IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v12y2022i12p2028-d985923.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of the European Green Deal Policy in the Context of Agricultural Support Payments in Latvia

Author

Listed:
  • Irina Pilvere

    (Economic and Social Development Faculty, Latvia University of Life Sciences and Technologies, 18 Svetes Street, LV-3001 Jelgava, Latvia)

  • Aleksejs Nipers

    (Economic and Social Development Faculty, Latvia University of Life Sciences and Technologies, 18 Svetes Street, LV-3001 Jelgava, Latvia)

  • Aija Pilvere

    (Economic and Social Development Faculty, Latvia University of Life Sciences and Technologies, 18 Svetes Street, LV-3001 Jelgava, Latvia)

Abstract

The European Green Deal policy will significantly affect the resilience and development of agriculture, which will be determined by the 2021–2027 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reforms, entering into force in 2023. Therefore, the European Commission determines that at least 25% of the direct payments should be earmarked for eco-schemes, while 35% of the funding for rural development should be allocated to climate and environmental support measures. Support payments constitute a significant part of farmers’ income and guide their decision-making for production development. Therefore, the goal of the research was set by analysing the existing CAP support payment system in 2019 to determine the possible impact of the reform envisaged for 2023 on farms of various specialisations and sizes in Latvia. The analysis revealed that in Latvia in 2019, 83% of the total number of farms received support, the amount of the support was EUR 5616 per year per farm on average, and within the Single Area Payment Scheme (SAPS), the support was higher by 24%. Among the funding recipient farms, the support accounted for 28% of the farms’ income, calculated per 1 hectare. The detailed calculations carried out indicate that the possible base support payments as a result of the CAP 2023 reform are expected to be higher specifically in cattle breeding and dairy farming, which may contribute to even greater greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the future and thus reduce the likelihood of achieving the goals of the European Green Deal policy.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:12:y:2022:i:12:p:2028-:d:985923
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/12/12/2028/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/12/12/2028/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Muradian, Roldan & Corbera, Esteve & Pascual, Unai & Kosoy, Nicolás & May, Peter H., 2010. "Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1202-1208, April.
    2. Mariarita Cammarata & Giuseppe Timpanaro & Alessandro Scuderi, 2021. "Assessing Sustainability of Organic Livestock Farming in Sicily: A Case Study Using the FAO SAFA Framework," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-20, March.
    3. Turchetti, Luca & Gastaldin, Nadia & Marongiu , Sonia, 2021. "Enhancing the Italian FADN for sustainability assessment: The state of art and perspectives," Economia agro-alimentare / Food Economy, Italian Society of Agri-food Economics/Società Italiana di Economia Agro-Alimentare (SIEA), vol. 23(3), December.
    4. Lin, Boqiang & Wu, Nan, 2023. "Climate risk disclosure and stock price crash risk: The case of China," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 21-34.
    5. 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.
    6. Aleksandra Pawłowska & Renata Grochowska, 2021. "“Green” Transformation of the Common Agricultural Policy and Its Impact on Farm Income Disparities," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-15, December.
    7. Łukasz Nazarko & Eigirdas Žemaitis & Łukasz Krzysztof Wróblewski & Karel Šuhajda & Magdalena Zajączkowska, 2022. "The Impact of Energy Development of the European Union Euro Area Countries on CO 2 Emissions Level," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-12, February.
    8. Alina Petronela Alexoaei & Raluca Georgiana Robu & Valentin Cojanu & Dumitru Miron & Ana-Maria Holobiuc, 2022. "Good Practices in Reforming the Common Agricultural Policy to Support the European Green Deal – A Perspective on the Consumption of Pesticides and Fertilizers," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 24(60), pages 525-525, April.
    9. Anatoliy Tryhuba & Taras Hutsol & Maciej Kuboń & Inna Tryhuba & Serhii Komarnitskyi & Sylwester Tabor & Dariusz Kwaśniewski & Krzysztof Mudryk & Oleksandr Faichuk & Tetyana Hohol & Wioletta Tomaszewsk, 2022. "Taxonomy and Stakeholder Risk Management in Integrated Projects of the European Green Deal," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-15, March.
    10. Lankoski, Jussi & Thiem, Alrik, 2020. "Linkages between agricultural policies, productivity and environmental sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    11. Vaida Sapolaite & Armands Veveris & Artiom Volkov & Virginia Namiotko, 2019. "Dynamics in the Agricultural Sectors of the Baltic States: the Effects of the Common Agricultural Policy and Challenges for the Future," Montenegrin Journal of Economics, Economic Laboratory for Transition Research (ELIT), vol. 15(4), pages 211-223.
    12. Luca Turchetti & Nadia Gastaldin & Sonia Marongiu, 2021. "Enhancing the Italian FADN for sustainability assessment: The state of art and perspectives," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 23(3), pages 1-21.
    13. Alina Haller, 2022. "Influence of Agricultural Chains on the Carbon Footprint in the Context of European Green Pact and Crises," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-19, May.
    14. Silvia Ștefania Maican & Andreea Cipriana Muntean & Carmen Adina Paștiu & Sebastian Stępień & Jan Polcyn & Iulian Bogdan Dobra & Mălina Dârja & Claudia Olimpia Moisă, 2021. "Motivational Factors, Job Satisfaction, and Economic Performance in Romanian Small Farms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-23, May.
    15. Ewa Kiryluk-Dryjska & Agnieszka Baer-Nawrocka & Obinna Okereke, 2022. "The Environmental and Climatic CAP Measures in Poland vs. Farmers’ Expectations—Regional Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-13, June.
    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. Elena Toma & Paula Stoicea & Carina Dobre & Adina Iorga, 2023. "The Effect of Eco-Scheme Support on Romanian Farms—A Gini Index Decomposition by Income Source at Farm Level," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-15, August.
    2. Lucia Briamonte & Paolo Piatto & Dario Macaluso & Mariagrazia Rubertucci, 2023. "Trends and support models in public expenditure on agriculture: An italian perspective," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 25(2), pages 189-220.
    3. Wen Xiang & Jianzhong Gao, 2023. "Do Not Be Anticlimactic: Farmers’ Behavior in the Sustainable Application of Green Agricultural Technology—A Perceived Value and Government Support Perspective," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-24, January.
    4. Briamonte, Lucia & Piatto, Paolo & Macaluso, Dario & Rubertucci, Mariagrazia, 2023. "Trends and support models in public expenditure on agriculture: An italian perspective," Economia agro-alimentare / Food Economy, Italian Society of Agri-food Economics/Società Italiana di Economia Agro-Alimentare (SIEA), vol. 25(2), October.

