Trends of Agri-environmental Performance and Agri-environmental Policy

in OECD Countries∗

Katrin Daedlow

Department of Political Science University of Greifswald

Baderstraße 6/7 17487 Greifswald

Germany

Fon: +49/3834/863157 Fax: +49/3834/863153

E-mail: katrin.daedlow@uni-greifswald.de

Paper presented at the ECPR 2005 Joint Sessions of Workshops, April 14th to April 19th, University of Granada Workshop 20: Pioneers and Convergence in National Environmental Policy: Concepts, Causes and Conditions

Abstract Theoretically embedded in comparative political research and linked with the concept of political performance, this paper will explore the development of agri-environmental policy to reduce environmental pressure in the agricultural sector of 21 OECD countries. Regarding this connection, there is one main question to ask: 1) What are the trends (convergence or divergence) in agri-environmental pressure and which countries are successful in reducing agri-environmental stress? Central to the paper is the fact that the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the European Union (EU) seems to be a strong factor for convergence among member states, thus, preducing improvements in agri-environmental performance. This is examined with the help of outcome variables. The operationalization of the output variables requires further optimization. According to this, the paper presents first investigation of the outcome variables to localize countries in a pioneer position.

∗ Parts of the data and resources used are derived from the project „Environmental policy as a global phenomenon“, sponsored by DFG (German Research Association) and managed by Prof. Detlef Jahn at the University of Greifswald.

1. Introduction

One of the most important questions in environmental policy research is the search for trends in

environmental performance between different countries – is there a trend towards convergence in

environmental policy, or, on the contrary, are there laggards, which fail to manage environmental

pressure and stay behind the pioneers? Thus, another major question results in the search for pioneer

countries; that is, for countries, which show successful environmental performance. The conditions of

their success can, at least in part, be applied to other countries (laggards or latecomers) and ultimately

cause additional positive environmental performance.

In the recent literature, these questions are investigated in connection to environmental pressures in

particular countries on the one hand, and in connection to specific environmental media on the other

hand. Studies with a focus on a particular sector of a state’s economy, like the industrial or transport

sector, are rare. One example is the study by Jänicke et al. (1992) which concentrated on the industrial

sector under the research question ‘Environmental Relief Through Structural Change?’. Studies about

environmental performance in the agricultural sector from a comparative perspective are as well rare.

This, also, applies to the search for pioneers and laggards, and for convergence and divergence in agri-

environmental performance.

The agricultural sector1 is one of the most important user of natural resources and puts great pressure

on the environment. Especially the industrialized agriculture of the OECD countries causes long-range

and long-term negative ecological effects; like eutrophication of surface water, loss of biodiversity, air

pollution, greenhouse gases, soil erosion, and damage to soil structure. Thus, examining the conditions

that encourage successful agri-environmental performance is of great practical relevancy.

In order to examine the problems outlined above, the agricultural sector is analysed with the aid of the

environmental performance concept. The performance concept is defined by Schmidt as a: “technical

term for the observable and measurable capabilities … of a political system, of a administration or of

another political actor” (2004: 551, own translation). In this respect, it is crucial to distinguish between

output and outcome. Output means the “production or the rate of production of the political system”

and outcome represents for the concrete results of political decisions (ibid. 506, own translation).

Transfered to the agricultural sector, agri-environmental performance means the observable and

measurable results of the performance of political systems, administrations or other political actors

concerning the reduction of environmental pressure in the agricultural sector. Output (political

measures) refers, for instance, to regulations, laws, financial aids or expenditures to reduce agri-

environmental pressure. Outcome can be measured by fertilizer and pesticides consumption, for

instance. The measurement and examination of outcomes (concrete environmental pollution) can be

used to review the success of output (political measures).

1 The fishery sector is excluded because of: 1) it is a separately part within food supply sector; 2) it causes different kinds of environmental pressure and has a different economic structure.

2

In connection to the issues described above, there is one main question to ask:

1) What are the trends (convergence and divergence) in agri-environmental pressure and which

countries are successful in reducing agri-environmental stress?

There are neither clear trends of overall convergence or divergence in the reduction of environmental

pressure, nor in environmental policy aimed at reducing pollution. The same applies for the agri-

environmental sector as well.

Nevertheless, the environmental policy literature has identified countries like the Netherlands,

Sweden, Germany, Austria, Finland, Sweden, Japan, and USA as pioneers over several time periods

(Knill 2003, Jänicke & Weidner 1997, Anderson & Liefferink 1997). This paper investigates whether

the same countries are, also, the pioneers in the agri-environmental policy field or not.

The units of analysis are 21 OECD countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland,

France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal,

Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Great Britain and The United States of America. These countries were

selected for three reasons. Firstly, the research centres on countries with a highly industrialized

agriculture. Secondly, the so-called ‘most similar system design’ was applied. Different structures

between similar state systems can, assumably, explain the occurrence of different phenomena: “The

most similar system design is based on a belief that a number of theoretically significant differences

will be found among similar systems and that these differences can be used in explanation”

(Przeworski & Teune 1970: 39). The third reason for the choice of these particular countries was

simply the availability of data.

Additionally, a comparison of several countries is very useful for showing general trends between

countries and for localizing pioneers or laggards. This is done with a descriptive analysis of different

indicators, visualized by graphs and ranking tables.

This paper is structured as follows: After this introduction, a short description of how the agricultural

sector functions will follow, and the third part clarifies the theoretical background for the main

discussion point (influence of CAP) relating to the research question. The fourth section contains the

descriptive analysis with remarks on operationalization and data sources.

2. Environmental pressure: state intervention in the agricultural sector

The state has always exercised a strong influence over the agricultural sector, in order to secure the

food supply of the nation. In the absence of secure food supplies, any and all other administrative and

economic activities are impossible (Ingersent & Rayner 1999). But why does the state have to

intervene so strongly in this sector? Agriculture is very dependent on nature and climatic conditions.

Poor or very good harvests cause large price fluctuations, high to low prices respectably. Traditionally

to protect consumers, as well as producers, against such fluctuations, the state intervened in the market

using various instruments. If harvests were good, the state supported farmers by buying up grain and

3

assisting exports. By removing agricultural products from the domestic market, supply was reduced,

preventing a further fall in prices and establishing conditions for higher prices. In the case of poor

harvests, consumers were supported through the sale of stock piled food stuffs and an increase in

imports. Such measures raised the supply of food, keeping prices affordable. This system of

stabilization policy primarily covered the most important storable food stuffs, e.g. grain.

