Much ado about decoupling: Evaluating the environmental impact of recent European union agricultural reform

Harvard Environmental Law Review

Volumn 31, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 279-320

  Phelps, Jess ^a  

^a DRAKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGRI-ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; AGRICULTURAL REFORM; COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY; EUROPEAN UNION;

EURASIA; EUROPE;

EID: 33947496636     PISSN: 01478257     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (394)

1. Arthur Conan Doyle, The Adventure of the Copper Beeches, in 2 The annotated Sheklock Holmes 114, 122 (William S. Baring-Gould ed., Clarkson N. Potter, Inc. 1967) (1892).
2. See Uta Lange, Wuppertal Inst. For Climate, Env't, Energy GmbH, Recommendations for a Coordinated Implementation of the European Water Protection Legislation and the Coomon Agricultural Policy 12-25 (2003), available at http://www.ucd.ie/dipcon/docs/theme12/theme12_05.PDF (noting the damage caused by pesticides, fertilizer, and manure application as a result of a shift to a modern industrialized agricultural paradigm).
3. James D. Gaisford & William A. Kerr, Economic Analysis for International Trade Negotiations: The WTO and Agricultural Trade 53-55 (2001).
4. John McCormick, Understanding the Eropean Union 189 (3d ed. 2005).
5. Id. at 190-91.
6. See Dan Charles, European Farmers Being Paid To Protect Nature (National Public Radio Broadcast, July 12, 2005) (on file with the Harvard Environmental Law Review) (explaining past reform efforts and the United Kingdom's attempt to obtain meaningful CAP reform).
7. See Policy Comm'n on the Future of Farming and Food, Farming & Food: A Sustainable Future 68 (2002), available at http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/farming/pdf/PC%20Report2.pdf ("The result [of inflated commodity prices] has been overproduction and a discounting of the environmental damage this causes.").
8. Franz Fischler, Member of the Eur. Comm'n Responsible for Agric., Rural Dev. and Fisheries, Final Press Conference After the Decision at the Council on Agriculture: The New, Reformed Agricultural Policy (June 26, 2003), available at http://www.nakp.hu/download/fishler0624.pdf (discussing the ramifications of the Luxembourg agreement on the future of the CAP);
9. see also World Wildlife Foundation, Agricultural Trade and Developing Countries, http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/europe/ what_we_do/policy_and_events/epo/initiatives/agriculture/cap/Problem/ trade_3rd_world/index.cfm (last visited Oct. 1, 2006) (on file with the Harvard Environmental Law Review) (discussing the importance of agricultural trade to developing nations and the effect of EU subsidies in distorting world commodity prices).
10. See, e.g., Dep't for Env't, Food and Rural Affairs, CAP: Single Payment Scheme - Overview, http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/capreform/singlepay/ overview/qa-gen.htm (last visited Oct. 1, 2006) [hereinafter Single Payment Scheme] (on file with the Harvard Environmental Law Review).
11. Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community, Mar. 25, 1957, art. 33 [hereinafter EC Treaty] ("[t]he objectives of the common agricultural policy shall be: (a) to increase agricultural productivity by ensuring the rational development of agriculture and the optimum utilization of the factors of production");
12. see, e.g., Margaret Grossman, Farmers and the Environment Under the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union: The Agro-Environmental Measure in the United Kingdom, 28 U. Tol. L. Rev. 663, 664 (1997) (discussing the beginning of CAP policy five years before the CAP's formation under the 1957 Treaty of Rome).
13. EC Treaty art. 39(1);
14. see Gaisford & Kerr, supra note 3, at 22 (explaining the principle of comparative advantage in the international trade context whereby national specialization in the country's more efficiently produced goods increases overall societal utility).
15. EC Treaty art. 33(1), supra note 10.
16. Eur. Comm'n, Common Agricultural Policy: Beginnings to the Present Day, http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/104000.htm (last visited Nov. 9, 2006) [hereinafter Beginnings] (on file with the Harvard Environmental Law Review).
17. Id.
18. See, e.g., Policy Comm'n on the Future of Farming and Food, supra note 7, at 68 ("The CAP has ... rais[ed] commodity prices above those provided by world markets.").
19. Gaisford & Kerr, supra note 3, at 55 ("[C]ommon trade barriers had to be set high enough to support farms in the high-cost country for the particular commodity.").
20. Eur. Union Committee, The Future Financing of the Common Agricultural Policy, 2005-06, H.L. 7-I, at 14.
21. International Fund for Agricultural Development - Rural Poverty Portal, Rural Poverty in Europe, http://www.ruralpovertyportal.org/english/ regions/europe/index.btm (last visited Dec. 1, 2006) (on file with the Harvard Environmental Law Review) ("The EU earmarks a significant part of its common budget for development of the least advantaged rural areas within the Union.").
22. McCormick, supra note 4, at 189-90.
23. BBC News, How the Money Is Spent, Cashflow, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/ shared/spl/hi/europe/04/money/html/introduction.stm (last visited Nov. 2, 2006) (on file with the Harvard Environmental Law Review).
24. BBC News, How the Money Is Spent, Who Pays What?, http://news.bbc.co.uk/ 1/hared/spl/hi/europe/04/money/html/who_pays_what.stm (last visited Dec. 1, 2006) (on file with the Harvard Environmental Law Review);
25. see also McCormickK, supra note 4, at 122-23 (detailing the budgetary process and negotiations behind this agreement);
26. cf. BBC News, How the Money Is Spent, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/ hi/europe/04/money/html/uk_rebate.stm (last visited Dec. 1, 2006) (on file with the Harvard Environmental Law Review) (discussing the tensions that arise in determining national contributions in the context of the argument over the UK's budgetary rebate).
27. See John Peet & Kitty Ussher, The EU Budget: An Agenda for Reform? 3-5 (Centre for Eur. Reform, Working Paper, Feb. 1999), available at http://www.cer.org.uk/pdf/cerwp1.pdf (detailing member state positions on budgetary reform and the difficulties in negotiating reforms).
28. See BBC News, Q&A: The UK Budget Rebate (Dec. 23, 2005), http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4721307.stm (on file with the Harvard Environmental Law Review).
29. Council Regulation 1258/1999, 1999 O.J. 160 (EU). This regulation also provides a security mechanism to ensure that payments only go to authorized farmers.
30. Id.
31. See generally Memorandum from the Envtl. Agency to the Select Comm'n on the Eur. Union (Jan. 12, 2005), available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/select/ldeucom/007/ 7we05.htm [hereinafter Select Comm'n on the Eur. Union].
32. Id.
33. Id.
34. See Press Release, Franz Fischler, Member of the Eur. Comm'n Responsible for Agric., Rural Dev. and Fisheries, The Future of CAP and Rural Development (Apr. 13, 2004), available at http://www.europa.eu.int/rapid/ pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/04/177&format=HTML&aged= 1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en.
