Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- List of abbreviations
- 1 Overview
- PART I The recent evolution of agricultural trade policy reform
- PART II The focus, extent and economic impact of green box subsidies
- PART III Green box subsidies and developing countries
- PART IV Green box subsidies and the environment
- 15 The environmental impact of green box subsidies: exploring the linkages
- 16 The environmental impact of EU green box subsidies
- 17 The environmental impact of US green box subsidies
- 18 Biofuels subsidies and the green box
- PART V Looking forward: how can change take place?
- Appendix: Text of Annex 2 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture (“the green box”)
- Index
- References
17 - The environmental impact of US green box subsidies
from PART IV - Green box subsidies and the environment
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 May 2010
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- List of abbreviations
- 1 Overview
- PART I The recent evolution of agricultural trade policy reform
- PART II The focus, extent and economic impact of green box subsidies
- PART III Green box subsidies and developing countries
- PART IV Green box subsidies and the environment
- 15 The environmental impact of green box subsidies: exploring the linkages
- 16 The environmental impact of EU green box subsidies
- 17 The environmental impact of US green box subsidies
- 18 Biofuels subsidies and the green box
- PART V Looking forward: how can change take place?
- Appendix: Text of Annex 2 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture (“the green box”)
- Index
- References
Summary
Introduction
This is an effort to focus not on the trade-related features of US green box payments, but on their environmental effects. It is easy to assume that they are benign, since many environmental programs are notified as green box measures. However a closer investigation reveals that this may not always be the case. Even though they are assumed to have no production-enhancing features, some do – and increased production can be harmful to the environment since US agriculture at scale almost always involves cropping systems that deplete soil and water resources and release carbon. Other US green box measures can be equally disruptive to the environment. “Emergency” natural disaster payments can keep producers on marginal lands in business if the payments are as annual as some of the crops they grow. Furthermore environmental programs with the best intentions can reward producers for doing what they would do in any case, even though it is not better than what is normal for the region or the crop.
There are many safeguards in place to ensure that programs are effective and achieve their objectives, but what happens to programs based on market mechanisms when the market rewards poor environmental performance? Finally, what alternatives might be suggested to more closely align green box programs with their intended use? These and other relevant issues are discussed below.
Background
The green box is not green
The “green box” is of course not “green” in the environmental sense.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Agricultural Subsidies in the WTO Green BoxEnsuring Coherence with Sustainable Development Goals, pp. 496 - 529Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2009
References
and (2005), “Judging the Performance of the 2002 Farm Bill”, Iowa Ag Review Online, Spring, http://www.card.iastate.edu/iowa_ag_review.Google Scholar
and (2007), “Impact of High Corn Prices on Conservation Reserve Program Acreage”, Iowa Ag Review Online, Spring, Vol. 13, No. 2.Google Scholar
(2002), “Farm Commodity Programs: A Short Primer”, Congressional Research Service, CRS Report for Congress RS20848, updated 20 June.Google Scholar
(1988), “After the CRP contract expires,” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 43(4): 291–3, National Agricultural Library Call #: 56.8 J822, ISSN: 0022–4561.Google Scholar
and (2007), “Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): Status and Issues”, Congressional Research Service, CRS Report RS22040.Google Scholar
(2006), “Conservation compliance effectiveness depends on where the money goes”, USDA Economic Research Service, Amber Waves, April, Vol. 4, Issue 2.Google Scholar
(2007), “Conservation Policy: Compliance Provisions for Soil and Wetland Conservation”, USDA Economic Research Service, 30 April, http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/ConservationPolicy/compliance.htmGoogle Scholar
(2004), World Agriculture and the Environment, A Commodity-by-Commodity Guide to Impacts and Practices.Google Scholar
, and (2003), “Some Domestic Environmental Effects of US Agricultural Adjustments under Liberalized Trade: A Preliminary Analysis”, http://www.ecostat.unical.it/2003agtradeconf/Contributed%20papers/Cooper,%20Johansson%20and%20Peters.pdf.Google Scholar
(2000), “U.S. Farm Program Benefits: Links to Planting Decisions & Agricultural Markets”, Agricultural Outlook, October, http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/agoutlook/oct2000/ao275e.pdf.Google Scholar
and (2005), “Green Payments in U.S. and European Union Agricultural Policy”, Congressional Research Service, 22 November, CRS Report RL32624.Google Scholar
, , et al. (2002), “Tracing the Impacts of Food Assistance Programs on Agriculture and Consumers: A Computable General Equilibrium Model”, USDA Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Report No. (FANRR18), May.Google Scholar
(2006), “Agricultural Subsidies in the WTO ‘Green Box;’ An overview of the key issues from a sustainable development viewpoint,” June.Google Scholar
