Search

Agricultural regulation in Indonesia is almost entirely focused on adaptation and food security. Mitigation of emissions from the sector is not presented as an obligation in the country's body of agricultural law. This situation, which emphasizes autarky, does not facilitate a strong agricultural mitigation policy in the country; and, in fact, Indonesia's policies and planned actions on greenhouse-gas-emission reduction in agriculture are narrow, vague, and lacking in ambition. The emphatic adaptation focus of Indonesia's body of agricultural regulation may reflect entrenched values about the role of agriculture in society. An alternative explanation is that the regulatory emphasis on adaptation is an instance of regulatory inertia, sustained by a tradition of agricultural protectionism that deflects risky reforms. Inertia is problematic in itself, as it closes off the sector to innovation. But inertia is not as serious as a values-based resistance in the country to the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. A government's mandate in a democratic society to act ambitiously on climate change, in a climate-treaty context that demands little more than "national determination" of ambition, must necessarily be obtained from, in large part, those most directly affected by a regulatory change – in this case, farmers. An inquiry that seeks to elicit their opinion in this respect is overdue. A survey of farmers' views on their willingness to support mitigation of emissions from their sector would add to our understanding of the risks that our slow response to climate change entails, for it is a response that presumes that a significant mitigation contribution will eventually be made by each and every economic sector, including agriculture. If the issue is mere inertia, the outlook is more optimistic than if the issue is active resistance. Because agriculture is still a closed sector, not only in developing but also in developed countries, this article contributes to our understanding of research priorities for climate law around the world. The article is the first in a series this journal will publish under our co-editorship on climate change law in Indonesia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Existing research demonstrates why farmers demand subsidies, but remains ambiguous as to why consumers/taxpayers support or rather do not oppose such subsidies. We approach this puzzle from two angles: how sensitive are citizens to cost implications of agricultural subsidies, and what is their "value function" with respect to agricultural policy? We argue that farm subsidies, besides benefiting farmers, promise to generate an array of non-market goods that serve various interests in society and thus receive strong support overall. To test our argument, we conducted conjoint survey experiments in two countries: Switzerland and the United States. Our results show that while cost implications only marginally reduce support for subsidies, support is positively affected by the allocation of subsidies to various policy goals, such as guaranteeing food security and enhancing animal welfare. These findings suggest that individual-level support for agricultural subsidies does not result from a lack of information, but reflect genuine appreciation of the perceived multi-functionality of agricultural subsidies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this research we intend to do an analysis of the economic and commercial policies development of the agro-food sector, in terms of ensuring the food security of the Republic of Moldova, in the context of integration into the European Union. We will mention international best practices, but also the EU member countries to assess the process of modernization of agriculture; marketing analysis of domestic agricultural products compared to other EU member countries, policy analysis for the development of agro-food production necessary to ensure Moldova's food; elaboration of recommendations to reduce the risks in the agro-food sector of Moldova.

The persistence of agricultural protectionism throughout the world is intriguing given the widely recognized benefits of free trade. The political economy literature over the last decades has considered groups' interest, politicians' preferences, and their interactions within domestic politics as the primary forces driving agricultural protection. Yet, a growing body of studies suggests that it would be judicious to weigh in consumers' or taxpayers' perspectives in deciphering the nature of agricultural protection. This study examines U.S. citizens' preferences about government intervention in agriculture and trade. Results show that they are in strong support of agricultural protection and their perceptions of national food security, family farms, environmental sustainability, and multifunctionality of agriculture play a significant role in shaping their support/opposition toward government intervention. The conventional political economy literature theorizes that consumers or taxpayers would oppose public policies that increase their tax burden; however, in the case of the farm sector, they have little incentive to voice their objections given the costs of farm programs are spread across a large number of consumers and taxpayers. U.S. citizens' support for government involvement in agriculture as reported in this and other prior studies does not lend support for such political economy explanation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Embedded in the debate in the Philippines over food security and food sovereignty are three conventional reasons why the country is a longstanding rice importer: geography, exploitative international policy pressure predicated on the dictates of neoliberalism, and colonial history. This paper argues that these conventional reasons share two limitations. First, they attribute mono-causal reasons for perennial rice imports, either in the form of geography, exogenous power, or history. While these perspectives are not wrong, each on its own is inadequate. Multiple, contributing factors have and will continue to abound. Second, each of these arguments limits Filipinos' agency. Through a four-part argument, I show how Filipinos have had more say in the reasons for serial rice imports than these conventional accounts allow. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In this research we intend to do an analysis of the economic and commercial policies development of the agro-food sector, in terms of ensuring the food security of the Republic of Moldova, in the context of integration into the European Union. We will mention international best practices, but also the EU member countries to assess the process of modernization of agriculture; marketing analysis of domestic agricultural products compared to other EU member countries, policy analysis for the development of agro-food production necessary to ensure Moldova's food; elaboration of recommendations to reduce the risks in the agro-food sector of Moldova. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Scholars at the intersection of agricultural trade policy and health regulation have speculated that some governments, under the pretext of health protection, have adopted food safety and plant and animal health regulations to shield domestic farmers from foreign competition. In this paper, we investigate the relationship between trade protection for agriculture and the number of trade-restricting sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) regulatory notifications issued by World Trade Organization (WTO) members. We construct an empirical model to determine the influence of agricultural protectionism, agricultural interest groups, consumer sentiment, and institutional capacity on changes to a government's SPS rules. The findings suggest that governments' adoption of trade-restricting sanitary and phytosanitary regulations are influenced by agricultural protectionism, even after controlling for consumer awareness and institutional capacity. The evidence suggests that health related trade policies are substituting for more traditional forms of agricultural protectionism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]