35. See EUbusiness.com, EU Farm Subsidies Unfair, Need Overhaul: British Study, http://www.eubusiness.com/archive/Agri/050819135924.fy08qlln (last visited Oct. 20, 2006) (on file with the Harvard Environmental Law Review) (examining which farmers actually receive CAP funds).
36. Alan Greer, Agicultural Policy in Europe 170-71 (2005).
37. See, e.g., Select Comm'n on the Eur. Union, supra note 25 (discussing the overall European budget and addressing the increasing burden of CAP expenditure).
38. See Eur. Comm'n, Eurobarometer: Europeans and the Common Agricultural Policy 20 (2004), available at http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/ archives/ebs/ebs_221_en.pdf [hereinafter Eurobarometer] (showing variations in European Union member state opinions, in this case on the issue of the CAP's effectiveness in promoting respect for the environment - 85% of Cypriots agreed, while only 34% of Danes believed this statement to be true).
39. Nancy Cochrane & Ralph Seeley, Econ. Research Serv., U.S. Dep't of Agric., EU Enlargemnt: Implications for New Member Countries and World Trade 3 (2001), available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/WRS04/ Apr04/WRS040501/WRS040501.pdf (discussing the possible effects of EU expansion).
40. But see Eur. Comm'n, EU Agriculture and Enlargement 3 (2002), available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/publi/fact/enlarge/2002_en.pdf (showing that despite having representation the new member states do not yet have all the rights of established EU members, including access to the same degree of direct agricultural support).
41. See McCormick, supra note 4, at 90 (discussing one example of this concern - the rotating presidency of the European Council - which "allows the leaders of the member states to convene meetings and launch initiatives on issues of national interest").
42. See Eur. Union, Panorama of the European Union, http://europa.eu/abc/ panorama/howorganised/index_en.htm (last visited Oct. 13, 2006) (on file with the Harvard Environmental Law Review).
43. Grossman, supra note 10, at 664-65.
44. See Eur. Union, Basic Facts, http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/atwork/ basicfacts/index_en.htm#comm (last visited Nov. 4, 2006) (on file with the Harvard Environmental Law Review);
45. see also McCormick, supra note 4, at 84-89 (outlining the powers and functions of the European Commission).
46. McCormick, supra note 4, at 87-89.
47. Margaret Rosso Grossman, Agro-Environmental Measures in the Common Agricultural Policy, 25 U. Mem. L. Rev. 927, 931 (1995) (explaining purposes of European Commission).
48. See, e.g., McCormick, supra note 4, at 89-93.
49. The Council of the Eur. Union, Council Configurations, http://ue.eu.int/ cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=427&lang=en&mode=g (last visited Oct. 1, 2006) (on file with the Harvard Environmental Law Review).
50. The Council of the Eur. Union, Agriculture and Fisheries Council, http://ue.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=414&lang=en&mode=g (last visited Oct. 1, 2006) (on file with the Harvard Environmental Law Review).
51. Id.
52. See McCormick, supra note 4, at 94.
53. Id. at 96-97.
54. Id. at 94-97 (explaining the role the European Parliament plays in the legislative process, including the "negative" powers of Parliament to "delay or kill a proposal by sitting on it" and "to dismiss the Commission").
55. See id. at 94 (declaring that Parliament "has long been a junior member in the EU decision-making system, mainly because (unlike conventional legislatures) it cannot introduce laws or raise revenues").
56. Outcome of the Eur. Convention, The Union's Decision Making Procedures, http://europa.eu/scadplus/european_convention/procedures_en.htm (last visited Oct. 16, 2006) (on file with the Harvard Environmental Law Review).
57. Greer, supra note 30, at 18-21 (detailing "the supranational dimension" of the CAP).
58. Stephen Sackur, Testing New Year Awaits EU, BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4119071.stm (last visited Oct. 1, 2006) (on file with the Harvard Environmental Law Review) (outlining the form of most EU confrontations - large countries versus small).
59. See, e.g., British Gov't Panl on Sustainable Dev., Third Report (1997), available at http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/panel-sd/panel3/8.htm (discussing mechanization and the structural change of the agricultural model of European agriculture and the effects on biodiversity).
60. See Beginnings, supra note 13 (detailing the forces behind the creation of the EU and the CAP program).
61. John Madslien, Farm Reforms Set to Serve EU Tax Payers, BBC News, July 14, 2002, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2138616.stm (last visited Dec. 2, 2006) (on file with the Harvard Environmental Law Review) (explaining the proposed "reorientation" of the CAP).
62. See, e.g., McCormick, supra note 4, at 121-25 (analyzing the overall EU budget and expenditures by economic sector).
63. David Kelch & Mary Anne Normile, Econ. Research Serv., U.S. Dep't of Agric., Cap Reform of 2003-04 (2004), available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/WRS0407/wrs0407.pdf.
64. Press Release, Consumers' Ass'n, Scrap the CAP! Consumers' Association Says Abolish the Common Agricultural Policy, as Research Shows UK Food Prices Are Artificially High (Nov.12, 2001), available at http://www.which.net/media/pr/dec0l/general/capscrap.html (showing that U.K. consumers pay nearly double what New Zealand consumers pay for the same "basket" of products).
65. Margaret Beckett, U.K. Sec'y of State, Dep't for Env't, Food and Rural Affairs, Address at the National Consumer Council Conference, Making Connections: Consumer Perspectives on Farming and Food (June 19, 2002), available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/ministers/speeches/ mbl90602.htm ("I judge that they [consumers] are becoming increasingly resistant to paying twice - both as taxpayers and consumers - in the way the present structure of the CAP demands.");
66. see also Consumers' Association, Setting Aside the CAP - The Future for Food Production (2001), available at http://wwwl-gui.server.which.net/ campaigns/food/agriculture/0112cap_br.doc.pdf (outlining consumer concerns over food security).
67. See Consumers' Association, supra note 57.
68. David Byrne, Eur. Comm'r for Health and Consumer Prot., Address at 9th East-West Agricultural Forum: New Challenges Ahead to Ensure Food Safety: Enlargement and Upgrading Food Controls (Jan. 11, 2002), available at http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference= SPEECH/02/4&format=HTML&aged =0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en (discussing increased concern about food safety in the European Union).
69. See Eur. Parl. & Council Regulation 178/2002, 2002 O.J. (L 3 1/1) (EQ) (demonstrating legislative concern for heightened food safety and traceability after the late 1990s BSE scare).
70. Greer, supra note 30, at 102 ("Wobbly cows, pyres of burning animals ... became potent representations of the crises of BSE and FMD in the UK and wider afield" and influenced reform.).
71. See Eur. Council, The Costs of the Common Agricultural Policy (Working Paper Doc. 10649, 2005), available at http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/ WorkingDocs/Doc05/EDOC10649.htm (discussing rural depopulation);
72. see also Greer, supra note 30, at 91 (explaining that cultural factors make rural depopulation anathematic in some regions - "a field that goes out of cultivation is a bit of France that dies").
