© The Agricultural Economics Society and the European Association of Agricultural Economists
Edited By: Professor John Davis
Online ISSN: 1746-692X
Associated Title(s): Journal of Agricultural Economics
Recently Published Articles
- Geographical Indications and Transatlantic Trade Negotiations: Different US and EU Perspectives
Maria Cecilia Mancini, Filippo Arfini, Mario Veneziani and Erik Thévenod-Mottet
Version of Record online: 27 JUL 2016 | DOI: 10.1111/1746-692X.12131
Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) are an important issue in the negotiations between the United States (US) and the European Union (EU) for a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) currently underway. However, Geographical Indications (GIs) are one of the most disputed topics because, for decades, the US and the EU have each led one of two seemingly irreconcilable camps on how to address the protection of GIs at the international level. Agreeing on GIs protection in international trade raises important issues related to four dimensions of the GI system, which are likely to become ever more relevant as the TTIP negotiations proceed: i) legal and institutional protection; ii) domestic and international trade; iii) rural/local development and sustainability; and iv) consumers, quality and food safety.
- You have free access to this content
- Private and Public Incentives for Prevention of Livestock Diseases on Danish Farms (pages 50–55)
Juliet Biira, Jens Leth Hougaard and Mogens Lund
Version of Record online: 13 MAY 2016 | DOI: 10.1111/1746-692X.12124
Denmark is one of the EU countries with a highly recognised agricultural sector, a high level of animal health and one of the lowest medication usages. In this article we aim to provide an overview of both private and public animal health incentives nested in the cattle and pig production industry that influence the decisions and behaviours of farmers in prevention of livestock disease epidemics. Not only do individual Danish pig and cattle farmers aim at highly efficient animal production, they are also involved in collective marketing and contracting which can enhance social capital, peer pressure and instill a greater sense of ownership of disease control prevention. Public incentives including rules on how animals should be transported within Denmark, SPF certification requirements and rules on farm biosecurity further improve farmer incentives to prevent animal diseases.
- You have free access to this contentBrexit or Bremain? Future Options for UK Agricultural Policy and the CAP (pages 5–10)
Version of Record online: 13 MAY 2016 | DOI: 10.1111/1746-692X.12126
The outcome of the UK's referendum on continued EU membership is at the time of writing uncertain, and the consequences of a vote to remain (‘Bremain’) or leave (‘Brexit’) difficult to predict. Polarised views have been voiced about the impact of Brexit on UK agriculture, and on the nature and level of funding, of future policy. Policymakers would not have the luxury of devising a new policy from scratch. WTO rules and commitments, the nature of any future accord with the EU, budget constraints, the rather different perspectives of the UK's devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the expectations of farmers, landowners and the environmental lobby, will all impact the policymaking process. The WTO dimension, and the UK's future relationship with the EU, are particularly difficult to predict, and – some commentators believe – may take years to resolve. Brexit's impact on the future CAP is also unclear.
- You have free access to this contentThe Challenges Facing UK Farmers from Brexit (pages 11–16)
Version of Record online: 13 MAY 2016 | DOI: 10.1111/1746-692X.12127
The prospect of exit from the European Union faces UK farmers with a number of additional challenges to add to those they are already coping with in terms of income and price volatility and increases the uncertainties that they face. It is difficult to predict the consequences of Brexit for agriculture with any precision, given the absence of contingency plans by the UK Government and the uncertainties that would follow a vote to leave. However, it is difficult to see that they would, on balance, be advantageous. CAP Pillar 1 farm subsidies would be placed in jeopardy and there would not be a substantial reduction in the level of regulation. The availability of plant protection products could become more restricted and firms would be reluctant to develop distinctive products purely for the UK market. Brexit would serve as a distraction from the many practical challenges facing the UK farming sector.