, 2021. "Food policy in a more volatile climate and trade environment," Departmental Working Papers 2021-25, The Australian National University, Arndt-Corden Department of Economics.
    13. Kym Anderson, 2023. "Repurposing agricultural support policies for shared prosperity in rural Fiji," Departmental Working Papers 2023-11, The Australian National University, Arndt-Corden Department of Economics.
    14. Benjamin Henderson & Jussi Lankoski, 2021. "Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Agricultural Policies," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(4), pages 1487-1502, December.
    15. Elena Briones Alonso & Jo Swinnen, 2015. "A value chain approach to measuring distortions to incentives and food policy effects (with application to Pakistan’s grain policy)," Working Papers of LICOS - Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance 493428, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), LICOS - Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance.
    16. Alexander M. Danzer & Robert Grundke, 2016. "Coerced Labor in the Cotton Sector: How Global Commodity Prices (Don't) Transmit to the Poor," CESifo Working Paper Series 5937, CESifo.
    17. David Orden & Carl Zulauf, 2015. "Political Economy of the 2014 Farm Bill," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1298-1311.
    18. Mockshell, Jonathan & Birner, Regina, 2020. "Who has the better story? On the narrative foundations of agricultural development dichotomies," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    19. Kym Anderson, 2023. "Why did agriculture’s share of Australian GDP not decline for a century?," Departmental Working Papers 2023-09, The Australian National University, Arndt-Corden Department of Economics.
    20. Kym Anderson & Sundar Ponnusamy, 2019. "Structural Transformation to Manufacturing and Services: What Role for Trade?," Asian Development Review, MIT Press, vol. 36(2), pages 32-71, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:19:y:2020:i:1:p:30-35. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.