Nowadays, despite, or also because of, the massive changes that have taken place in the agricultural

sector; the state still has many means of influencing market activity in the agricultural sector at its

disposal, regulating both internal and external effects. Therefore, the state is an important actor in this

sector.

In the last 50 years or so, the agricultural sector has experienced far reaching structural change. In

those countries where a strong economic upturn occurred (the OECD2 states), a modern, technical

agricultural sector, characterized by an energy and capital intensive production of food stuffs,

emerged. Just as in other parts of an economy, the dominant orientation was towards growth

(Meadows & Meadows 1972; for a overview of the discussion see Dryzek & Schlosberg 1998). The

effects on the environment and humanity were not considered. The decline in employment in the

agricultural sector, the specialization in arable and livestock farming and concomitant decline in mixed

farming, the increase in farm size, and, in recent years, the introduction of generating modified plants

were characteristic for this growth orientation in the agricultural sector (OECD 2003, 2000). This

change in the agricultural sector was politically enforced and respected at the national and

international level (Clay 2004: 11-2). In the years after World War II, the production of sufficient food

supplies and the stabilization of the agricultural sector were of major concern, and a complex system

of subsidies, protective tariffs, and diverse other regulations (which continue to be applied today) were

developed to achieve these aims. This development reached its pinnacle in Europe, when the States

joined together to form the European Community and, later, the European Union (Rieger 2000).

The environmental pressures caused by this system of agricultural production effects all environmental

media: water, soil, air, plants, and animals. All influence the well-being of humans. Toxic pollution

from pesticides and fertilizers, soil erosion and damage to soil structure, loss of biodiversity, and

emissions of greenhouse gases are just some of the many effects of agricultural production on the

environment (for a more complete list see OECD 2004, 2003: 7-9, 2000; Hill 1997; Umweltbundesamt

1997; Rat von Sachverständigen für Umweltfragen 1992). These negative side effects of agricultural

production destroy environmental resources and jeopardize the health of people and animals with food

stuffs that contain harmful levels of toxic substances. This capital and resource intensive manner of

production serves the powerful food industry, which supplies most people in the world and, thus, has

considerable influence on prices and on the conditions of production for agricultural products (Clay

2 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) – organization of states which are characterized by capitalistically market economies and which coordinate their economical, financial and social-political matters (Schmidt 2004: 503).

4

2004). On the whole, a considerable gap can be observed between the quantity and quality of

agricultural production.

“There are two basic truths that will shape the future of farming – there is a steady increase in the

consumption of food and fiber produced by agriculture, while at the same time there is a steady

decline in the quality and productivity of soil around the world. The two trends are on a collision

course. This collision will not be avoided by a single solution.” (Clay 2004: vii)

For this reason, pressure is mounting to use sustainable practices to manage environmental pressures

and to reduce the health risks for consumers (Härdtlein et al. 2000). That state intervention will form

part of the solution is certain3. As it has done for centuries, the state attempts to balance out external

effects on the market. The most important tasks will be to ensure that the costs of environmental

damage are borne by the agricultural producer (polluter pays principle), rather than by society as a

whole, and to prevent environmental pressures in the first place (Baldock 1992). One problem in this

respect is that incentives for environmentally-friendly production in the agricultural sector are lacking.

Thus, the impact lies with the state, as the mediator between different interests, to correct this deficit

with different instruments4.

The increasing problems of environmental pressure, as well as other difficulties in the agricultural

sector (overproduction, falling prices, subsidies, trade barriers), led to a rethink, and since the

1980s/1990s there has been a flurry of political reforms aimed at reducing pressure on the

environment. These reform efforts have been characterized by the need to find the middle course

between the various problem areas in the agricultural sector, and, especially, by the need to find a

compromise between liberalization and protection of the environment (Ingersent & Rayner 1999: 17;

Almås 1994). Due to the extent of political influence in the agricultural sector, this forms a central

research focus here. Without consideration of the role of the state, a reform of the agricultural market

according to the principle of sustainability can not take place (on the importance of the state for social

science research see Levi 2002)5.

3. Theoretical background

The hypothetical explanations for the improvement of environmental policy in and between different

countries are many and diverse. For instance, different institutional forms in democratic systems are

seen as an important cause for a positive development of environmental policy and the reduction of

pollution (Scuggs 2003; Jahn 1998; Daugbjerg 1998; Vogel 1986). Thus, there are countries which

3 For Ingersent & Rayner (1999: 5-7) there are three other areas of the agricultural sector besides the issue of environmental pressure that require state regulation to ensure that the market works: 1) agricultural Research & Development, 2) market information and as described above 3) commodity stabilisation (prices, incomes and market supplies). 4 On the development of the instruments available to states in agricultural policy see among others Latacz-Lohmann & Hodge 2003, Hodge 2000 or Ingersent & Rayner 1999: 17. 5 Other explanations are neglected here. Economic approaches in particular often explain problems in the agricultural sector in tems of the failure of state policies to regulate the market and stress that economic instruments will manage environmental pressures, too. Despite this situation though, the state attempts to institute corresponding reforms (Ingersent & Rayner 1999: 17).

5

take the role of pioneers while other countries lag behind in their development. In addition, there is

strong evidence in the literature within the group of industrialized countries, especially the European

Union members, that environmental policy innovations are diffused from the pioneers to the laggards

(Tews et al. 2003; Binder 2002; Kern et al. 2001; Jänicke & Jörgens 2000; Jänicke & Weidner 1997).

What are the hypothetical explanations in the agricultural sector? The Common Agricultural Policy of

the EU is held as an important assumption in the literature on the explanation for the development of

convergence between countries and of existing pioneers and latecomers. Some researchers, like

Glasbergen, see the only hope of improving national agri-environmental pressure in the Common

Agricultural Policy of the European Union (1992: 47).

