Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-k2jvg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-04T01:26:35.097Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Agricultural liberalisation, multifunctionality and the WTO: competing agendas for the future of farmed landscapes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Clive Potter
Edited by
Jørgen Primdahl  and
Simon Swaffield
Jørgen Primdahl
Affiliation:
University of Copenhagen
Simon Swaffield
Affiliation:
Lincoln University, New Zealand
Get access

Summary

Introduction

The international policy context is becoming increasingly important in any discussion of farmland sustainability and landscape change. In particular, the infrastructure of trade rules, subsidy codes and dispute settlement procedures overseen by the World Trade Organization (WTO) means that the governance of agriculture is ever more an international concern. The Agreement on Agriculture which concluded the Uruguay Trade Round in 1993, for instance, set boundaries on what national governments can do in terms of offering subsidies to farmers, and we have seen changes in the level and pattern of farm support in industrialised countries that have been a direct response to the politics of international trade (Higgins and Lawrence, 2005; Peine and McMichael, 2005). The latest round of trade talks under the Doha round, launched in 2001, continues this process of internationalisation, requiring negotiators to make progress towards furthering the market opening and decoupling of support that has come to define the liberalisation process. Negotiations were formally suspended in July 2006 but discussions are now underway to conclude the talks. At the time of writing (January 2009) a revised outline agriculture agreement is under active discussion. Pressure to complete the round remains strong and the consensus is that the resulting further liberalisation of markets and policy will be a major driver of land use and landscape change over the medium term, particularly in places like the European Union (EU) where protectionist policies are so long established and deeply entrenched.

Type
Chapter
Information
Globalisation and Agricultural Landscapes
Change Patterns and Policy trends in Developed Countries
 , pp. 17 - 30
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

,ABARE (2006). Multifunctionality: a pretext for protection?ABARE Current Issues, 99, 3, 1–6.Google Scholar
Anania, G. and Bureau, J. (2005). The negotiations on agriculture in the Doha Development Agenda Round: current status and future prospects. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 32, 539–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, E., Elbersen, B. and Godeschalk, F. (2004). Assessing multifunctionality of European livestock systems. In Sustaining Agriculture and the Rural Environment: Governance, Policy and Multifunctionality (ed.) Brouwer, F.. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Anderson, K. and Martin, W. (eds) (2006). Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda. London: Palgrave.
,Committee of Professional Agricultural Organisations (2000). COPA's Priorities for the Doha Round of WTO Negotiations. Brussels: COPA.Google Scholar
,Coordination Paysanne Europeenne (2001). To Change the Common Agricultural Policy. Brussels: CPE.Google Scholar
Daugbjerg, C. and Swinbank, A. (2007). The politics of CAP reform: trade negotiations, institutional settings and blame avoidance. Journal of Common Market Studies, 45, 1, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dibden, J., Potter, C. and Cocklin, C. (2009) Contesting the neoliberal project for agriculture: productivist and multifunctional trajectories in the European Union and Australia. Journal of Rural Studies, 25, 299–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobbs, T. and Pretty, J. (2004). Agri-environmental stewardship schemes and multifunctionality. Review of Agricultural Economics, 26, 221–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dwyer, J., Ingram, J., Mills, J. and Gaskell, P. (2006). CAP reform – implications of farm level changes for environmental outcomes. Report to Agricultural Change and Environment Observatory Programme. London: Defra.Google Scholar
Fish, R., Seymour, S. and Watkins, C. (2006). Sustainable farmland management as political and cultural discourse. The Geographical Journal, 172, 3, 183–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, V. and Lawrence, G. (eds) (2005). Agricultural Governance: Globalisation and the New Politics of Regulation. London: Routledge.
Treasury, HM and Defra, (2005). A Vision for the Common Agricultural Policy. London: HM Treasury.Google Scholar
Lobley, M. and Potter, C. (2004). Agricultural restructuring and state assistance: competing or complementary rural policy paradigms?Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 6, 3–18.Google Scholar
Losch, B. (2004). Debating the multifunctionality of agriculture: from trade negotiations to development policies by the South. Journal of Agrarian Change, 4, 3, 336–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowe, P., Buller, H. and Ward, N. (2002). Setting the next agenda? British and French approaches to the second pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy. Journal of Rural Studies, 18, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKinnon, N., Bryden, J., Bell, C., Fuller, A. and Spearman, M. (1991). Pluriactivity, structural change and farm household vulnerability in Western Europe. Sociologia Ruralis, 31, 58–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,MAFF (1995). European Agriculture: The Case for Radical Reform. London: MAFF.Google Scholar
Matthews, A. (2006). The road from Doha to Hong Kong in the WTO agriculture negotiations. European Journal of Agricultural Economics, 32, 561–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, J. (2005). Rural geography: multifunctional rural geographies – reactionary or radical?Progress in Human Geography, 29, 773–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moss, J., Patton, M., Kostov, P. et al. (2006). The Impact of Trade Liberalisation on Agriculture in the UK. Research Report. Department of Agricultural Economics, Queen's University, Belfast.Google Scholar
,Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2001). Multifunctionality: Towards an Analytical Framework. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Peine, E. and McMichael, P. (2005). Globalisation and global governance. In Agricultural Governance: Globalisation and the New Politics of Regulation (ed.) Higgins, V. and Lawrence, G.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Potter, C. (1998). Against the Grain: Agri-environmental Reform in the US and the EU. Wallingford: CABI.Google Scholar
Potter, C. (2006). Competing narratives for the future of European agriculture: the agri-environmental consequences of neoliberalization in the context of the Doha round. The Geographical Journal, 172, 190–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potter, C. (2009). Agri-environmental policy and rural change. In International Encyclopaedia of Human Geography (ed.) Kitchin, R. and Thrift, N.. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Potter, C. and Burney, J. (2002). Agricultural multifunctionality in the WTO: legitimate non-trade concern or disguised protectionism?Journal of Rural Studies, 18, 35–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, B. and McManus, P. (2000). Land of Discontent: The Dynamics of Change in Rural and Regional Australia. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.Google Scholar
Swinbank, A. (2006). Developments in the Doha Round and WTO dispute settlement procedure: some implications for EU agricultural policy. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 32, 551–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinbank, A. (2007). Agricultural subsidies in the WTO Green Box: an overview of upcoming issues from a sustainable development viewpoint. ICTSD Expert Meeting, Montreux, Switzerland, 16–17 April 2007.Google Scholar
Meijl, H. and Tongeren, F. (2002). The Agenda 2000 CAP reform, world prices and GATT-WTO export constraints. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 29, 445–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vera, F. (2000). Grazing Ecology and Forest History. Wallingford: CABI.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, G. (2007). Multifunctional Agriculture: A Transition Theory Perspective. Wallingford: CABI.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×