Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-cnmwb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T01:28:28.821Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Agricultural Trade Liberalization and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Modeling the Linkages Using a Partial Equilibrium Trade Model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Caroline Saunders  and
Anita Wreford
Caroline Saunders
Affiliation:
Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit at Lincoln University in Canterbury, New Zealand
Anita Wreford
Affiliation:
Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit at Lincoln University in Canterbury, New Zealand
Get access

Abstract

Global attempts to limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions may impact on agricultural trade and producer returns, particularly in countries such as New Zealand, where a relatively large proportion of GHG emissions originate from the agricultural sector. This study uses an extended partial equilibrium agricultural trade model to analyze the effects of trade policy liberalization on agricultural production and trade, as well as on GHG emissions. Further analysis combines trade liberalization with GHG mitigation policy in the New Zealand and European dairy sectors, and the effects on producer returns and GHG emissions are predicted. As expected, full trade liberalization in the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries enhances producer returns in New Zealand's dairy sector, but reduces returns in the European Union's dairy sector.

Keywords

partial equilibrium trade modelagricultural production systemgreenhouse gas emissions
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , April 2005 , pp. 32 - 41
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

AEA Technology Environment. 1998. “Options to Reduce N2O Emissions” (final report). Report produced for Directorate General XI (DGXI). AEAT-4180: Issue 3.Google Scholar
Burrell, A. 1989. “The Demand for Fertilizer in the United Kingdom.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 40(1): 1–20.Google Scholar
Cagatay, S., and Saunders, C. 2003. “Lincoln Trade and Environment Model: An Agricultural Multi-Country, Multi-Commodity Partial Equilibrium Framework.” Research Report No. 254, Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Clark, H., de Klein, C., and Newton, P. 2001. “Potential Management Practices and Technologies to Reduce N2O, CH4 and Carbon Dioxide Emissions from New Zealand Agriculture.” Report prepared for Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Clough, T., and Sherlock, R. 2001. Lincoln University, New Zealand. Personal communication.Google Scholar
Cox, T.L., Coleman, J.R., Chavas, J.-P., and Zhu, Y. 1999. “An Economic Analysis of the Effects on the World Dairy Sector of Extending Uruguay Round Agreement to 2005.” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 47(5), 169–183.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization. 2005. Agricultural statistics database Available at http://faostat.fao.org/faostat/.Google Scholar
Gugele, B., Strobel, B., and Taylor, P. 2004. “Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trends and Projections in Europe 2003.” Environmental Issue Report No. 36, European Environmental Agency, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 1996. “Revised 1996 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.” Available at www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gl/invs5c.htm.Google Scholar
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001. “Summary for Policymakers. Climate Change 2001: Mitigation.” A report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available online at http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/wg3spm.pdf.Google Scholar
IPCC [see Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change].Google Scholar
Jarvis, L.S. 1974. “Cattle as Capital Goods and Ranchers as Portfolio Managers: An Application to the Argentine Cattle Sector.” Journal of Political Economy 82(3): 489–520.Google Scholar
New Zealand Ministry for the Environment. 2004. Online material Available at www.climatechange.govt.nz.Google Scholar
Rae, A., and Strutt, A. 2001. “Livestock Production and the Environment: Some Impacts of Growth and Trade Liberalization.” New Zealand Economic Papers 35(2): 176–194.Google Scholar
Randhir, T., and Hertel, T. 2000. “Trade Liberalization as a Vehicle for Adapting to Global Warming.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 29(2): 159–172.Google Scholar
Roningen, V.O. 1986. “A Static Policy Simulation Modeling (SWOPSIM) Framework.” Staff Report No. AGES 860625, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Roningen, V.O., Dixit, P., Sullivan, J., and Hart, T. 1991. “Overview of the Static World Policy Simulation (SWOPSIM) Modeling Framework.” Staff Report No. AGES 9114, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Shaw, I., and Love, G. 2001. “Impacts of Liberalising World Trade in Dairy Products.” ABARE (Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics) Research Report No. 01.4, Canberra, Australia.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2005. Database available at http://www.usda.gov/nass/.Google Scholar