In comparative environmental policy research, there are several studies which stress the convergence

of environmental policy among EU, or in a wider context, OECD countries (Tews et al. 2003; Kern et

al. 2001; Jänicke & Jörgens 2000; Jänicke & Weidner 1997). Different arguments from regulatory

competition (Busch et al. 2004; Holzinger 2003; Kern 2001, Hoberg 2001; Vogel 2001, 1997) through

international cooperation (Miles et al. 2002; Botcheva & Martin 2001; Martin & Simmons 1998) to

transnational communication (Dolowitz & Marsh 2000; Evans & Davies 1999) are discussed as

reasons for this development.

In the area of agri-environmental policy, one of the important explanations for convergence between

countries is the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union through its agri-environmental

measures (Convery et al. 2002; Glasbergen 1992). Besides the financial market the agricultural sector

is the most regulated sector of the EU. There are three reasons for supporting the CAP to promote

agri-environmental policy convergence. Firstly, the interest mediation system on the EU level is open

to other interests, in contrast to the national levels of agri-environmental policy. Secondly, due to a

high degree of policy integration and strong regulations by the EU, member countries do not have

much leeway to refuse compliance with the demands of EU directives. Thirdly, measures to reduce

and avoid environmental pressure were introduced in to the CAP over the course of several reform

phases.

Since the late 1960s, the environmental pressure on our planet has increasingly become a topic for

discussion on the national and international level. The success story here is that, not only have national

initiatives in many international treaties been agreed upon, and, furthermore, these contain incentives

for compliance, such as, status gains or the risk of punishment, thus, effecting behaviour. But the great

influence of environmental interest groups in international and supranational organizations, as in the

EU, should also be acknowledged with out reservations (McCormick 2001: 41-68). Additionally, there

is strong evidence that national agrarian interest groups do not have the same influence on the

European Union level as on the national level:

6

“However, the agrarian interest groups did not have the power or the means to influence the terms of

the 1992 CAP reforms significantly, at either national or European level. …. National elections have

been much more important and have pushed agricultural interests also to work through national

channels, by focusing on individual members of the Council of Ministers.” (Rieger 2000: 198)

The background to this situation is, that in comparison to the historical incorporation of agrarian

interest groups by the state, mediating between farmers and consumers, these interest groups do not

have the same influence on the ‚new’ institution of the European Union. Another reason is, in contrast

to the environmental interest groups, it is difficult to coordinate different competeting national

agrarian interest groups and to combine these groups into one strong interest representation actor in

the European Union.

Concerning the second and third points described above, it is clear that directives and regulations6

from the European Union have to be implemented by the member states, notwithstanding the deficits

in this area, and strong sanctions used as threat for non-compliance. After the crisis of the Common

Agricultural Policy in the 1980s (mentioned in part 2), some agri-environmental issues were taken into

consideration in the different CAP reform phases, and several directives and regulations about agri-

environmental measures were passed. A first step in regulating environmental issues in the European

agricultural sector was the 1985 Regulation 797/85, which introduced the concept of environmentally

friendly farming into the CAP. In 1991, the Regulation on organic agriculture 2092/91 was approved.

Followed by Regulation 2078/92 of 1992, which “requires member states to establish aid schemes to

encourage agricultural production methods compatible with the protection of the environment and the

maintenance of the countryside” (McCormick 2001: 252). In addition, several minor regulations to

promote environmental issues in the agricultural sector were passed. Furthermore, environmental

regulations and directives approved in other policy fields also concern agri-environmental pollution

(detailed report in part 4.1). The last CAP reform concerning environmental pollution was in 2003 in

response to outbreaks of dangerous animal diseases since the mid 1990s in the European agricultural

sector and their implications for food safety. This Regulation 10961/03 is another important step

towards the consideration of environmental issues in the food production chain.

But, of course, “[whether] the policy instruments of the reform can become effective in transforming

the dominant trend of agricultural intensification is not yet clear” (Bruckmeier & Ehlert 2002), and

there are strong critics of the way of regulating environmental issues as regulated in the CAP. In

particular, critics note that the regulations do not go far enough to protect environmental interests

(McCormick 2001: 253-4), and that the implementation of EU regulations is incomplete and varies

between the member states (Knill 2003; Knill & Lenschow 2000). Nevertheless, there are efforts to

change traditional forms of regulation (Holzinger et al. 2002).

6 The difference between directives and regulations from the EU is that the first require the Member States to amend or adopt national legislation by a specified deadline and the second are the strongest form of Community legislation, and are directly applicable in all Member States.

7

Regarding the agri-environmental regulations within the CAP, it is argued that member countries of

the EU, which are committed to implement these measures, show a positive and convergent

development in agri-environmental performance, contrary to non-member countries, which probably

show differing trends of agri-environmental performance.

At this point, some remarks are necessary to clarify what is meant by convergence and divergence (see

also Kitschelt et al. 1999: 439). Figure 1 illustrates the different forms of possible development

between countries relevant for the analysis.

Figure 1: Trends of development and behaviour of pioneers and laggards

Catch-up: Convergence from below (+) from above (-)

Divergence

Pioneers

Laggards

Divergence is clear: two sides move from one similar point in different directions. Convergence is the

opposite. As Schmidt states, convergence is: “in general the moving closer together of different

objects” (2004: 384, own translation). This implies intuitively that both sides change their position

over time from different points and approach each other. But there are two particular forms of

convergence: catch up from below and catch up from above. In both of these forms, convergence is

asymmetric – one side adapts its behaviour, policy etc. more towards that of the other side.

For the purposes of this paper, that means that pioneer countries (countries with a positive

environmental policy) converge from above and the latecomers approach from below. It goes without

saying that the most highly regarded trend is the catch-up development from below, because

latecomers try to attain the higher standards of the pioneer countries. That applies to output variables.

The opposite (catch-up from above) is the best trend for outcome variables. This is an important basis

for the analysis in the following section.

8

4. Analysis

4.1 Operationalization

Two problems arise during the operationalization and data search process. Firstly, there is a gap

between the availability of output and outcome variables. The output variables, especially, require

more research than the circumstances of this paper allow. Secondly, there are several restrictions in

using data because of the periodic changes in the collecting definitions (this applies to carbon dioxide

emissions as provided by the International Energy Agency), and no data is available concerning some

countries over a longer period of time (for instance, number of organic farms is difficult to find for

overseas countries). Given these limitations, it is difficult to examine the theoretical discussion above.