    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. Sonia Marongiu & Barbara Bimbati & Mauro Santamgelo, 2021. "Use and users of FADN data in Italy," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 23(3), pages 1-21.
    2. Edwin Muchapondwa & Jesper Stage & Eric Mungatana & Pushpam Kumar, 2018. "Lessons from Applying Market-Based Incentives in Watershed Management," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 4(03), pages 1-41, July.
    3. Galati, Antonino & Crescimanno, Maria & Gristina, Luciano & Keesstra, Saskia & Novara, Agata, 2016. "Actual provision as an alternative criterion to improve the efficiency of payments for ecosystem services for C sequestration in semiarid vineyards," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 58-64.
    4. Frings, Oliver & Abildtrup, Jens & Montagné-Huck, Claire & Gorel, Salomé & Stenger, Anne, 2023. "Do individual PES buyers care about additionality and free-riding? A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    5. Hausknost, Daniel & Grima, Nelson & Singh, Simron Jit, 2017. "The political dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): Cascade or stairway?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 109-118.
    6. McGrath, F.L. & Carrasco, L.R. & Leimona, B., 2017. "How auctions to allocate payments for ecosystem services contracts impact social equity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 44-55.
    7. repec:gat:wpaper:1509 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Soh, Moonwon & Cho, Seong-Hoon & Yu, Edward & Boyer, Christopher & English, Burton, 2018. "Targeting Payments for Ecosystem Services Given Ecological and Economic Objectives," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266502, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    9. Elena Toma & Paula Stoicea & Carina Dobre & Adina Iorga, 2023. "The Effect of Eco-Scheme Support on Romanian Farms—A Gini Index Decomposition by Income Source at Farm Level," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-15, August.
    10. Rodríguez-Ortega, T. & Olaizola, A.M. & Bernués, A., 2018. "A novel management-based system of payments for ecosystem services for targeted agri-environmental policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 74-84.
    11. Desbureaux, Sébastien & Brimont, Laura, 2015. "Between economic loss and social identity: The multi-dimensional cost of avoiding deforestation in Eastern Madagascar," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 10-20.
    12. Yu, Bing & Xu, Linyu, 2016. "Review of ecological compensation in hydropower development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 729-738.
    13. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Soh, Moonwon & English, Burton C. & Yu, T. Edward & Boyer, Christopher N., 2019. "Targeting payments for forest carbon sequestration given ecological and economic objectives," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 214-226.
    14. Zhang, Jing & Brown, Colin & Qiao, Guanghua & Zhang, Bao, 2019. "Effect of Eco-compensation Schemes on Household Income Structures and Herder Satisfaction: Lessons From the Grassland Ecosystem Subsidy and Award Scheme in Inner Mongolia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 46-53.
    15. Geng, Yuqing & Liu, Liwen & Chen, Lingyan, 2023. "Rural revitalization of China: A new framework, measurement and forecast," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    16. Bennett, Drew E. & Gosnell, Hannah & Lurie, Susan & Duncan, Sally, 2014. "Utility engagement with payments for watershed services in the United States," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 56-64.
    17. Norgaard, Richard B., 2010. "Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1219-1227, April.
    18. Kosoy, Nicolás & Corbera, Esteve, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1228-1236, April.
    19. Beichen Ge & Congjin Wang & Yuhong Song, 2023. "Ecosystem Services Research in Rural Areas: A Systematic Review Based on Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-18, March.
    20. Trædal, Leif Tore & Vedeld, Pål Olav & Pétursson, Jón Geir, 2016. "Analyzing the transformations of forest PES in Vietnam: Implications for REDD+," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 109-117.
    21. Hahn, Thomas & McDermott, Constance & Ituarte-Lima, Claudia & Schultz, Maria & Green, Tom & Tuvendal, Magnus, 2015. "Purposes and degrees of commodification: Economic instruments for biodiversity and ecosystem services need not rely on markets or monetary valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 74-82.

    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:gam:jagris:v:12:y:2022:i:12:p:2028-:d:985923. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.