73. See, e.g., Pierre Antoine Barthelemy & Claude Vidal, A Dynamic European Agricultural and Agri-Foodstuffs Sector, http://ec.europa.eu/ agriculture/envir/report/en/ens_en/report_en.htm (last visited Dec. 1, 2006) (on file with the Harvard Environmental Law Review).
74. See Eurobarometer, supra note 32, at 15-17 (illustrating European consumer support for lowering subsidy levels and focusing remaining payments on "development of the overall rural economy").
75. See, e.g., Catholic Agency for Overseas Dev., The Rough Guide to the CAP 4, available at http://www.cafod.org.uk/var/storage/original/application/ phpufUY2E.pdf (explaining the problems justifying the current level of CAP expenditure on a small segment of the total population);
76. Econ. Research Serv., U.S. Dep't of Agric., The European Union's Common Agricultural Policy: Pressures for Change 9 (1999), available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/wrs992/wrs992.pdf ("CAP benefits have become progressively more concentrated on a smaller percentage of farmers ... reducing public support for the CAP as a source of assistance to needy farmers");
77. see Eurobarometer, supra note 32, at 15-17.
78. See, e.g., Eur. Council, supra note 62.
79. See id at 6 (discussing the dangers and costs of rural depopulation).
80. Id. ("Our rural areas are often the places where the soul of the nation lies in its richest form.").
81. Id. ("Istvan Szechenyi the celebrated Hungarian litterateur said the answer to the question of where the nation lives is that the nation lives in her language."). The CAP has made efforts to prevent the loss of European languages through the European Charter for Regional and Minority languages. "Any reform of CAP must recognise this [language diversity] as a positive aspect and seek to include it in any future policy."
82. Id. This source clearly illustrates "the correlation between minority languages and rural areas."
83. Id. Several notable examples of languages threatened by rural depopulation include Friesan (spoken in the Netherlands and some regions of Germany), Breton (northwest France), and Welsh.
84. Id.
85. See generally Stefan Theil, Into the Woods, Newsweek Int'l Edition, July 4, 2006, available at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8359066/site/newsweek (discussing the abandonment of rural villages).
86. Id. Wolves have returned to some areas of Germany one hundred years after "a burgeoning, land-hungry population" drove them out.
87. Michael Voss, Rural Spain Welcomes Immigrants, BBC.com, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3002928.stm (last visited Oct. 1, 2006) (on file with the Harvard Environmental Law Review). The village of Aguaviva, Spain, for example, has recruited immigrants from South America and Eastern Europe to stem the problems of population loss and an aging population.
88. Id.
89. Eur. Comm'n on Agric., The Role of Agriculture and Rural Development in Revitalizing Abandoned/Depopulated Areas 7-8 (2006), available at http://www.fao.org/world/regional/reu/Repository/ECA/ECA_34/ ECA_34_06_2_FINAL_en.doc.
90. Comm'n for Sustainable Dev., EU Comm. of the Regions, Draft Opinion, The Role of Municipalities in the Development of Europe's Regions 12 (2006), available at http://www.cor.europa.eu/cms/pages/documents/deve/en/Avis/ A_CDR259_2006REV1_PAC_en%20SANTA.pdf. This source also indicates a few additional rural development suggestions - renewable energy, and the "creation and development of micro- enterprises that use or make traditional products."
91. Econ. Research Serv., supra note 65, at 11 (detailing how a primary purpose behind the reform was to improve bargaining position at WTO negotiations).
92. See WTO, http://www.wto.org (follow "What is the WTO?" hyperlink; then follow "The WTO in Brief") (last visited Oct. 16, 2006) (on file with the Harvard Environmental Law Review).
93. William J. Even, Green Payments: The Next Generation of U.S. Farm Programs?, 10 Drake J. Agric. L. 173, 174-75 (2005).
94. See, e.g., Gaisford & Kerr, supra note 3, at 17-20 (detailing the contentious issues the WTO is attempting to address).
95. See Econ. Research Serv., supra note 65, at 11.
96. Even, supra note 77, at 175;
97. see also Gaisford & Kerr, supra note 3, at 16-17 (laying out the basic classifications of support mechanisms under the WTO).
98. WTO, Agriculture Negotiations Backgrounder on Domestic Support: Amber, Blue, and Green Boxes, http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/agric_e/ agboxes_e.htm [hereinafter Negotiations Backgrounder] (last visited Oct. 9, 2006) (on file with the Harvard Environmental Law Review).
99. Even, supra note 77, at 175.
100. Michael N. Cardwell, Margaret, R. Grossman & Christopher P. Rodgers, Agriculture and International Trade: Law, Policy and the WTO 36 (2003).
101. Negotiations Backgrounder, supra note 81.
102. Id.;
103. see Econ. Research Serv., supra note 65, at 37 (explaining the blue box exception under the WTO framework).
104. Cardwell, Grossman & Rodgers, supra note 83, at 40-41.
105. Negotiations Backgrounder, supra note 81.
106. See, e.g., Gaisford & Kerr, supra note 3, at 16-17.
107. Negotiations Backgrounder, supra note 81.
108. Gaisford & Kerr, supra note 3, at 108 ("[T]he easiest way for [nations] to avoid having to reduce their subsidies would be to have the green box opened up.").
109. Cardwell, Grossman, & Rodgers, supra note 83, at 38.
110. Even, supra note 77, at 179.
111. Id.
112. In the Twilight of Doha, Economist, Jul. 29, 2006, at 63 (explaining that the Doha Round has collapsed and the fundamental differences on agricultural policy are a principle cause).
113. Id.
114. But see The WTO Under Fire, Economist, Sept. 20, 2003, at 28 ("America's bold [Doha] promises were belied by its actions. Last year's outrageous increase in American farming subsidies, and the cave-in at Cancun by American negotiators to their domestic cotton growers, made far more of an impression on poor countries than Washington's high minded words about freer farm trade - and rightly so."). Such actions may explain why developing nations were not as willing to support the American position at the Doha Round.
115. In the Twilight of Doha, supra note 94, at 63.
116. Id.
117. Id. at 64.
118. The WTO Under Fire, supra note 95, at 28 (explaining the Doha Round and the consequences from a potential collapse).
119. Id.
120. See McCormick, supra note 4, at 77 ("[T]he EU undertook its most significant enlargement when ten eastern European and Mediterranean states joined: Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovenia, and Slovakia.").
121. See Eur. Env't Agency, Agriculture and the Environmental in the EU Accession Countries 11 (2004), available at http://reports.eea.europa.eu/ environmental_issue_report_2004_37/en/ IssueNo37-Agriculture_for_Web_all.pdf (discussing accession states, dependence on agriculture).
122. See Eur. Env't Agency, Agriculture and the Environmental in the EU Accession Countries 11 (2004), available at http://reports.eea.europa.eu/ environmental_issue_report_2004_37/en/ IssueNo37-Agriculture_for_Web_all.pdf (discussing accession states, dependence on agriculture). 122 Id. at 35.