However, there are some indicators for output and outcome which we can use as proxies and a

relationship is assumed.

As described in the introduction, the output variables are the result of the implementation process of

the political interest representation system, and they include, for instance, laws, regulations,

subventions, expenditures and other instruments. To properly test whether or not the EU CAP eases

successful agri-environmental performance, there are some EU regulations and directives which can

be used as output variables. There are four important regulations on environmentally friendly

agriculture (McCormick 2001: 252):

• 797/85 Regulation on efficiency of agricultural structures. Introduces concept of environmentally

sensitive farming into the Common Agricultural Policy (1985).

• 1272/88 Regulation on withdrawals of land from agricultural production to reduce surplus

production and to protect environment (1988). Details the rules for aid arrangements to

environmentally friendly production (started by 797/85 Regulations). Specific environmental

matters are dealt with, for instance: to avoid irrigation, spreading of mineral or organic fertilizers,

and pesticide consumption (Hawke & Kovaleva 1998: 36).

• 2092/91 Regulation on organic agriculture. Sets up harmonized framework for labelling,

production, and quality of organic agricultural products (1991).

• 2078/92 Regulation on agricultural production methods. Requires member states to establish aid

schemes to encourage agricultural production methods compatible with the protection of the

environment and the maintenance of the countryside (1992)7.

In addition, important laws concerning agri-environmental pressures were enacted by the EU in other

policy fields. Those are for instance, some important directives on chemical waste and water quality

(McCormick 2001: 161, 198):

7

The newest Regulation 10961/03 (2003) on a further reform of the agricultural sector concerning environmental issues (cross-compliance), trade openness and reduction of price support is too recent to be included in the analysis of trends and pioneers.

9

• 74/63 Directive on the content of animal feed. Establishes maximum levels of pesticide residues in

animal feed (1974).

• 76/895 Directive on pesticide residues. Establishes levels for pesticide residues in and on fruit and

vegetables (1976).

• 78/631 Directive on pesticides. Prohibits the marketing of pesticides containing substances such as

mercury or DDT (1978).

• 91/676 Directive on water pollution by nitrates. Requires action on pollution of water from nitrates

in inorganic fertilizer and manure (1991).

However, it is still difficult to operationalize implementation and the monitoring of these instruments,

in general. The research in the Annual Reports on Monitoring the Application of Community Law,

published by the European Commission, show that there is no category for agri-environmental

directives8 (Commission 1998). On the one hand, in the Chapter on environmental law there is no sub-

sector for agricultural directives, and, on the other hand in the Chapter on agricultural law, there is no

sub-sector for environmental directives. Thus, it is difficult to localize the score of application of agri-

environmental directives and further research is necessary. However, Knill (2003: 172-9) presents an

examination on the application of environmental directives. He finds out, that Denmark, Germany,

Finland, The Netherlands, Austria, and Sweden are pioneers in the application of environmental

directives (ibid. 176). Additionally, he stresses that, since the mid 1990s, the application of

environmental directives is implemented faster through strong improvements of late-comers (Greece,

Ireland, Portugal, and Spain).

Additionally, this paper can not consider all relevant regulation. EU law is very complex and the most

important regulations have been pointed out here (for a detailed overview, see Hawke & Kovaleva

1998). And as stressed above, the availability of data on agri-environmental law implementation is

very poor. Another point is that the quality of implementation and the translation of these regulations

and directives into national law within the member states are different (Knill 2003: 177-9; Knill &

Lenschow 2001; 2000).

Through finding data on agri-environmental outcome (defined as direct pressure on environment) is

easier, this data presents other problems. The most crucial point is that quality measures are not

comparable, thus, consumption or emission data is used, which is collected for all units, which in our

case are countries. Furthermore, there are some gaps in the data. Additionally, it is not easy to find

some outcome data for these regulations and directives. One example is the outcome support of the

regulation on organic agriculture from 1991. It regulates the framework for labelling, production, and

monitoring, yet, financial or other direct state aids. However, the following figures show the increase

in the number of organic or co-inversion farms after the year 1991 in EU member countries in general.

The data comes from the Statistical Office of the European Union.

8 Regulations are not considered in these publications because of their direct application in Member States.

10

Figure 2: Number of organic and in-conversion farms certified by the EU 1993-2002

EU number of organic farms

This data for the increase in the number of organic farms in the EU is shown here, because it is

difficult to find the data on the number of organic farms relative to the number of conventional farms

for any given country, which would be necessary for comparing the outcome performance of the

different countries. Thus, the indicator ‘number of organic farms’ can not be included in further

analysis and evaluation. Nonetheless, it is shown that the number of organic or in-conversion farms

increased almost five-fold between 1993 and 2002 and, it is assumed that, one reason for this is the

Regulation 2092/91 of the European Union.

Despite this situation concerning outcome variables, several concepts have developed on international

and national levels (OECD, Food and Agriculture Organization, European Union, World Resource

Institute, overview: Brouwer & Crabtree 1999) to establish common indicators for recording the

conditions of environmental pressure in the agricultural sector. Central to this paper is the concept of

the OECD (2000) because it is, firstly, a very well-developed concept; secondly, it is drawn together

for OECD member states which are the objects of this investigation; and, thirdly, it guarantees a

degree of international comparability9. The OECD splits the influence of the agricultural sector on

environment into six parts: 1. soil quality, 2. water quality, 3. land conservation, 4. greenhouse gases,

5. biodiversity, 6. landscape (OECD 2000: 29). For each of these aspects of environmental pressure,

the OECD uses 3 to 4 indicators. It is difficult to get data for all relevant indicators over a longer

period of time, and, thus, most are not considered in this paper.

Nonetheless, the regulations and directives mentioned above, on environmental friendly agriculture,

on pesticides, irrigated area, and nitrogenous fertilizer can be evaluated by outcome variables. The

following indicators were selected: nitrogenous fertilizer consumption in kg per km²/arable land,

pesticide consumption in kg/km² arable land, and irrigated area in percent of agricultural land. The

basis for these choices was that: a) the reliable time series data necessary to examine trends were

9 Criteria for outcome indicators are a) political and social relevance, b) analytical reliability and c) possibility of measurement (OECD 2003: 5).

