Policy Evaluation for Climate Mitigations in the European Agricultural Sector—A Comparison of Policy Options at Micro and Macro Level

IF 2.4 3区 经济学 Q2 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY
John Helming, Elisa Bardazzi, David Schaefer, Hugo Scherer, Zuzana Smeets Kristkova
{"title":"Policy Evaluation for Climate Mitigations in the European Agricultural Sector—A Comparison of Policy Options at Micro and Macro Level","authors":"John Helming,&nbsp;Elisa Bardazzi,&nbsp;David Schaefer,&nbsp;Hugo Scherer,&nbsp;Zuzana Smeets Kristkova","doi":"10.1111/1467-8489.70068","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The purpose of this paper is to discuss the micro- and macro-outcomes for the standard neoclassical carbon tax (whose burden falls on the producers) versus the implication of a budget neutral, performance-based EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) focusing on non-CO<sub>2</sub> emission (N<sub>2</sub>O and CH<sub>4</sub>, measured in CO<sub>2</sub>eq) reduction, especially in the livestock sector. The subsidy is budget neutral as financed via the current basic payment of the first pillar of the CAP. The policies are applied to the single farm level model FarmDyn to take into account heterogeneity between farms and regions and the macro model MAGNET to take into account market feedback and possible leakage effects. Farm level mitigation potentials and costs from FarmDyn are used to calibrate the EU27 national milk production Marginal Abatement Costs Curves (MACCs) in MAGNET. On the other hand, scenario-specific changes in prices of agricultural inputs and output from MAGNET are used as input in FarmDyn, improving the consistency of the modelling framework. The results of the simulations conducted in this framework show clear conclusions. On the one hand, imposing a standard carbon tax on non-CO<sub>2</sub> emissions in the agricultural sector is the most effective method to achieve a greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction as the carbon tax can lead to significant reduction of total agricultural GHG emissions (MAGNET). Nevertheless, this result is connected to several trade-offs, such as farm income losses in the short term (FarmDyn) and losses in agricultural production and employment (different by country in the EU27) in the somewhat longer term (MAGNET). On the other hand, subsidising the emission abatement costs allows for mitigating almost completely the negative trade-offs while still allowing a substantial reduction of agricultural emissions. However, subsidies easily result in overcompensation and increased prices of inputs and technologies that mitigate emissions.</p>","PeriodicalId":55427,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics","volume":"70 3","pages":"625-641"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8489.70068","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8489.70068","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/11/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the micro- and macro-outcomes for the standard neoclassical carbon tax (whose burden falls on the producers) versus the implication of a budget neutral, performance-based EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) focusing on non-CO2 emission (N2O and CH4, measured in CO2eq) reduction, especially in the livestock sector. The subsidy is budget neutral as financed via the current basic payment of the first pillar of the CAP. The policies are applied to the single farm level model FarmDyn to take into account heterogeneity between farms and regions and the macro model MAGNET to take into account market feedback and possible leakage effects. Farm level mitigation potentials and costs from FarmDyn are used to calibrate the EU27 national milk production Marginal Abatement Costs Curves (MACCs) in MAGNET. On the other hand, scenario-specific changes in prices of agricultural inputs and output from MAGNET are used as input in FarmDyn, improving the consistency of the modelling framework. The results of the simulations conducted in this framework show clear conclusions. On the one hand, imposing a standard carbon tax on non-CO2 emissions in the agricultural sector is the most effective method to achieve a greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction as the carbon tax can lead to significant reduction of total agricultural GHG emissions (MAGNET). Nevertheless, this result is connected to several trade-offs, such as farm income losses in the short term (FarmDyn) and losses in agricultural production and employment (different by country in the EU27) in the somewhat longer term (MAGNET). On the other hand, subsidising the emission abatement costs allows for mitigating almost completely the negative trade-offs while still allowing a substantial reduction of agricultural emissions. However, subsidies easily result in overcompensation and increased prices of inputs and technologies that mitigate emissions.

欧洲农业部门减缓气候变化的政策评估——微观和宏观层面的政策选择比较
本文的目的是讨论标准新古典碳税(其负担落在生产者身上)的微观和宏观结果与预算中性、基于绩效的欧盟共同农业政策(CAP)的含义,该政策侧重于减少非二氧化碳排放(以二氧化碳当量衡量的N2O和CH4),特别是在畜牧业。该补贴是预算中性的,通过当前CAP第一支柱的基本支付提供资金。这些政策适用于单个农场级别的模型FarmDyn,以考虑农场和地区之间的异质性,以及宏观模型MAGNET,以考虑市场反馈和可能的泄漏效应。农场层面的减排潜力和成本来自FarmDyn,用于在MAGNET中校准欧盟27国国家牛奶生产边际减排成本曲线(MACCs)。另一方面,在FarmDyn中,基于情景的农业投入和MAGNET产出的价格变化被用作输入,从而提高了建模框架的一致性。在此框架下进行的模拟结果显示了明确的结论。一方面,对农业部门的非二氧化碳排放征收标准碳税是实现温室气体(GHG)减排的最有效方法,因为碳税可以导致农业温室气体排放总量的显著减少(MAGNET)。然而,这一结果与若干权衡有关,例如短期的农业收入损失(FarmDyn)和较长期的农业生产和就业损失(欧盟27国各不相同)(MAGNET)。另一方面,补贴减排成本几乎可以完全减轻负面权衡,同时仍然可以大幅减少农业排放。然而,补贴很容易导致补偿过度,并导致减少排放的投入物和技术价格上涨。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
36
审稿时长
>24 weeks
期刊介绍: The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics (AJARE) provides a forum for innovative and scholarly work in agricultural and resource economics. First published in 1997, the Journal succeeds the Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics and the Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, upholding the tradition of these long-established journals. Accordingly, the editors are guided by the following objectives: -To maintain a high standard of analytical rigour offering sufficient variety of content so as to appeal to a broad spectrum of both academic and professional economists and policymakers. -In maintaining the tradition of its predecessor journals, to combine articles with policy reviews and surveys of key analytical issues in agricultural and resource economics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书