Search

The introduction of cross-compliance mechanism in the European Union with its 2003 CAP-reform might affect the costs of production and thus competitiveness of the EU. Little evidence is available to asses the costs of compliance with regulations and it implication for trade. In this study a farm level competitiveness analysis of the impacts of the Nitrate Directive and the Identification & registration Directive focuses on the dairy sector in Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands and UK (within EU), and the US and New Zealand (outside EU). The findings from this study are integrated into a trade analysis which assesses the impact of compliance costs on competitiveness of the various trading nations in global trade. Representative farm studies were used as a basis for the cost increase calculations. Best-estimates of compliance are used from the existing literature and expert judgements. The negative impact of these measures (for nitrates, and animal identification and registration) on EU imports and exports are less than 3 percent. If a smaller increase in compliance takes place, these already relatively small trade impacts will be further diminished. When the standards for nitrate pollution taken by the US and New Zealand are taken into account along with full compliance assumption in all countries analysed, this would only slightly improve the EU exports. The trade impacts obtained when no changes are assumed to happen in key competitor countries can thus be argued as providing the upper bound of the likely trade impacts.

Beef and pig production are important sectors affected by the cross-compliance policy. Full compliance with SMRs and GAECs generates costs and benefits which may have an impact on the competitiveness of these sectors on the world market. Compliance with the Nitrate Directive, animal identification and registration requirements and animal welfare standards can give rise to non-negligible cost of production increases at individual farm level and at sector level. Additional costs can be relevant either due to a low degree of compliance or by significant adjustments costs at farm level. Full compliance generates a level playing field between Member States of the EU, as some countries have to face higher additional costs than others, which are be attributed to differences in degree of compliance. This paper first presents evidence of additional costs at individual farm level due to full compliance. Then for beef and pork a methodology has been developed in order to calculate sector cost impacts following an upcsaling procedure for each of the analysed directives. Simulations with the GTAP model have enabled an assessment of the trade effect of compliance with standards and the impact on the external competitiveness of the EU beef and pork production. In some policy fields covered by cross-compliance important trade partners such as Canada, USA and New Zealand have implemented policies similar to the EU. In these three countries comparable standards to those in the EU were identified and the level and cost of compliance have been assessed. The pig sector will be affected most by a unilateral compliance with standards in the EU, in particular as the Nitrate Directive is concerned. Within the EU pig production costs will rise by 0.545 %. Imports may increase by 4% and exports may fall by 3%. However full application of the Clean Water Act in the US, which contains similar obligations to the Nitrate Directive, generates a significant sector cost increase (1,08%) which may counterbalance the loss of competitiveness of EU pork production towards the US. Compliance with the mandatory animal welfare standards has only minor cost implications and has negligible effects on external competitiveness of the EU both because of a high degree of compliance and relatively low adjustment costs at farm level. Finally, in many EU member states the degree of compliance of beef farms with the animal registration and identification directives is below 100%. Additional costs for full compliance within the EU have been estimated at 0.455%, which may cause an increase of beef imports of 2.21% and a decline of exports of ¿2.12%. This loss in competitiveness of the EU will further favour the position of Brazil on the world beef market. At the other hand significant benefits are obtained in food security of EU beef.