0 20000 40000 60000 80000

100000 120000 140000 160000

1993 1994 1995 2000 2001 1996 1997 1998 1999 2002

11

available for all three indicators and b) as described above, there are output indicators (EU regulations

and directives) for all three outcome indicators.

The outcome indicators relate to crucial environmental pressures. Nitrogenous fertilizer causes several

pressures on the environment: algal growth and eutrophication, changes in the taste of water, surface

water obstruction, fish kills, illness due to high levels of algal toxins and methaemoglobinaemia in

infants; a possible cause of cancer (Hogg 2002: 235). Pesticides have similarly a high impact on the

environment: “Contamination of rainfall, surface and groundwater. Can cause harm to wildlife through

direct and indirect (loss of food sources) effects. And this can also lead to excessive levels (human

health problems) in drinking water sources” (Hogg 2002: 235). Last, the irrigation of agricultural land

can deplete ground water supply and, in the end, the agricultural land dries up and becomes salty.

The causal relationship between output and outcome is, of course, hypothetical. We can not be

completely sure that one particular policy output results in a particular outcome because other factors

can influence the outcome, as well. However, it is possible to ascertain whether levels of consumption

for pesticides and nitrogenous fertilizers or the extent of irrigated area changes after two time periods:

late 1970s and late 1980s/early 1990s. For instance, the development after the time point “late

1980s/early 1990” (because of the Regulation 1272/88 and Directive 91/676) is crucial for the analysis

of the outcome of the nitrogenous fertilizer consumption variable.

The data for nitrogenous fertilizer consumption of arable land (kg/km²), and of irrigated area in

percent of agricultural land comes from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

(FAO). The data for pesticide consumption (kg/km²) was collected from the OECD Environmental

Data Compendia (from 1991 to 2004)10.

4.2 Descriptive Analysis

4.2.1 Tools

The analysis of the outcome variables described above is carried out with the help of the following

statistical tools (compare in part Neumayer 2001; Castles 1998):

• Fundamental is the calculation of the mean value for all countries together at a specific date, by

which we can measure the extent of change.

• To examine the trends of convergence or divergence, the so-called coefficient of variance (VOC)

is calculated. “…the COV is independent of the unit of measurement used and ‘normalized’ in

dividing the standard deviation by the mean. It can therefore be used to compare the variability of

data measured in the same unit, but with different means, as well as data measured in different

units. It is often expressed in percentage terms, where 0 per cent would imply no variability”

(Neumayer 2001: 930). Thus, it allows the comparison of different units (countries) over several

time points (for example 1961, 1970 etc.) and it shows the extent of variation among the units at

10 About problems of using OECD environmental data look Daedlow (2004).

12

different time points. The more the values of VOC decrease, the more convergence exists. The

more the values of VOC increase, the more divergence exists.

• Additionally, the values of the co-efficient of variance are shown in a graph to visualize the

convergence and divergence developments of OECD, EU, and Non-EU countries.

• The descriptive analysis of the mean values is made visible by means of a graph. This graph

presents, in addition to the trend of convergence or divergence, the catch-up development for all

countries. This is possible by showing the calculation of three mean values. The first mean value is

calculated for all 21 OECD countries together, the second for the three countries with the highest

consumption (high mean value), and the third for the three countries with the lowest consumption

(low mean value). The relationship between the three mean values provides information about the

proportional or unproportional approaching of the high and low mean value to the mean value of

all 21 OECD countries. A catch-up trend from below is existent, if the distance from the low mean

value to the mean value of 21 countries becomes smaller than the distance from the high mean

value to the mean value of 21 countries. A catch-up trend from above is existent, if the distance of

the high mean value from the mean value of 21 countries becomes smaller than the distance from

the low mean value to the mean value of 21 countries. The mean value developments of the

outcome variables are shown for all OECD countries, EU member countries, and Non-EU member

countries separately11.

• To investigate pioneer countries, ranking tables will show the top and the last five of the 21 OECD

countries, and the top and the last five of the EU member states.

4.2.2 Results

The outcome variables are examined with the help of the COV and the graphs with the different mean

values for every country group. The COV shows only whether there are convergent or divergent

developments among the 21 OECD countries. Yet, it is necessary to look at the mean values (for all 21

countries, especially for the three countries with the highest and the three with the lowest

consumption) to get information about the reduction or increment of consumption or about the catch-

up trend. Thus, it is possible to ascertain whether there is a catch-up from below or a catch-up from

above. There are graphs with the mean values for all 21 OECD countries, for EU member states and

for Non-EU countries in order to analyse whether the EU regulations or directives of the CAP reforms

influence EU countries and bring about a reduction of environmental pressure. This can be examined

through careful observation of the trend of the mean values at points in time before and after the

implementation of regulations and directive. Mainly, these are: 1) the mid and late 1970s (directives

on pesticides), 2) the mid and late 1980s (regulations on environmentally friendly agriculture), and 3)

early 1990s (directive on water pollution by nitrates, and intensification of regulations on

11 In calculating the mean values and coefficient of variance the change of membership between EU and Non-EU states was considered: 1967 (founder member of EC - Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, and The Netherlands), 1973 (Denmark, Ireland, and Great Britain), 1981 (Greece), 1986 (Spain, Portugal) and 1995 (Austria, Finland, and Sweden). That is also important for the following analysis of the data.

13

environmentally friendly agriculture). For the following analysis, it is important to consider the

different rounds of entry into the EU (see footnote 11). The analysis of the three outcome variables is

carried out in the following order: fertilizer consumption, pesticide consumption, and irrigated area.

Beginning with the investigation of the COV of nitrogenous fertilizer, a general convergent trend can

be ascertained for the OECD, EU, and Non-EU countries. Figure 3 outlines the course of the different

COV values from 1967 to 2002. The rule for interpretation is: the more the values of COV decrease,

the more convergence exists, and the more the values of COV increase, the more divergence exists.

The OECD countries show the strongest tendency towards convergence, while the strong convergent

trend of the EU member states slows down after 1980. The blips in the COV of nitrogenous fertilizers

for the EU member states in the years 1986 and 1995 indicate short-term divergence. It is interesting

that these blips coincide with extension of the EU (1986: Portugal, Spain; 1995: Austria, Finland, and

Sweden). The reason could be that the entry of Portugal and Spain into the EU, both countries with

lower levels of fertilizer consumption at the time, led to a greater variation among the EU member

states. These countries increased their consumption and converged with the level of consumption of

the other countries, after entry into the EU. The same applies to Austria, Finland, and Sweden in the

year 1995. No influence of EU policy output on the development of the COV can be found. Neither

Regulation 1272/88 nor Directive 91/676 seem to account for the convergent trend in EU member

countries.

