RED vs. REDD: Biofuel Policy vs. Forest Conservation. Factor Markets Working Document No. 41, May 2013

This paper assesses the complex interplay between global Renewable Energy Directives (RED) and the United Nations programme to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD). We examine the interaction of the two policies using a scenario approach with a recursive-dynamic global Computable General Equilibrium model. The consequences of a global biofuel directive on worldwide land use, agricultural production, international trade flows, food prices and food security out to 2030 are evaluated with and without a strict global REDD policy. We address a key methodological challenge of how to model the supply of land in the face of restrictions over its availability, as arises under the REDD policy. The paper introduces a flexible land supply function, which allows for large changes in the total potential land availability for agriculture. Our results show that whilst both RED and REDD are designed to reduce emissions, they have opposing impacts on land use. RED policies are found to extend land use whereas the REDD policy leads to an overall reduction in land use and intensification of agriculture. Strict REDD policies to protect forest and woodland lead to higher land prices in all regions. World food prices are slightly higher overall with some significant regional increases, notably in Southern Africa and Indonesia, leading to reductions in food security in these countries. This said, real food prices in 2030 are still lower than the 2010 level, even with the RED and REDD policies in place. Overall this suggests that RED and REDD are feasible from a worldwide perspective, although the results show that there are some regional problems that need to be resolved. The results show that countries directly affected by forest and woodland protection would be the most economically vulnerable when the REDD policy is implemented. The introduction of REDD policies reduces global trade in agricultural products and moves some developing countries to a net importing position for agricultural products. This suggests that the protection of forests and woodlands in these regions reverses their comparative advantage as they move from being land-abundant to land-scarce regions. The full REDD policy setting, however, foresees providing compensation to these countries to cover their economic losses.

The Political Economy of the 2014-2020 Common Agricultural Policy: An Imperfect Storm. CEPS Paperback, 17 August 2015

After five years of debates, consultations and negotiations, the European institutions reached an agreement in 2013 on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for the 2014-2020 period. The outcome has major implications for the EU’s budget and farmers’ incomes but also for Europe’s environment, its contribution to global climate change and to food security in the EU and in the world. It was decided to spend more than €400 billion during the rest of the decade on the CAP.The official claims are that the new CAP will take better account of society's expectations and lead to far-reaching changes by making subsidies fairer and ‘greener’ and making the CAP more efficient. It is also asserted that the CAP will play a key part in achieving the overall objective of promoting smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. However, there is significant scepticism about these claims and disappointment with the outcome of the decision-making, the first in which the European Parliament was involved under the co-decision procedure. In contrast to earlier reforms where more substantive changes were made to the CAP, the factors that induced the policy discussions in 2008-13 and those that influenced the decision-making did not reinforce each other. On the contrary, they sometimes counteracted one another, yielding an ‘imperfect storm’ as it were, resulting in more status quo and fewer changes. This book discusses the outcome of the decision-making and the factors that influenced the policy choices and decisions. It brings together contributions from leading academics from various disciplines and policy-makers, and key participants in the process from the European Commission and the European Parliament.