Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T11:40:55.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Environmental and Economic Implications of Alternative EC Policies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Peter S. Liapis
Peter S. Liapis*
Affiliation:
ATAD, ERS, U.S. Dept. Agriculture
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A net trade model that includes environmental variables is used to analyze economic and environmental implications of various EC policies. There are environmental benefits from CAP reform, but a fertilizer tax results in greater nitrate and phosphate abatement. The input tax also results in smaller drops in EC farm income compared to CAP reform.

Keywords

CAP reformenvironmental policiesEuropean Communityfertilizer taxnet trade modelNitrate Directive
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , July 1994 , pp. 241 - 251
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1994

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

Abler, David G., and Shortle, James S.. “Environmental and Farm Commodity Policy Linkages in the US and the EC.” Euro. Rev. Agr. Econ, 19(1992a): 197–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abler, David G., and Shortle, James S.. “Potential for Environmental and Agricultural Policy Linkages and Reforms in the European Community.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 74(1992b):775–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agra Europe. Agriculture and the Environment: How Will the EC Resolve the Conflict? Special Report No. 60, London, 1991.Google Scholar
Anderson, Kym. “Agricultural Trade Liberalization and the Environment: A Global Perspective.” World Econ. 15(1992):153–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, V.E., “Modeling Supply Response in a Multiproduct Framework.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 70(1988):813–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fertilizer Institute. The Fertilizer Handbook. Wash. DC.Google Scholar
Field, Heather, “The Environmental Cost of the CAP”, Paper presented at the 35th. Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural Economics Society, University of New England, Annidale, Feb. 11-14, 1991.Google Scholar
Gunasekera, H. Don B.H., Rodriguez, Gil R., and Andrews, Neil P., “Taxing Fertilizer use in EC Farm Production: Implications for Agricultural Trade.” Paper presented at Agricultural Workshop '92, Pacific Economic Cooperation Conference, East-West Center, Honolulu, 14-16, May 1992.Google Scholar
Hanley, N. “The Economics of Nitrate Pollution.” Euro. Rev. Agr. Econ. 17(1990): 129–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haley, Stephen L., “Assessing Environmental and Agricultural Policy Linkages in the European Community: A Trade Modeling Perspective.” unpublished, Econ. Res. Serv., U.S. Dept. Agr. 1992.Google Scholar
Koopmans, Tom Th. “An Application of an Agro-Economic Model to Environmental Issues in the EC: A Case Study.” Euro. Rev. Agr. Econ. 14(1987): 147–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leuck, Dale. Policies to Reduce Nitrate Pollution in the European Community and Possible Effects on Livestock Production. Staff Report No. AGES 9318, Econ. Res. Serv. U.S. Dept. Agr. Sept. 1993.Google Scholar
Liapis, Peter S.Incorporating Inputs in the Static World Policy Simulation Model (SWOPSIM). Technical Bulletin No. 1780, U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ. Res. Serv., June, 1990.Google Scholar
OECD. National Policies and Agricultural Trade. Paris, 1987.Google Scholar
Parikh, K.S., Fischer, G., Frohberg, K., and Gulbrandsen, O.. Towards Free Trade in Agriculture. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roningen, Vernon O.A Static World Policy Simulation (SWOPSIM) Modeling Framework. Staff Report No. AGES860625, Econ. Res. Serv., U.S. Dept. Agr. 1986.Google Scholar
Roningen, Vernon O., and Dixit, Praveen M.. How Level is the Playing Field? An Economic Analysis of Agricultural Policy Reforms in Industrialized Market Economies. FAER No. 239, Econ. Res. Serv., U.S. Dept. Agr., 1989.Google Scholar
Tyers, Rodney, and Anderson, Kim. “Distortions in World Food Markets: A Quantitative Assessment.” World Development Report 1986. World Bank, 1986.Google Scholar
USDA. Animal Waste Utilization on Cropland and Pastureland: A Manual for Evaluating Agronomic and Environmental Effects. USDA Utilization Report No. 6. Wash. DC. 1979.Google Scholar