Figure 3: COV of the three developments (OECD, EU, and Non-EU) nitrogenous fertilizer12

COV nitrogenous fertilizer

0,00

0,20

0,40

0,60

0,80

1,00

1,20

1961 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

2001

OECD 21

EU

Non-EU

However, it is not yet clear, whether or not Regulation 1272/88 and Directive 91/676 have led to a

reduction in the use of nitrogenous fertilizer, due to the fact that if all member states reduce

consumption at the same rate they can not possess a convergent trend. Thus, it is necessary to look at

the graphs outlining the mean values. These graphs also show whether there is a catch-up trend or not.

12 The graph starts at time point 1967 because of the found year of the European Community/European Union.

14

Up until the year 1986, there is an overall trend of increasing nitrogenous fertilizer consumption and

the countries diverge in the level of consumption. But, as of 1986, the situation changes. Countries

with a high level of consumption start to reduce their consumption significantly. On the other hand,

countries with a low level of consumption increase their consumption more rapidly than in the years

before. Thus, after the mid 1980s, there is a strong trend towards convergence and countries with a

high level of fertilizer consumption manage to reduce environmental pressure. This is accuse catch-up

from above. Countries with a high consumption of fertilizer reduce their consumption from circa

40,000 kg/km² arable land to circa 25,000 kg/km² arable land on the average. That is proportionally

more than the change of the countries with a low level of consumption which increase their

consumption from circa 1,000 to circa 5,000 kg/km² arable land.

Figure 4: Development of nitrogenous fertilizer (kg/km² arable land) within OECD countries

Mean OECD nitrogenous fertilizer

05000

1000015000200002500030000350004000045000

1961

63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 2001

Highest 3

OECD 21

Lowest 3

The development in the EU countries is similar, but more differentiated. As figure 5 shows, up until

the mid 1980s, the use of nitrogenous fertilizer increases, and consumption rises in all countries.

Similar to the OECD graph, there is an overall trend to reduce fertilizer consumption and a catch-up

from above after 1986.

Figure 5: Development of nitrogenous fertilizer (kg/km² arable land) within EU countries

Mean EU nitrogenous fertilizer

05000

1000015000200002500030000350004000045000

1961 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

2001

Highest 3

EU

Lowest 3

15

The evidence from the graphs suggests that Regulation 1272/88 and Directive 91/676 (especially the

CAP reform regulation in 1988) did have an influence on the trends of consumption because of the

strong change in nitrogenous fertilizer consumption, especially in the countries with high consumption

levels, after these time points (1988 and 1991). But the strong decrease in the countries with low

fertilizer consumption in the year 1986 is attributable to the entry of Spain and Portugal in to the EU,

as both countries had very low fertilizer consumption in comparison to the other EU member states.

The development in nitrogenous fertilizer consumption in Non-EU countries in recent years, differs

from the trends of the OECD, as a whole, and the EU states. After a long period of time (1967-1980)

in which consumption increased, there was a period of slight convergence showing small reductions in

consumption on the high level and a small increase in consumption on the low level. Between 1992

and 1999, this convergence became stronger. But, in the last few years, the situation changed and there

is now a very strong trend of divergence. A catch-up trend can not be observed for the (within this)

whole period of time.

Figure 6: Development of nitrogenous fertilizer (kg/km² arable land) within Non-EU countries

Mean Non-EU nitrogenous fertilizer

02000400060008000

1000012000140001600018000

1961 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

2001

Highest 3

Non-EU

Lowest 3

The overall level of consumption for the Non-EU countries differs from that of the EU countries: it is

clearly lower. This difference is very characteristic for all three indicators. The reason probably is that

EU countries have had a more industrialized.agricultural sector from an earlier point of time. European

countries were influenced by the orientation towards growth, which, as described earlier, was initiated

by the former CAP of the EU.

The development of the COV in pesticide consumption, shown in figure 7, is more differentiated than

the trends for fertilizer consumption. The OECD countries converge over the whole period of time

because the COV is decreasing. In contrast, the EU countries tend towards convergence from 1980 to

1985 and from 1995 to 2000. In the intervening years, they have a tendency to divergence. The

opposite is true for the Non-EU countries. From 1980 to 1990, they tend towards divergence and,

again, from 1995 to 2000. But, between 1990 and 1995 they have a convergent development.

16

Figure 7: COV of the three developments (OECD, EU, Non-EU) pesticide consumption

COV pesticides consumption

0,80

0,90

1,00

1,10

1,20

1,30

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

OECD 21

EUNon-EU

However, to get more information on the reduction or increase in pesticide consumption, as well as on

a catch-up trend, it is necessary to check the following mean value graphs. The OECD countries show

an overall trend of reduction, albeit a slight one, but catch-up from above is clearly evident (figure8).

The countries with high levels of consumption, manage to decrease their consumption by more than

500 kg/km² arable land on an average. Even the countries on the low level are able to reduce their

consumption.

Figure 8: Development of pesticides (kg/km² arable land) within OECD countries

Mean OECD pesticide consumption

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Highest 3OECD 21

Lowest 3

As figure 9 shows, the EU member states exhibit a similar trend. The countries on the high level

reduce their consumption clearly from 1,800 to 1,200 kg/km² arable land on an average, whilst the

countries on the low level are able to decrease their consumption too, yet not as strongly. There is a

strong reduction in pesticide consumption and a strong trend of catch-up from above. It is possible that

the overall trend of reduction since the first observable time point (1980) is a reaction to the EU

17

Directives 74/63, 76/895, and 78/631 from the mid and late 1970s. Regulation 1272/88 (1988) and

Directive 91/414 (1991) may, also, have contributed to this trend.

Figure 9: Development of pesticides (kg/km² arable land) within EU countries

Mean EU pesticide consumption

0200400600800

100012001400160018002000

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Highest 3

EU

Lowest 3

The development of pesticide consumption in Non-EU countries is slightly different (see figure 10).

