4.7 Article

Cross Compliance as payment for public goods? Understanding EU and US agricultural policies

Journal

ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS
Volume 107, Issue -, Pages 185-194

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.08.010

Keywords

Environmental policy; Ecosystem services; Direct payments; Payments for ecosystem services; CAP; Conservation compliance

Funding

  1. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) [01UU0911]
  2. Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) [FKZ: 3510 88 0300]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cross Compliance (CC) is a mechanism for encouraging farmers to fulfill certain environmental conditions in return for governmental support payments. Introduced to United States (US) and European Union (EU) agricultural policy from the 80s onwards, upcoming new US (Farm Bill 2012) and EU (Common Agricultural Policy after 2013) policies will include CC. Cross Compliance is seen (i) as a policy for enforcing environmental objectives or (ii) as a way to organize and reward agricultural public good production. In recent years, the instrument's effectiveness and efficiency have been criticized. To validate the deviating understandings, we drew back on an economic institutionalist perspective. We found that regarding EU CC as payment for public goods does not generally align with the existing German property rights distribution. In both the EU and US, CC standards above those contained regulatory law have characteristics of a payment for public goods but create severe problems. We conclude that CC, even if useful for triggering and broadening environmental protection efforts, may cause several long-term problems. Therefore, the rights structure should be clearly communicated, law enforcement function should be temporary, the instrument should be included in an overall concept, and payments should be better linked to the environmental output. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available