123. Id. at 40.
124. Id. at 13.
125. Greer, supra note 30, at 111-13 (explaining the role of the EU expansion in actually bringing parties to the bargaining table, in light of fears that the CAP would be bankrupted by such an endeavor).
126. BBC News, Q+A, supra note 23.
127. Id.
128. Id.
129. Id.
130. Id.
131. See BBC News, Q+A, supra note 23.
132. BBC News,' UK Rebate 'Unjustified' - Chirac, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/ uk_news/politics/4374505.stm (last visited Dec. 2, 2006) (on file with the Harvard Environmental Law Review) (explaining member state objections to the UK rebate in advance of June budget negotiations with particular focus given to the French position).
133. BBC News, Blair Defends Europe Budget Deal, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/ uk_news/politics/4541412.stm (last visited Dec. 2, 2006) (on file with the Harvard Environmental Law Review).
134. BBC News, Q+A, supra note 23.
135. BBC News, Blair Defends Europe Budget Deal, supra note 114.
136. See Stiching Natuur En Milleu et al., Options for The 2003 Reform of The CAP 7 (2003), available at http://www.panda.org/downloads/europe/ cap2003reform.pdf [hereinafter Options For The 2003 Reform] (detailing the effects of the last thirty years of industrialization and specialization on the European environment).
137. See Jane Holder, Law and Landscape: The Legal Construction and Protection of Hedgerows, 62 Mod. L. Rev. 100, 104 (1999) (explaining how agricultural practices have impacted the British landscape).
138. Id. at 106.
139. See Eur. Env't Agency, supra note 102, at 27 ("Out of 571 [International Important Bird Areas] .... 157 are affected by abandonment, and 180 by intensification.").
140. Id. at 28 ("In general, abandonment of extensive farmland has mostly negative effects" or can add in "mostly negative effects from a biodiversity perspective.").
141. See Eur. Comm'n, Eurobarometer: Europeans And The Common Agricultural Policy 14 (2005), available at http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/ archives/ebs/ebs_221_en.pdf (explaining that EU citizens, when asked what goals CAP should advance, placed "promot[ing] the respect of the environment" in the top three).
142. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Dep't For Env't Food and Rural Affairs, Environmental Effects of The Common Agricultural Policy and Possible Mitigation Measures 3 (2002), available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/capreform/pdf/envimpacts.pdf;
143. see also Policy Comm'n on the Future of Farming and Food, supra note 7, at 68 (explaining the impact of "CAP widening that gap through raising commodity prices above those provided by world markets").
144. See The Costs of the Common Agricultural Policy, Eur. Parl. Doc. 10649 (2005) (formally recognizing of the negative effects of the CAP).
145. Policy Comm'n on the Future of Farming and Food, supra note 7, at 68. "[A] lot of the environmental damage in the countryside over the last 50 years has to be laid at the door of modern farming techniques."
146. Id. at 69.
147. HM Treasury, Dep't For Env't, Food, and Rural Affairs, A Vision For The Common Agricultural Policy 30 (2005), available at http://www.hm.treasury.gov.uk/media/E76/04/A_Vision_for_the_CAP.pdf.
148. Policy Comm'n on the Future of Farming and Food, supra note 7, at 68 ("Land use changes have contributed to increased danger of extreme flood events, affecting thousands of homes.").
149. BBC News, Soil Quality Threat to EU Farming, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/ science/nature/4508503.stm (last visited Oct. 1, 2006) (on file with the Harvard Environmental Law Review) ("More than 16 percent of EU land is affected by soil degradation and ... [c]hanging land management practices are widely blamed for declining soil quality across Europe.").
150. See id.
151. Id. at 67.
152. See Greer, supra note 30, at 89-90 (In Greece, there is a "tension between modernization leading to intensification and greater use of inputs, and the maintenance of more traditional forms of extensive agriculture.").
153. See Eur. Env't Agency, supra note 102, at 28.
154. Id.
155. Id.
156. Id.
157. Id. at 30.
158. See Eur. Council, supra note 62 (showing that the costs of the common agricultural policy have been considered and are having a major influence on future CAP negotiations).
159. See generally Beginnings, supra note 13 (explaining the history of past reform efforts).
160. See Greer, supra note 30, at 78 (explaining the role of public opinion in shaping CAP policies, such as Agenda 2000).
161. See Beginnings, supra note 13.
162. Clayton W. Ogg & G. Corndis van Kooten, Severing the Link Between Farm Program Payments and Farm Production: Motivation, International Efforts, and Lessons, Choices, 4th Qtr. 2004, at 47, available at http://www.choicesmagazine.org/2004-4/grabbag/2004-4-11.htm ("[T]he 1992/93 MacSharry reforms were the first attempt to decouple agricultural payments from production.");
163. but cf. Grossman, supra note 10, at 667.
164. Policymakers have "re-flected a concern about agriculture and environment" prior to the MacSharry reforms. Id.
165. From 1973 to 1992, several Environmental Action Programs -
166. Cardwell, Grossman & Rodgers, supra note 83, at 279 (explaining the conversion toward direct farm payments and efforts to align EU farm payments with the overall world price).
167. AGRA CEAS Consulting, Final Report for Eur. Comm'n, Synthesis of Rural Development Mid-Term Evaluation Lot 1, 8 (2005), available at http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/rdmidterm/lot1/fulltext.pdf.
168. Id. (explaining the incorporation of the MacSharry reform into Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2078192 (1992)).
169. See Beginnings, supra note 13;
170. see, e.g., Cardwell, Grossman & Rodgers, supra note 83, at 279-80;
171. see Grossman, supra note 10, at 671 ("[I]n the cereals sector, the MacSharry reform initiated a significant price reduction over a three-year period.").
172. See also Beginnings, supra note 13 (explaining that while the MacSharry reforms were generally successful, "developments ... forced further adaptation").
173. See id.
174. Franz Fischler, A New CAP for a New Century-Speech Given at 19th European Agricultural Outlook Conference (Mar. 9-10, 2000), available at http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/00/ 75&format=HTML&aged= 0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en ("With Agenda 2000 the EU has shown its willingness to reform the CAP. Multifunctionality is the word we have found in Europe to describe the fundamental link between sustainable agriculture, food safety, territorial balance, maintaining the landscape and the environment and what is particularly important for developing countries, food security.").
175. See discussion infra Part III.B;
176. see also Beginnings, supra note 13.
177. See, e.g., Kelch & Normile, supra note 55, at 2 (discussing the benefits and shortcomings of the Agenda 2000 reform).
178. See generally infra Part III;
179. see Greer, supra note 30, at 142 (laying out the central reforms of the Agenda 2000 and the final reform agreement reached in June 2003).
180. See, e.g., Press Release, Eur. Comm'n, EU Fundamentally Reforms Its Farm Policy to Accomplish Sustainable Farming in Europe (June 26, 2003), available at http://europa.eu/rapid/searchAction.do (search "complete database" for reference "IP/03/898").