The countries with a high level of consumption are able to reduce their consumption, but only after the

early 1990s. The countries on the low level do not decrease their consumption; these level off and

increase slowly. For the Non-EU countries as a whole, the levels of pesticide consumption level off

between 1980 and 1990. However, between 1990 and 2000 there is a trend of convergence. As

mentioned above, the level of consumption in Non-EU countries is much lower than in EU member

states.

Figure 10: Development of pesticides (kg/km² arable land) within Non-EU countries

Mean Non-EU pesticide consumption

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Highest 3Non-EULowest 3

18

The COV graphs of the three different country groups, shown in figure 11, present a differentiated

development concerning the outcome variable area of irrigated land13. For the OECD countries, an

overall convergent trend can be noted because due to the decreasing values of COV. The two other

country groups require special comment. It is remarkable that the trend of the COV for EU countries is

completely contrary to the trend of the COV for Non-EU countries. Additionally, the trend alternates

several times between convergence and divergence. That is a sign that the total area of irrigated land

does not vary strongly over time. Thus, with every country change from one group to the other there is

clear amplitude in the graph. In 1973, Denmark and Great Britain (Ireland is excluded from the

analysis) enter the EU which leads to a drift towards convergence in the Non-EU countries and to a

small drift towards divergence in EU member states. In the year 1981, Greece becomes a member state

of the EU and it leads to a drift towards convergence in EU countries and to a drift towards divergence

in Non-EU countries. The same tendency can be seen more strongly at the time point 1986, where

Portugal and Spain enter the EU. The Southern European countries are characterized by a high level of

irrigated area and it seems that they are in line with the other EU countries. The opposite tendency

appears for the year 1995; in which Austria, Finland, and Sweden enter the EU. These countries are

characterized by a low level of irrigated area and, thus, the EU COV shows a trend towards

divergence. For the Non-EU countries meant a shift towards convergence. This can be interpreted as

follows: the Non-EU countries have a higher level of irrigated area and the exit of Austria, Finland,

and Sweden (with a low level of irrigated area) leads to a more homogenous group, with a trend

towards convergence.

Figure 11: COV of the area of irrigated area OECD, EU, and Non-EU

COV irrigated land

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

2,00

2,50

1967 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

2001

OECD 20EUNon-EU

The following mean value graphs (figures 12, 13, and 14) illustrate that the development of the total

area of irrigated land varies very little in parts. While the EU countries show a strong increase in the

area of irrigated land, the Non-EU countries level off and, as a whole, the OECD countries show a

slow increase in this area. 13 Ireland is excluded from analysis because it has no irrigated land (FAO).

19

Remarkable for the development of the total area of irrigated land in OECD countries is the great

distance between countries with a high level of irrigated land and countries with a low level of

irrigated land. Which countries have a high level of irrigated land and which have a low level is

discussed in more detail later. Additionally, a slight divergent trend is observable.

Figure 12: Development of area of irrigated land OECD (percent of agricultural land)

Mean OECD irrigated land

0,00

5,00

10,00

15,00

20,00

25,00

30,00

35,00

1961 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

2001

Highest 3OECD 20Lowest 3

The development concerning the area of irrigated land in EU countries (see figure 13) is marked by an

increase from 1967 to 1995, followed by stagnation a leveling-off. And, as mentioned above, the entry

of different countries into the EU leads to fluctuations in the EU mean value graph. Firstly, in 1973,

there can be seen a reduction in the area of irrigated land, because Denmark and Great Britain,

characterized by a lower level of irrigated land, lower the average. After this time point, the

development shows an increase, especially on the high level. Thus, a divergent development can be

seen. In 1995, the entry of Austria, Finland, and Sweden into the EU lower the average again for the

same reasons. After this time point, there is a leveling-off in development.

Figure 13: Development of area of irrigated land EU (percent of agricultural land)

Mean EU irrigated land

0

5

10

15

20

25

1961 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

2001

Highest 3EULowest 3

20

In figure 14, the development of the area of irrigated land in Non-EU countries is shown. Over the

whole period of time, there is no special trend towards convergence, divergence, or catch-up. Only the

time point 1986 and 1995 show a change in the average mean value. As described above, in 1986

Portugal and Spain enter the EU, thus, decreasing the mean value immediately, because both countries

have a high level of irrigated land in comparison to the other countries. Furthermore, in 1995 Austria,

Finland, and Sweden left the Non-EU country group and all three are characterized by a low level of

irrigated land. Thus, the mean value increases again.

Figure 14: Development of the area of irrigated land Non-EU (percent of agricultural land)

Mean Non-EU irrigated land

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1961 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

2001

Highest 3Non-EULowest 3

Recapulating the analysis on outcome variables in the trends of agri-environmental performance, it is

important to emphasize that two variables (fertilizer and pesticide consumption) have a positive

development; meaning a reduction of agri-environmental pressure. Both indicators permit the

assumption that the regulations and directives of the reformed CAP, concerning agri-environmental

measures, have an impact on these positive trends. Around the time points 1980 (pesticide

consumption) and 1985 (fertilizer consumption), there is a decrease in consumption on an average. In

regard to the third variable (area of irrigated land), there is a different result. On the one hand, there is

no reduction in the area of irrigated land, but, rather, an increase in the area of irrigated land as a

percentage of agricultural land. On the other hand, there is an unclear trend towards convergence in

general for all 21 OECD countries. For a long period of time, there is, rather, a stagnation of

development. To sum it up, this variable shows negative agri-environmental performance, because of

an increasing area of irrigation. Additionally, there is no apparent impact on the development after

ratification of Regulation 1272/88. The reason for this negative result could be due to the fact that the

environmental pressure from irrigation is not such an acute and public issue as the environmental

pressure from fertilizer or pesticide consumption.

