IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Agri-environmental policies in the EU and United States: A comparison

  • Baylis, Kathy
  • Peplow, Stephen
  • Rausser, Gordon
  • Simon, Leo

Agri-environmental policies (AEPs) in the United States and the European Union are examples of payments for environmental services that pay farmers to reduce the negative externalities of agricultural production, while serving as a means to transfer public funds to farmers. We show that despite similar origins, AEPs in the two regions differ both in their specific objectives and in their implementation. For example, AEPs in most member states of the EU-15 have the additional objective of using agriculture as a driver for rural development. This objective is achieved by compensating farmers for the private delivery of positive public goods, such as attractive landscapes, produced by agriculture. The rationale is market failure, and there is empirical evidence that Europeans are willing to pay for such positive externalities. No comparable provision exists in U.S. policy. By contrast, U.S. AEPs focus almost entirely on reducing agriculture's negative externalities, such as soil erosion. Second, we find that U.S. programs are more targeted than their EU counterparts, and take opportunity cost into account. The EU programs, on the other hand, address a wider range of externalities, and are focused more on the paying for a particular farming process than reducing specific negative externalities. The EU takes a broader view of AEPs than does the United States, both in terms of type of activity that can be funded, and by using less targeting by land characteristics, and so the European program could be more easily used as a mechanism for transferring income to producers. Despite this, we find evidence that many of the amenities targeted by the programs are demanded by the population.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VDY-4PXNHM3-2/1/a492ec400a1e7d9eb2d807816a558f35
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Ecological Economics.

Volume (Year): 65 (2008)
Issue (Month): 4 (May)
Pages: 753-764

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:65:y:2008:i:4:p:753-764
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Thomas L. Dobbs & Jules N. Pretty, 2004. "Agri-Environmental Stewardship Schemes and “Multifunctionality”," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 220-237.
  2. Hansen, LeRoy T. & Feather, Peter & Shank, David, 1999. "Valuation Of Agriculture'S Multi-Site Environmental Impacts: An Application To Pheasant Hunting," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 28(2), October.
  3. Baylis, Katherine R. & Peplow, Stephen & Rausser, Gordon C. & Simon, Leo K., 2005. "Causes Of Multifunctionality: Externalities Or Political Pressure," Working Papers 15841, University of British Columbia, Food and Resource Economics.
  4. Ian Hodge, 2000. "Agri-environmental Pelationships and the Choice of Policy Mechanism," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(2), pages 257-273, 02.
  5. Babcock, Bruce A. & Lakshminarayan, P. G. & Wu, J. & Zilberman, David, 1997. "Targeting Tools for the Purchase of Environmental Amenities," Staff General Research Papers 5220, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  6. Schmid, Erwin & Sinabell, Franz & Hofreither, Markus F., 2007. "Phasing out of environmentally harmful subsidies: Consequences of the 2003 CAP reform," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 596-604, January.
  7. Charles H. Barnard & Gerald Whittaker & David Westenbarger & Mary Ahearn, 1997. "Evidence of Capitalization of Direct Government Payments into U.S. Cropland Values," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(5), pages 1642-1650.
  8. Mullarkey, Daniel J. & Cooper, Joseph C. & Skully, David W., 2001. ""Multifunctionality" and Agriculture: Do Mixed Goals Distort Trade?," Choices, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 16(1).
  9. Hellerstein, Daniel & Nickerson, Cynthia J. & Cooper, Joseph C. & Feather, Peter & Gadsby, Dwight M. & Mullarkey, Daniel J. & Tegene, Abebayehu & Barnard, Charles H., 2002. "Farmland Protection: The Role Of Public Preferences For Rural Amenities," Agricultural Economics Reports 33963, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
  10. JunJie Wu, 2000. "Slippage Effects of the Conservation Reserve Program," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(4), pages 979-992.
  11. Franz Hackl & Gerald Pruckner, 1997. "Towards More Efficient Compensation Programmes for Tourists' Benefits From Agriculture in Europe," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 189-205, September.
  12. Feather, Peter & Hellerstein, Daniel & Hansen, LeRoy T., 1999. "Economic Valuation of Environmental Benefits and the Targeting of Conservation Programs: The Case of the CRP," Agricultural Economics Reports 34027, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
  13. Heimlich, Ralph E. & Claassen, Roger, 1998. "Agricultural Conservation Policy At A Crossroads," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 27(1), April.
  14. Yrjola, Tapani & Kola, Jukka, 2004. "Consumer Preferences Regarding Multifunctional Agriculture," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association (IAMA), vol. 7(02).
  15. Baylis, Katherine R. & Rausser, Gordon C., 2004. "Agri-Environmental Programs In The United States And The European Union," Working Papers 15848, University of British Columbia, Food and Resource Economics.
  16. David Zilberman, 1996. "The Economics of a Public Fund for Environmental Amenities: A Study of CRP Contracts," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(4), pages 961-971.
  17. Jules Pretty & Craig Brett & David Gee & Rachel Hine & Chris Mason & James Morison & Matthew Rayment & Gert Van Der Bijl & Thomas Dobbs, 2001. "Policy Challenges and Priorities for Internalizing the Externalities of Modern Agriculture," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(2), pages 263-283.
  18. Patricia A. Duffy & C. Robert Taylor & Danny L. Cain & George J. Young, 1994. "The Economic Value of Farm Program Base," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(3), pages 318-329.
  19. Claassen, Roger & Cattaneo, Andrea & Johansson, Robert, 2008. "Cost-effective design of agri-environmental payment programs: U.S. experience in theory and practice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 737-752, May.
  20. Michael J. Roberts & Shawn Bucholz, 2006. "Slippage in the Conservation Reserve Program or Spurious Correlation? A Rejoinder," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(2), pages 512-514.
  21. Ferraro, Paul J., 2008. "Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 810-821, May.
  22. Uwe Latacz-Lohmann & Carel Van der Hamsvoort, 1997. "Auctioning Conservation Contracts: A Theoretical Analysis and an Application," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(2), pages 407-418.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:65:y:2008:i:4:p:753-764. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.