Search

Copyright of Historia Agraria is the property of Historia Agraria and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Pastureland maintenance is seen as a land-based measure to reduce dependency on feed concentrates and mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from livestock production in the EU, while providing other ecosystems services. This paper assesses potential market-mediated impacts, including global Land Use Change (LUC) and GHG emissions, from increased subsidies to pasture-based livestock production in the EU. A tax recycling strategy (TRS) is simulated against a baseline up to 2030 under the shared socioeconomic pathway 2 (SSP2). This implies a budget-neutral increase in the level of pasture subsidies in individual Member States, as land subsidies for other cropping activities decrease. We employ the computable general equilibrium (CGE) model GTAP in its recursive-dynamic version, GTAP-RDEM, extended with the Multi-Regional Input-Output (MRIO) database FABIO to disaggregate agri-food sectors from 21 to 31. This approach allows considering price- and income-dependent feedbacks when assessing long-run changes in the global economy, improving the sectoral resolution relative to GTAP v10. The policy increases pastureland areas and cattle production in almost all EU Member States, whereas cropland and crop production decrease, causing significant changes across EU agri-food markets. Crop prices increase, leading to the reduced output of intensive animal production sectors, mainly pig and poultry. Cropland areas decrease and most EU countries increase imports of grain, oilseeds, and cakes, essentially soybean cake from Brazil and North America. While GHG emissions decrease in those EU countries where pasturelands expand mainly at the cost of croplands, GHG emissions increase in those countries where pastureland expansion comes with forest loss. As a result, net GHG emissions increase in the EU-27 in 2030 (+2.49 Mt CO 2 -eq). Emissions from LUC in major non-EU grain- and oilseed-exporting countries increase, e.g., by 102.52 Mt CO 2 -eq in Brazil and by 129.17 Mt CO 2 -eq in North America. The simulated policy shows that promoting extensive livestock per se does not meet the objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy and the EU Green Deal. The TRS should be complemented with policies to foster crop diversification and promote the use of domestic feed sources (e.g., legumes) to effectively ensure feed self-sufficiency and that extensive cattle production in the EU does not lead to deforestation in carbon-rich countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Transfers, in the form of subsidies, are a government intervention aimed at boosting economic development. These are provided through various instruments that affect production and trade. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development classifies these instruments into categories from most to least distorting. In its strategy of deregulating the world market, it encourages the use of the latter in agricultural policy. Nonetheless, the effect of this recommendation on the value of agricultural production has been poorly researched. This work assessed the relationship between the amounts of support in different agricultural policy instruments used and the value of the production of subsidized agricultural products (VpS) in Mexico, Brazil, and Chile during the period 1995-2020, through a multiple linear regression model with the stepwise backward elimination procedure. The results show that the transfer items that were relevant to explain the VpS in Mexico were: storage, marketing and other physical infrastructure, support based on area and number of animals, extension services, safety and inspection of agricultural products and institutional infrastructure (p< 0.05), in Brazil they were: research, market prices and education (p< 0.05) and in Chile they were: research, storage, marketing and other physical infrastructure, and farm restructuring (p< 0.05). It should be noted that all instruments with a significant effect on the VpS are classified as less distortive, except for the market price support present in Brazil. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]