IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Importance Of Cap Reforms For The Dutch Agricultural Sector In 2000-2020


  • Tabeau, Andrzej A.
  • van Leeuwen, Myrna


Since 2000, the two important reforms of The EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) took place. The Agenda 2000 Berlin Agreement of March 1999 aimed to increase EU agriculture market orientation and focuses on the grain, oilseed, dairy and the beef sectors. It reduced intervention prices in these sectors and lowered the set-aside requirements for crops and by implementation of non-crop specific compensatory payments. The core of The Luxembourg Agreement from June 2003 was an acceleration of decoupling of farm support initiated by the Agenda 2000 complementary payment. It introduces a system of direct payments (known as single payment scheme - SPS), which are no longer linked to the production (decoupling). This CAP reform also includes commodity specific measures, especially in dairy sector. The Luxemburg Agreement links the direct payments to farmers with farm management practices which maintain environmental and other requirements set at EU and national levels (‘Cross-compliance’). The goal of this paper is twofold. First, we investigate the impact of the CAP reform on the Dutch agricultural sector in 2004 – 2007; second we examine effects of possible future CAP reform decision on the Dutch agriculture till 2020. The study is based on the AGMEMOD econometric model developed within the framework of projects financed by the European Commission. It reflects a sectoral, dynamic, partial equilibrium model, which takes into account the national specificities and is built up of models for the Member States of the EU27. The foundation for AGMEMOD is laid in the establishment of country model templates, which must achieve compatibility of the models to be built and the communality of data. The most important differences between the national models are macroeconomic assumptions, components of policies under the CAP and SAPS (in respect with the new Member States) and assumptions on the impact of direct payments on agricultural production (degree of decoupling). On the country level, commodity templates must encapsulate the modeling system to be used. Many components of these templates are based on the information and guidelines delivered by Hanrahan (2001), but then adapted to country-specific conditions. At least, they must contain issues on market and policy description, flow charts, key market and specification of the functional forms of the commodity model. The AGMEMOD model covers all important CAP commodities: grains, oilseeds, potatoes, sugar and sugar beets, livestock products, milk and dairy products. We will investigate the CAP impact on the Dutch agriculture by mean of policy simulations with the Dutch AGMEMOD model. To isolate policy effect in the historical period 2000 - 2007, counterfactual simulations for 2000 - 2007 will be run. To simulate the response of the Dutch agriculture on different policy changes in 2008 - 2020, the no-policy change baseline scenario will be developed and several policy experiments will be conducted: milk quota abolition, biofuel directive implementation and animal premiums decoupling. To indentify the policy effects the policy scenarios will be compared with the baseline.

Suggested Citation

  • Tabeau, Andrzej A. & van Leeuwen, Myrna, 2008. "Importance Of Cap Reforms For The Dutch Agricultural Sector In 2000-2020," 109th Seminar, November 20-21, 2008, Viterbo, Italy 44815, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:eaa109:44815

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Magdalinos, Michael A, 1988. "The Local Power of the Tests of Overidentifying Restrictions," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 29(3), pages 509-524, August.
    2. John Shea, 1997. "Instrument Relevance in Multivariate Linear Models: A Simple Measure," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 79(2), pages 348-352, May.
    3. Michael F. Förster, 1994. "Measurement of Low Incomes and Poverty in A Perspective of International Comparisons," OECD Labour Market and Social Policy Occasional Papers 14, OECD Publishing.
    4. Chatelain, Jean-Bernard, 2007. "Improving consistent moment selection procedures for generalized method of moments estimation," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 380-385, June.
    5. Hausman, Jerry A & Taylor, William E, 1981. "Panel Data and Unobservable Individual Effects," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(6), pages 1377-1398, November.
    6. Donald W. K. Andrews, 1999. "Consistent Moment Selection Procedures for Generalized Method of Moments Estimation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 67(3), pages 543-564, May.
    7. Gardner, Bruce L, 1992. "Changing Economic Perspectives on the Farm Problem," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 30(1), pages 62-101, March.
    8. Bruce L. Gardner, 2000. "Economic Growth and Low Incomes in Agriculture," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(5), pages 1059-1074.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. Niemi, Jyrki S. & Kettunen, Lauri, 2011. "An analysis of the potential CAP changes: A Finnish case study," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114612, European Association of Agricultural Economists.

    More about this item


    CAP; CAP Reform; Dutch agriculture; Agricultural and Food Policy; Research Methods/ Statistical Methods; Q10; Q18;

    JEL classification:

    • Q10 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - General
    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:ags:eaa109:44815. 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: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.