European Union: Shadow WTO agricultural domestic support notifications

The notification of the level of domestic support to the World Trade Organization (WTO) is intended to reflect compliance with obligations entered into at the time of the Uruguay Round. WTO members have often been slow to provide notification of domestic support levels. This makes the process of notification less useful as an indicator of the degree to which changes in policy have or have not benefited the trade system as a whole and exporting countries in particular. The notification of domestic support in the E.U. illustrates the value of a measure that reflects current policies and can therefore act as a basis for negotiation of further disciplines where these are necessary. The E.U. has made major changes in its Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) over the period since 1992 when the MacSharry reforms were implemented. Payments originally notified in the blue box (related to supply control) have over time been changed until in their present form they are unrelated to current production or price levels, and hence can satisfy the criteria for the green box. The E.U. has therefore much more latitude in trade talks to agree to reductions in the allowable trade-distorting support. This paper reproduced the E.U. notifications relating to 2003/04 and extends these with official statistics to the year 2006/07. It then projects forward the components of domestic support until the year 2013/14, based on forecasts of future production and estimates of policy parameters. The impact of a successful Doha Round is simulated, showing that the constraints envisaged in the WTO draft modalities document of May 19, 2008, would be binding by the year 2013, at about the time the next budget cycle in the E.U. starts. Without the Doha Round constraints, further reform might still happen for domestic reasons, but the framework provided by the WTO for domestic policy spending would be less relevant. In that case, much could hinge on the legitimacy of the Single Farm Payment system under the current rules governing the green box.

Robust dynamics of Amazon dieback to climate change with perturbed ecosystem model parameters

Climate change science is increasingly concerned with methods for managing and integrating sources of uncertainty from emission storylines, climate model projections, and ecosystem model parameterizations. In tropical ecosystems, regional climate projections and modeled ecosystem responses vary greatly, leading to a significant source of uncertainty in global biogeochemical accounting and possible future climate feedbacks. Here, we combine an ensemble of IPCC-AR4 climate change projections for the Amazon Basin (eight general circulation models) with alternative ecosystem parameter sets for the dynamic global vegetation model, LPJmL. We evaluate LPJmL simulations of carbon stocks and fluxes against flux tower and aboveground biomass datasets for individual sites and the entire basin. Variability in LPJmL model sensitivity to future climate change is primarily related to light and water limitations through biochemical and water-balance-related parameters. Temperature-dependent parameters related to plant respiration and photosynthesis appear to be less important than vegetation dynamics (and their parameters) for determining the magnitude of ecosystem response to climate change. Variance partitioning approaches reveal that relationships between uncertainty from ecosystem dynamics and climate projections are dependent on geographic location and the targeted ecosystem process. Parameter uncertainty from the LPJmL model does not affect the trajectory of ecosystem response for a given climate change scenario and the primary source of uncertainty for Amazon 'dieback' results from the uncertainty among climate projections. Our approach for describing uncertainty is applicable for informing and prioritizing policy options related to mitigation and adaptation where long-term investments are required.

Framing evidence: policy design for the zero carbon home

In 2006 the UK government announced a move to zero carbon homes by 2016. The demand posed a major challenge to policy makers and construction professionals entailing a protracted process of policy design. The task of giving content to this target is used to explore the role of evidence in the policy process. Whereas much literature on policy and evidence treats evidence as an external input, independent of politics, this paper explores the ongoing mutual constitution of both. Drawing on theories of policy framing and the sociology of classification, the account follows the story of a policy for Zero Carbon Homes from the parameters and values used to specify the target. Particular attention is given to the role of Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs) and to the creation of a new policy venue, the Zero Carbon Hub. The analysis underlines the way in which the choices about how to model and measure the aims potentially transforms them, the importance of policy venues for transparency and the role of RIAs in the authorization of particular definitions. A more transparent, open approach to policy formulation is needed in which the framing of evidence is recognized as an integral part of the policy process.

How much flower-rich habitat is enough for wild pollinators? Answering a key policy question with incomplete knowledge

In 2013, an opportunity arose in England to develop an agri-environment package for wild pollinators, as part of the new Countryside Stewardship scheme launched in 2015. It can be understood as a 'policy window', a rare and time-limited opportunity to change policy, supported by a narrative about pollinator decline and widely supported mitigating actions. An agri-environment package is a bundle of management options that together supply sufficient resources to support a target group of species. This paper documents information that was available at the time to develop such a package for wild pollinators. Four questions needed answering: (1) Which pollinator species should be targeted? (2) Which resources limit these species in farmland? (3) Which management options provide these resources? (4) What area of each option is needed to support populations of the target species? Focussing on wild bees, we provide tentative answers that were used to inform development of the package. There is strong evidence that floral resources can limit wild bee populations, and several sources of evidence identify a set of agri-environment options that provide flowers and other resources for pollinators. The final question could only be answered for floral resources, with a wide range of uncertainty. We show that the areas of some floral resource options in the basic Wild Pollinator and Farmland Wildlife Package (2% flower-rich habitat and 1 km flowering hedgerow), are sufficient to supply a set of six common pollinator species with enough pollen to feed their larvae at lowest estimates, using minimum values for estimated parameters where a range was available. We identify key sources of uncertainty, and stress the importance of keeping the Package flexible, so it can be revised as new evidence emerges about how to achieve the policy aim of supporting pollinators on farmland.