, , et al. (2006), “Conservation-Compatible Practices and Programs: Who Participates?” US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Report No. (ERR14), February.Google Scholar
, , et al. (2006), “Environmental Effects of Agricultural Land-Use Change: The Role of Economics and Policy”, Economic Research Report No. (ERR-25), August, http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR25/.Google Scholar
, and (2007), “Low Costs Drive Production to Large Dairy Farms”, Economic Research Service, USDA, Amber Waves, September.Google Scholar
, , et al. (2003), “The Economic and Environmental Impacts of Agricultural Subsidies: An Assessment of the 2002 US Farm Bill & Doha Round”, Unisféra International Centre, May, Commission on Environmental Cooperation.Google Scholar
, and (2005), “Growing Farm Size and the Distribution of Farm Commodity Payments”, US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Amber Waves, February.Google Scholar
Wilfred Legg, head of the Agricultural Policies and Environment Division in the OECD Trade and Agriculture Directorate, “Agri-Environmental Programs in OECD countries” in , , and (eds.), US Agricultural Policy and the 2007 Farm Bill: Promoting the Economic Resilience and Conserving the Ecological Integrity of American Farmlands.Google Scholar
(2007), “The 2007 Farm Bill: Policy Options and Consequences of Buyouts”, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, February, http://www.farmfoundation.org/projects/documents/buyouts.pdf.Google Scholar
“What is the U.S. Farm Policy Future?” ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development, draft.Google Scholar
, and (2007), “Long-term Trends in Population, Farm Income, and Crop Production in the Great Plains”, Bioscience Journal, September, http://www.aibs.org/bioscience-press-releases/resources/10-07.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2003), “Who Benefits from Government Farm Payments?” Choices Magazine, American Association of Agricultural Economics, 3rd Quarter – 18(3), http://www.choicesmagazine.org/2003-3/2003-3-02.Google Scholar
and (2005), “U.S. Agriculture After Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: Status and Issues”, Congressional Research Service (CRS), 5 October.Google Scholar
and (2007), “Impact of High Crop Prices on Environmental Quality: A Case of Iowa and the Conservation Reserve Program”, Working Paper 07-WP Ames, Iowa 50011–1070, http://www.card.iastate.edu/publications/DBS/PDFFiles/07wp447.pdf.Google Scholar
(2007), “A Saner, Simpler, Impossible Farm Bill”, Plenty Magazine, 30 July, http://www.plentymag.com/blogs/notebook/2007/07/a_saner_simpler_impossible_far.php.Google Scholar
(2007), “Who Does U.S. Food Aid Benefit?” In These Times, 12 September, http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3342/who_does_us_food_aid_benefit/.Google Scholar
1969 (NEPA), 42 USC 4321–47.Google Scholar
(2006), “Assessing the Environmental Impact of Farm Policies”, American Enterprise Institute, July.Google Scholar
(1995), “Federal Agricultural Policy: A Harvest of Environmental Abuse”, August, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C., http://cei.org/pdf/1427.pdf.Google Scholar
, and (1985), “Modern Agriculture: Its Effects on the Environment”, Cornell Cooperative Extension, http://ecommons.library.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/3909/2/Groundwater%20-%20Effects%20of%20Agriculture%20(Fact%20Sheet).pdf.Google Scholar
(2006), “Green Box Subsidies, A Theoretical and Empirical Assessment”, Version 28 September, prepared under UNCTAD India DFID Project, unedited version.Google Scholar
(2006), “United States Department of Agriculture – 2007 Farm Bill Theme Papers, Conservation and the Environment”, Executive Summary, http://www.usda.gov/documents/FarmBill07consenv.pdf.Google Scholar
(2003), “Decoupled Payments: Household Income Transfers in Contemporary US Agriculture”, Mary E. Burfisher and Jeffrey Hopkins (eds), AER-822, February.Google Scholar
(2007), “ERS Farm and Commodity Policy: Basics of U.S. Agricultural Policy”, http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Archive/FarmPolicyPre2008/FarmPolicyBriefingRoom19962007.pdf.Google Scholar
(1999), “Consideration of Cumulative Impacts In EPA Review of NEPA Documents”, Office of Federal Activities (2252A) EPA 315-R-99-002/May 1999, http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/nepa/cumulative.pdf.Google Scholar
US Notification, World Trade Organization, Committee on Agriculture, G/AG/N/USA/60, 9 October 2007.Google Scholar
, “Expect More” website rating all US federal government programs, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/about.html; agriculture, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/topic/Agriculture.html.Google Scholar
, “Payment Reductions and Violations” for State and County Officers, http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/4-cp.pdf.Google Scholar
(2000), “U.S. Farm Program Benefits: Links to Planting Decisions & Agricultural Markets”, USDA, Economic Research Service, Agricultural Outlook, October, http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/agoutlook/oct2000/contents.htm#two.Google Scholar
and (2002), “Influences of Decoupled Farm Programs on Agricultural Production”, US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Conference on Free Trade of the Americas, the WTO, and New Farm Legislation: Responding to Opportunities and Challenges, San Antonio, Texas, 23–24 May, http://cnas.tamu.edu/publications/powerpoint/Papers/Westcott.pdf.Google Scholar
, , et al. (2002), “Conservation Tillage Peanut Production”, SS-AGR-185, Agronomy Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, first published October 2002, reviewed November 2006, http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu.Google Scholar