181. See id.
182. Franz Fischler, Member of the Eur. Comm'n Responsible for Agric., Rural Dev. and Fisheries, Towards a More Sustainable Agriculture Policy 3 (Feb. 26, 2004), available at http://www.ecaf.org/Fischler.pdf.
183. Greer, supra note 30, at 142 (noting that "bargaining and compromise considerably watered down the initial proposals").
184. See Eur. Comm'n, Single Farm Payment, http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/ lvb/111089.htm (last visited Nov. 4, 2006) (on file with the Harvard Environmental Law Review) (profiling the major changes of the 2003 CAP reforms).
185. "See Peter Halmai & Andrea Elekes, Declining "Common" Agricultural Policy?: CAP Reform of 2003 AND Its National Implementation in the Member States 3-4 (2005), available at http://www.eaae2005.dk/ POSTER_PAPERS/SS16_960_Elekes.pdf.
186. Eur. Comm'n, The Common Agricultural Policy Explained 7 (2004), available at http://ec.europa.eu/agruculture/publi/capexplained/ cap_en.pdf (describing the positive impacts stemming from breaking the production tie).
187. Cf HM Treasury, supra note 126, at 3 (expressing cautious optimism, but concerned that this shift in production could cause environmental damage to developing nations).
188. Fischler, supra note 154, at 3.
189. See id. ("What reform has not done, however, is go beyond providing the clear institutional framework for sustainable farming.").
190. Greer, supra note 30, at 150-51 (detailing the French political maneuvers in preventing full decoupling).
191. C. Vidal, G. Aiden & K. Hay, Agriculture as a Key Issue for Rural Development in the European Union, at 139, http://unece.org/stats/ documents/ces/ac.61/2001/wp.2.e.pdf (explaining the large variation in the importance of agriculture to member countries).
192. Clive Potter, Competing Narratives for the Future of European Agriculture: The Agri-Environmental Consequences of Neoliberalization in the Context of the Doha Round, 172 Geographical J. 190, 191 (2006) ("[T]here are also important differences in the extent to which the individual member states subscribe [to reform efforts] ... the remarkably persistent agricultural fundamentalism of the French contrasting markedly with the more neoliberal and 'decoupled' strategy espoused by the British, for instance.");
193. see also Sheila Barter, Fischler's Farm Revolution?, BBC News, (June 26, 2002), http://news.bbc.co.uk/l/hi/world/europe/2066237.stm (last visited Dec. 1, 2006) (on file with the Harvard Environmental Law Review).
194. See Greer, supra note 30, at 162-63 ("For France and Ireland ... the core priority is to limit change.");
195. see also id. at 150.
196. Id. at 112, 148-49.
197. See id. at 144-47.
198. Many member states were able to negotiate for less severe decoupling in vulnerable sectors. Ireland, for example, was able to provide continued protection to the Irish dairy sector, negating somewhat the purpose behind the CAP reform. Id. at 146.
199. See also Kelch & Normile, supra note 55, at 5-7.
200. Id. at 6. This article also mentions another calculation method: varying payments based upon whether the agricultural land is in arable crop production or primarily used for grazing purposes.
201. See, e.g., Greer, supra note 30, at 177.
202. See Eve Fouilleux, CAP Reforms and Multilateral Trade Negotiations: Another View on Discourse Efficiency, 27 W. European Pol. 235, 251-52 (2004) ("In particular, strong pressure by some member states (especially France and Spain) to avoid the decoupling scheme proposed by the Commission resulted in a complex CAP payments scheme. This envisages only partial decoupling, to be implemented on an optional basis by the member states.").
203. Id. at 251.
204. See, e.g., Greer, supra note 30, at 177-78 (discussing the factors Ireland considered when making implementation decisions).
205. See, e.g., id. (explaining that although Ireland was strongly opposed to the decoupling effort, after conducting research, this member state elected to go with full decoupling).
206. Cf. id at 177-78 (describing how Ireland decided between implementing full or partial decoupling). Although farmers opposed full decoupling in principle, ultimately it was "generally welcomed ... because it reduced uncertainty about the future, enabled them to plan ahead, and promised a significant reduction in the level of bureaucracy."
207. Id. at 178.
208. Id. at 178-79.
209. See Halmai & Elekes, supra note 157, at 4.
210. Michael Cardwell, Current Developments: European Law-Agriculture, 55 Int'l & Comp. L. Q. 467, 470 (2006) (noting that "only five [member states] have opted to delay implementation (Finland, France, Greece, the Netherlands, and Spain); and none beyond 1 January 2006");
211. see also Greer, supra note 30, at 150-51.
212. See Cardwell, supra note 177, at 469.
213. Id. at 81 ("[T]he shift from production subsidies to direct payments is viewed as a very good or fairly good thing by the public.").
214. But see PR Newswire, One Year On Farmers Return Hung Verdict on Impacts of CAP Reform (Dec. 10, 2005), http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/ release?id=160139 (last visited Oct. 1, 2006) (on file with the Harvard Environmental Law Review) (explaining that farmers "remain divided on whether [CAP reform] improves their prospects or not").
215. See generally David Kelch & Mary Anne Normile, Econ. Research Serv., U.S. Dep't of Agric., Amber Waves, European Union Adopts Significant Farm Reform, Sept. 2004, at 27, available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/ Amberwaves/September04/pdf/feature_eusept2004.pdf ("[S]ome coupled support may be retained to prevent land abandonment in marginally productive areas.").
216. Kelch & Normile, supra note 179, at 23;
217. but Cf. Org. for Econ. Co-Operation and Dev., Analysis of the 2003 CAP Reform 23-24 (2004), available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/62/42/ 32039793.pdf (showing that maximum decoupling will have very small effects on the production of wheat, coarse grains, and oilseeds, but higher effects on rice and dairy products).
218. Options for the 2003 Reform, supra note 117, at 4.
219. See, e.g., Potter, supra note 164, at 5-6 ("The decoupled model suggests a rather more contrived situation in which a formalized and objectified nature would come to be sustained through methods and procedures grounded in scientific knowledge and bureaucratic procedure rather than the working practices and management skills of the farming families who live there .... This is anathema to the French, with their continuing insistence that it is agricultural production which defines rurality.").
220. See id.
221. See Council Regulation 1782/2003, tit. 2, ch. 1, art. 4-5 2003 O.J. (L 270) 1, 8 (EU).
222. Council Regulation 1782/2003, annex IV. 2003 O.J. (L 270) 1, 58 (EU) (providing minimum GAEC conditions).
223. See Dep't for Env't, Food and Rural Affaird, Final Regulatory Impact Assessment of Options for the Implementation of Cross Compliance-Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition 7 (2004), available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/regulat/ria/2004/cross-compliance.pdf [hereinafter Cross Compliance] (explaining the role member states play in establishing the GAEC standards).
224. Council Regulation 1782/2003, annex IV, 2003 O.J. (L 270) 1, 58 (EU). Annex IV provides the base requirements under the June 2003 agreement, but express action must be taken by the member state to determine how to implement this standard. In a relatively small member state, one set of standards might be appropriate, but in other larger member states with many geographical regions, a regional approach will be a more practical method of applying the GAEC requirements.
225. Greer, supra note 30, at 205-07.
226. See Kelch & Normile, supra note 179, at 29 ("The path of reform selected by each member state could have consequences for production, efficiency, land prices, and other factors with the potential to affect trade.").
227. See Cross Compliance, supra note 186, at 6.
228. Id.
229. Council Regulation 1782/2003, annex III, 2003 O.J. (L 270) 1, 56-57 (EU).
230. Dept. for Food, Env. And Rural Affairs, Discussion Document on Proposed Cross Compliance Statutory Management Requirements Applicable in England from 1 January 2007, at 1, 3 (2006), http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/ capreform/singlepay/crosscomply/pdf/DiscussionDocument2006.pdf (explaining that SMRs are already "existing law").
231. See Cross Compliance, supra note 186, at 5-6.
232. See Eur. Comm'n, supra note 156 (explaining that if a negligent farmer fails to comply, payments may be reduced by between 5% and 15%, but if the non-compliance is deliberate at least 20%, and in some cases total exclusion from payments, will result).
233. Greer, supra note 30, at 207-10.
234. See Eur. Comm'n, supra note 156.
235. Eur. Comm'n, Fact Sheet: Rural Development in the European Union 3 (2003), available at http://www.euromontana.org/Doc/ RuralDevelopmentInEU_EC.pdf [hereinafter Rural Development].
236. HM Treasury, supra note 126, at 59.
237. See Rural Development, supra note 198, at 3.
238. See discussion supra Part II.E.2 (discussing Agenda 2000 and rural development).
239. See Rural Development, supra note 198, at 3.
240. Id. at 124 ("France has been one of the central forces that has obstructed radical change in agricultural policy, especially in the world trade and environmental contexts.").
241. See Greer, supra note 30, at 170-71.
242. See id. at 171-72 (explaining the mechanisms used by the United Kingdom to fund rural development).
243. See Rural Development, supra note 198, at 8 (explaining the role of the March 1999 Berlin Summit in allocating rural development funds across the member states).
244. See id.
245. See Greer, supra note 30, at 171.
246. Id.
247. See id. at 171-72.
248. See, e.g., HM Treasury, supra note 126, at 59.
249. See Rural Development, supra note 198, at 12.
250. See id.;
251. see also Press Release, Eur. Comm'n, supra note 152, at 5-6.
252. See Press Release, Eur. Comm'n, supra note 152.
253. Rural Development, supra note 198, at 12.
254. Philip Lowe, Henry Butler, & Neil Ward, Setting the Next Agenda?: British and French Approaches to the Second Pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy 18-19 (Centre for Rural Economy, Univ. of Newcastle Upon Tyne, Working Paper No. 53, 2001), available at http://www.ncl.ac.uk/cre/publish/pdfs/wp53a.pdf.
255. Id.
256. Id.
257. See Press Release, Eur. Comm'n, Modulation and Financial Discipline 3 (2004), available at http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/capreform/ infosheets/modul_en.pdf ("Member states may use all the instruments available funded by the 'guarantee' section of the agriculture budget.").
258. See Greer, supra note 30, at 180 (explaining the wide variations possible in rural development programs between member states).
259. See, e.g., HM Treasury, supra note 126, at 46-48 (addressing concerns about food security).
260. See Eur. Comm'n, CAP Reform: Rural Development 5 (2000), available at http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publi/fact/rurdev/en.pdf (showing the discrepancy in funding between the First and Second Pillars of the CAP).
261. Id.
262. See generally Fischler, supra note 28.
263. See, e.g., Press Release, Eur. Comm'n, supra note 152.
264. See id.;
265. Eur. Comm'n, Modulation and Financial Discipline, http://ec.europa.eu/ agriculture/capreform/infosheets/modul_en.pdf (last visited Nov. 4, 2006) (on file with the Harvard Environmental Law Review).
266. Janet Dwyer, Rural Development Under the CAP: Significance, Likely Impacts and Modelling Issues 4 (2005), available at http://www.enarpri.org/Publications/SPNo14.pdf.
267. Id.
268. Directorate-General for Agric. and Rural Dev., Eur. Comm'n, Rural Development in the European Union 10 (2006), available at http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/agrista/rurdev2006/RD_Report_2006.pdf (explaining implementation of rural development at the member state level).
269. Id.
270. Council Regulation 1257/1999, art. 2, 1999 O.J. (L 160) 84-85 (EC).
271. EU Directorate-General for Agric. and Rural Dev., supra note 229, at 12-13.
272. Id. at 10.
273. Eur. Comm'n, Country Profile - Portugal (Sept. 2003), available at http://www.ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rur/countries/pt/file2003_en.pdf.
274. Eur. Comm'n, Country Profile - Denmark (Sept. 2003), available at http://wwww.ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rur/countries/da/file2003_en.pdf.
275. See discussion supra Part III.B.
276. Communication from the United Kingdom to the European Commission, http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/capreform/legislation/pdf/not02.pdf (last visited Oct. 17, 2006) (on file with the Harvard Environmental Law Review).
277. Dep't for Env't, Food and Rural Affairs, CAP: Single Payment Scheme - Overview, http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/capreform/singlepay/overview/ qa-devolution.htm (last visited Oct. 1, 2006) (on file with the Harvard Environmental Law Review).
278. Single Payment Scheme, supra note 9 (discussing implementation of the Single Payment Scheme in the United Kingdom).
279. See id.
280. See, e.g., Dep't for the Env't, Food and Rural Affairs, Uplands Land Classification, http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/uplands/ land-classification.htm (last visited Oct. 17, 2006) (on file with the Harvard Environmental Law Review).
281. Moorland is defined "in terms of the vegetation present, which must be predominantly semi-natural upland vegetation, or predominantly of rock outcrops and semi-natural vegetation, used primarily for rough grazing." Id.
282. See id.
283. Agricultural land in England may be classified as a Less Favored Area - generally moorland, hills, or mountains having limited production value. These Less Favored Areas are divided into two groupings of Severely Disadvantaged Areas and Disadvantaged Areas, with only severely disadvantaged areas meriting separate treatment under the reforms. The difference between these sub-groupings is a matter of degree and is based upon a finding that the land is suitable for livestock but not crop production. This land is often environmentally sensitive and in creating this classification, England can channel additional funds to these lands to protect the resources of "unproductive regions" without distorting land values. Id.
284. See, e.g., Dep't for Env't, Food and Rural Affairs, Single Payment Scheme, http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/capreform/singlepay/overview/ qa-regions.htm (last visited Oct. 17, 2006) (on file with the Harvard Environmental Law Review). The rationale for varying payments between moorland and non-moorland in a Severely Disadvantaged Area is an effort to "reflect adequately the land types and land use in England."
285. Id. Additionally, this source indicates the pressure brought by farm interest groups in England in support of this method of allocation.
286. See id.
287. Id. (explaining how farm payments affect land values and how radically altering production levels in some regions can lead to undesirable environmental effects).
288. See id. (explaining other methods of support available to "hill" farmers).
289. Eur. Comm'n, Implementation of the CAP Reform in the Member States (2005), available at http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/markets/sfp/ ms_en.pdf.
290. Dep't for Env't, Food and Rural Affairs & Rural Payments Agency, Single payment Scheme: Handbook and Guidance for England 2005, 32 (2005), available at http://www.ala.org.uk/mats/CAP/Guides/ SPSGuidance(version1.0).pdf [hereinafter Single Payment Scheme Handbook (explaining how Single Payment Scheme payments are calculated).
291. Id.
292. Id. at 33.
293. Id. at 32.
294. Id.
295. Id. at 32.
296. Dep't for Env't, Food and Rural Affairs, CAP: Single Payment Scheme - National Reserve, http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/capreform/singlepay/ natreserve/index.htm#bground (last visited Oct. 1, 2006) (on file with the Harvard Environmental Law Review). The National Reserve Program is a mandatory reduction in the total amount of direct payments to negate sector specific effects from the transition from the old scheme. This program is focused on eliminating the effects of specific investments in sectors where past investment was encouraged, but the benefits expected to accrue have been lost. The dairy industry, among the areas hardest hit by the transition away from past support methods, is a main target of these funds.
297. Single Payment Scheme Handbook, supra note 248, at 34.
298. Single Payment Scheme, supra note 9.
299. Id.
300. Policy Comm'n on the Future of Farming and Food, supra note 7, at 73 ("These subsidies and the market price supports which are still encouraging overproduction must go.").
301. See, e.g., Single Payment Scheme, supra note 9.
302. See id.
303. See, e.g., Policy Comm'n on the Future of Farming and Food, supra note 7, at 73.
304. Single Payment Scheme Handbook, supra note 248, at 11.
305. See Policy Comm'n on the Future of Farming and Food, supra note 7, at 73-74 ("Perverse effects [from overproduction] should be minimised by requiring farmers to meet minimum environmental standards to qualify for payment, known in the jargon as 'cross compliance."').
306. See Dep't for Evn't, Food and Rural Affairs & Rural Payments Agency, Single Payment Scheme: Cross Compliance Handbook for England 7 (2006), available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/capreform/pubs/pdf/ XCHandbook2006.pdf [hereinafter Cross Compliance Handbook].
307. See id. at 10 (explaining that permanent pasture levels have not changed under the 2003 reforms and no requirements imposing a duty upon English farmers have been mandated).
308. See id. at 11.
309. This source discusses the importance of monitoring and using inspections to ensure that farmers are meeting legal obligations. Id. at 11, 61-62.
310. See discussion supra Part III.A.
311. See, e.g., Cross Compliance Handbook, supra note 264, at 16-19.
312. See Dep't for Env't, Food and Rural Affairs & Rural Payments Agency, Single Payment Scheme: Cross Compliance Guidance for Soil Management 6 (2006), available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/capreform/pubs/pdf/ XCSoilGuidance2006.pdf (explaining that prior to September 1, 2006, a farmer must conduct a Soil Condition Review to assess the soil conditions on agricultural lands);
313. see generally Dep't for Env't, Food and Rural Affairs & Rural Payments Agency, Single Payment Scheme: Cross Compliance Soil Protection Review (2006), available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/capreform/pubs/ pdf/XCProtectReview2006.pdf (providing the template of steps required to meet the GAEC requirements in the soil management area).
314. See Cross Compliance Handbook, supra note 264, at 17.
315. Dep't for Env't, Food and Rural Affairs & Rural Payments Agency, Single Payment Scheme: Cross Compliance Guidance for the Management of Habitats and Landscape Features 15 (2005), available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/caprefrom/pubs/pdf/habitathb2005.pdf [hereinafter Habitat and Landscape Features].
316. The English government hopes to bring 95% of these sites into favorable environmental condition by 2010, thus preserving resources as far as biodiversity and the environment are concerned. See id.
317. See Cross Compliance Handbook, supra note 264, at 9, 22 (explaining that failure to comply with GAEC standards can lead to a loss of farm payments and detailing the requirements related to Scheduled Monuments).
318. See Habitats and Landscape Features, supra note 271, at 17.
319. See Cross Compliance Handbook, supra note 264, at 21.
320. Habitats and Landscape Features, supra note 271, at 17.
321. See generally id. at 33-39.
322. Holder, supra note 118, at 103. ("The hedgerow is commonly portrayed as a quintessential, natural, feature of the English landscape in literature, poetry, paintings, and maps even though there is nothing distinctly English or indeed British about hedgerows.").
323. Sussex Biodiversity Partnership, Hedgerows, http://www.biodiversitysussex.org/PDF%20files/ Hedgerow%20HAP%20summary.pdf (last visited Oct. 16, 2006) (on file with the Harvard Environmental Law Review) (explaining the ancient origins of hedgerows, which date back to medieval times, as well as the cultural value of hedgerows in defining the landscape of this region).
324. See Holder, supra note 118, at 104-105 ("[C]hanges in the rural landscape may be explained primarily as a result of social and economic forces, and particularly advances in agriculture.").
325. Id. at 104.
326. See Dep't for Env't, Food and Rural Affairs, Hedgerows, http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/environment/landscape/hedgerows.htm (last visited Oct. 16, 2006) (on file with the Harvard Environmental Law Review).
327. See, e.g., Cross Compliance Handbook, supra note 264, at 16-31 (listing the Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions in the United Kingdom);
328. see also Eur. Comm'n, Agriculture and the Environment: Introduction, http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/envir/index_en.htm (last visited Oct. 16, 2006) (on file with the Harvard Environmental Law Review) ("[C]onditions will be defined by Member States, and should include standards related to soil protection,... and maintenance of habitats and landscapes.").
329. See Charles E. Hanrahan & Jeffrey Zinn, Cong. Research Serv., Green Payments in U.S. and European Union Agricultural Policy 1, 9-10 (2005), available at http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RL32624.pdf (illustrating the range of SMR requirements dealing with "water pollution, nitrates, pesticides, and habitats and wild birds");
330. see generally Cross Compliance Handbook, supra note 264, at 32-49 (listing SMR conditions).
331. See Hanrahan & Zinn, supra note 282, at 9 (explaining that environmental directives were incorporated into the CAP structure in 2005 and "EU farmers must comply [with these provisions] in order to be eligible for direct support under the recently reformed CAP").
332. Cross Compliance Handbook, supra note 264, at 32-49.
333. Id.
334. Id.
335. Policy Comm'n on the Future of Farming and Food, supra note 7, at 82 (explaining the impact of providing payments for positive management techniques).
336. See discussion supra Part III.B.2.
337. See, e.g., Inst. for Eur. Envtl. Policy, Background Paper for 'Policy Forum on Cross-Compliance in the CAP' 21-23 (2004), available at http://www.ieep.org.uk/publications/pdfs/Crosscompliance/ seminar6background%20paper.pdf (discussing future options for the cross-compliance standards.)
338. Greer, supra note 30, at 173 (explaining that this flexible "system exists precisely because countries need and want to introduce specific national measures in response to domestic issues and problems").
339. See id. at 159 ("[C]ountries can construct their rural development plans to embody their core priorities. This is reflected in resource allocation. Over half of total expenditure in the English RDP goes to the agri-environmental program[s].").
340. See id.
341. See discussion supra Part III (for a more extensive explanation of these devices).
342. Greer, supra note 30, at 171.
343. Dep't for Env't, Food and Rural Affairs, CAP: Single Payment Scheme-Agri-Environment, http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/capreform/ singlepay/modulation [hereinafter CAP: Single Payment Scheme] (last visited Oct. 16, 2006) (on file with the Harvard Environmental Law Review).
344. Id.
345. See Greer, supra note 30, at 171.
346. Id. at 173 (discussing the various ways that member states have implemented rural development programs).
347. See, e.g., Dep't for Env't, Food and Rural Affairs, Strategy for the England Rural Development Programme, http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/docs/ national/section6/strategy.htm (last visited Oct. 16, 2006) (on file with the Harvard Environmental Law Review).
348. See id.
349. Id.
350. Id.
351. See, e.g., Dep't for Env't, Food and Rural Affairs, Welcome to the England Rural Development Programme, http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/ default.htm (last visited Oct. 16, 2006) (on file with the Harvard Environmental Law Review) (showing program consolidation).
352. See, e.g., Policy Comm'n on the Future of Farming and Food, supra note 7, at 78.
353. Rural Dev. Serv., Dep't for Env't, Food and Rural Affairs, Environmental Stewardship: Look After Your Land and Be Rewarded 2 (2004), available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/pdfs/es/es-promotional-booklet.pdf [hereinafter Look After Your Land].
354. Id.
355. Id. at 3.
356. See id. (detailing the statutory requirements behind the Entry Level Stewardship program).
357. See, e.g., Rural Dev. Serv., Dep't for Env't, Food and Rural Affairs, Entry Level Stewardship Handbook 15 (2004), available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/pdfs/es/els-hanbook.pdf. [hereinafter Entry Level Stewardship].
358. Charles, supra note 6.
359. Id.
360. See, e.g., Entry Level Stewardship, supra note 309, at 5-7 (explaining the purpose of Entry Level Stewardship and the fact that "[b]ecause Environmental Stewardship involves expenditure of public money, there is public interest in how the money is spent").
361. Rural Dev. Serv., Dep't for Env't, Food and Rural Affairs, Organic Entry Level Stewardship Program 7 (2004), available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/ erdp/pdfs/es/oels-handbook.pdf [hereinafter Organic Entry Level Stewardship].
362. Look After Your Land, supra note 305, at 5.
363. See id.
364. Organic Entry Level Stewardship, supra note 313, at 8.
365. Look After Your Land, supra note 305, at 3.
366. See, e.g., Rural Dev. Serv., Dep't for Env't, Food and Rural Affairs, Higher Level Stewardship Handbook 5 (2004), available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/pdfs/es/hls-handbook.pdf [hereinafter Higher Level Stewardship].
367. Id. at 5.
368. Id. at 38.
369. See, e.g., Look After Your Land, supra note 305, at 3 ("Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) ... aims to deliver significant environmental benefits in high priority situations and areas.").
370. See discussion supra Part IV (discussing implementation of the 2003 reforms in the United Kingdom).
371. See discussion supra Part IV.B.1.c (explaining the impacts from the decoupling of farm payments in England).
372. See CAP: Single Payment Scheme, supra note 295 (explaining modulation procedures in the United Kingdom).
373. See Single Payment Scheme, supra note 9 (explaining the single payment scheme or the direct payment portion of the allocation);
374. Higher Level Stewardship, supra note 318, at 7 (showing the different levels of payment farmers receive under the U.K. farm payment system).
375. See discussion supra Part IV.B.1.b (explaining the calculation of farm payment amounts).
376. Dep't for Env't, Food, and Rural Affairs, CAP Single Payment Scheme: Basis for Allocation of Entitlement 5, http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/ capreform/background/pdf/webnoterev16.pdf (last visited Nov. 14, 2006) (on file with the Harvard Environmental Law Review).
377. See, e.g., Look After Your Land, supra note 305, at 2 ("Environmental Stewardship is a new agri-environmental scheme which provides funding to farmers and other land managers in England who deliver effective environmental management on their land.").
378. See id. at 4-7.
379. Press Release, Dep't for Env't, Food and Rural Affairs, Wild Bird Populations Encouraging: Elliot Morley (Oct. 21, 2004), available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2004/041021b.htm ("[T]hese figures show some encouraging signs that our policies for biodiversity are resulting in positive outcomes for birds.").
380. Press Release, Countryside Agency, Historic Right of Access Introduced across England (Jan. 3, 2006), available at http://www.countryside.gov.uk/LAR/access_completed.asp (claiming that over 900,000 hectares have recently been opened up for public recreational use).
381. Dep't for Env't, Food and Rural Affairs, Strategy for England Rural Development Programme, http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/docs/national/ section6/strategy.htm (last visited Oct. 16, 2006) (on file with the Harvard Environmental Law Review).
382. See discussion supra Part II.A (detailing past evils of the CAP).
383. See discussion supra Part II.C (explaining the forces driving CAP reform).
384. See Greer, supra note 30, at 206-07 ("[The] [i]ncreased salience of environmental issues has brought a wider array of individuals into the policy context ... [and a] requirement of the CAP rural development plans is that governments undertake extensive consultation with a wide range of economic and social interests.").
385. See, e.g., supra Part II.C.
386. See Inst. for Eur. Env't Policy, Impact of Environmental Agreements on the Common Agricultural Policy (2004), available at http://www.ieep.org.uk/publications/pdfs/meacap/leaflet.pdf ("While some specific policies concerned with biodiversity have already been introduced into the CAP, for example agri-environmental measures, relatively little attention has been paid to climate change issues.").
387. See, e.g., Press Release, Dep't for Env't, Food and Rural Affairs, supra note 330.
388. See discussion supra Part IV.D;
389. see also Greer, supra note 30, at 124 ("France has been one of the central forces that has obstructed radical change in agricultural policy, especially in the world trade and environmental contexts").
390. Greer, supra note 30, at 159-61 (explaining that 40% of funds in Ireland go to rural development as agricultural measures and only 15% in Greece - illustrating that many member states are using the flexibility of rural development programs to maintain support of production agriculture).
391. See discussion supra Part III.A. 1.c.
392. See discussion supra Part III.B.2.
393. See discussion supra Part IV.D (explaining environmental impact in the United Kingdom).
394. See Eur. Comm'n, supra note 158, at 7 (explaining, in contrast to past policies, how "today's CAP is demand driven. It takes consumers' and taxpayers' concerns full into account.").