21

This section looks behind the overall trends at which countries have a positive level and change of

fertilizer consumption, pesticide consumption, and extent of irrigated land. This explorative

examination is done with the help of ranking tables (tables 1 to 4). In the first row the variables are

listed, in the first column are different time points in quincennial distance. In the other cells, the top

five countries for the respective variable at the given time point are given in abbreviated form14. For

instance, the top five countries for fertilizer consumption in 1961 were Australia, New Zealand,

Canada, United States of America, and Ireland. The countries are listed in rank order: Australia has

position one, New Zealand position two and so on. Whereby, position one is identical with the lowest

level of fertilizer/pesticide consumption or extent of irrigated land. In the last row, the five highest

ranking countries for the percentages of change in the three variables between the time points 1961

(1980 for pesticide consumption) and 2000 are shown. That means, Japan has the best percentage of

change in fertilizer consumption between 1961 and 2000, more precisely it has a decrease of 2.72

percent of consumption. The other countries, in the top five have lower rates of increase in fertilizer

and pesticide consumption and extent of irrigated land than the other countries.

Table 1: Top 5 OECD countries for consumption of nitrogenous fertilizer, pesticide, and area of

irrigated land

fertilizer consumption pesticide consumption use of irrigated area 1961 AUS, NZL, CAN, USA, IRL x BEL, FIN, AUT, AUS, NZL 1965 AUS, NZL, CAN, IRL, ESP x BEL, AUT, FIN, AUS, GBR 1970 NZL, AUS, CAN, PRT, ESP x AUT, BEL, AUS, GBR, FIN 1975 NZL, AUS, CAN, ESP, USA x AUT, AUS, GBR, BEL, CAN 1980 AUS, NZL, CAN, PRT, USA CAN, FIN, IRL, SWE, DNK AUT, AUS, GBR, CAN, BEL 1985 AUS, NZL, CAN, USA, PRT FIN, CAN, SWE, NOR; USA AUT, AUS, GBR, CAN, BEL 1990 AUS, NZL, CAN, USA, PRT FIN, CAN, SWE, NOR, USA AUT, AUS, GBR, CAN, BEL 1995 AUS, CAN, PRT, USA, ESP FIN, SWE, CAN, NOR, ESP AUT, AUS, GBR, CAN, CHE 2000 AUS, CAN, PRT, USA, SWE NOR, FIN, SWE, CAN, DNK AUT, AUS, GBR, CAN, CHE % change JPN, NLD, BEL, NOR, PRT NOR; NLD, SWE, FIN, ITA PRT, AUT, JPN, ITA, DEU

In the table above there are two distinctive features. Firstly, there is a high continuity in the top five

rankings, both over time and over variables. The ranking is dominated by so-called overseas countries

like United States of America, Australia, or New Zealand, and by Scandinavian countries. Secondly,

the top five countries are Non-EU member states or late EU member states. In contrast, the ranking of

percentage change shows a different picture. Here, EU member states as well as instead of overseas

countries or Scandinavian countries are amongst the top five even EU member states in the top five of

ranking. Table 2 shows the bottom and of the ranking. The pattern that emerges is the reverse of that

seen in table1.

14 That are (ISO Standard 3166): Australia (AUS), Austria (AUT), Belgium (BEL), Canada (CAN), Denmark (DNK), Finland (FIN), France (FRA), Germany (DEU), Greece (GRC), Ireland (IRL), Italy (ITA), Japan (JPN), the Netherlands (NLD), New Zealand (NZL), Norway (NOR), Portugal (PRT), Spain (ESP), Sweden (SWE), Switzerland (CHE), Great Britain (GBR), and United States of America (USA).

22

Table 2: Bottom 5 OECD countries for consumption of nitrogenous fertilizer, pesticide, and area

of irrigated land

fertilizer consumption pesticide consumption use of irrigated area 1961 NLD, JPN, BEL, DEU, GBR x JPN, PRT, NLD, ITA, ESP 1965 NLD, BEL, JPN, DEU, GBR x JPN; PRT, NLD, ITA, ESP 1970 NLD, BEL, DEU, JPN, GBR x JPN, NLD, PRT, ITA, GRC 1975 NLD, BEL, DEU, GBR, JPN x JPN, NLD, PRT, ITA, GRC 1980 NLD, BEL, IRL, DEU, GBR NLD, ITA, JPN, BEL, PRT JPN, NLD, PRT, ITA, DNK 1985 NLD, IRL, BEL, GBR, DEU NLD, JPN, ITA, BEL, NZL JPN, NLD, PRT, DNK, ITA 1990 NLD, IRL, BEL, GBR, CHE NLD, JPN, ITA, BEL, NZL JPN, NLD, ITA, PRT, DNK 1995 NLD, IRL, GBR, BEL, CHE JPN, ITA, BEL, NLD, NZL JPN, NLD, DNK, ITA, PRT 2000 IRL, NLD, BEL, GBR, DEU JPN, ITA, BEL, NLD, NZL JPN, NLD, ITA, GRC, DNK % change NZL; IRL, AUS, CAN, ESP GRC, IRL, GBR, FRA, CAN BEL, FIN, DNK, SWE, NOR

In table 2, the bottom five ranking positions are dominated by EU member states for all three variables

over the whole period of time. However, the bottom five positions for the percentage change of

fertilizer and pesticide consumption are not so exclusively the domain of EU member states, overseas

countries are also present. This does not apply for the variable area of irrigated land. For this variable,

characterized by an overall negative trend, the bottom five countries are also EU member states. One

reason for this split into two country groups (EU member states and Non-EU member states) could be,

as mentioned above, that the previous EU agricultural policy had a strong paradigm of growth in

agricultural production with a high level of inputs like fertilizer or pesticides and lack of concern for

environmental issues. Thus, the EU member states aligned their agricultural sector in this direction. At

the same time, the change in CAP policy may have had an impact on the performance of agri-

environmental policy and result in a good ranking position concerning percentage change over time

for the EU member states.

Furthermore, the following two tables (3 and 4) show the top five and bottom five positions within EU

member states, only. Unfortunately, as mentioned above there are no output data on regulations or

directives of the EU for the agri-environmental sector, thus, pioneer or late-comer countries in this

area can not be localized. This deficit can be resolved with the reference to a study by Knill (2003),

which identify several pioneers in implementing environmental directives from the EU. These

countries are Denmark, Germany, Finland, The Netherlands, Austria, and Sweden (ibid. 176). Some of

these countries can be found in the following tables. Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and

Austria are in the top five for fertilizer consumption. The picture for pesticide consumption and use of

irrigated area is similar. The percentage change from 1970 (1980) to 2000 is dominated by The

Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries for all three indicators. That means they have the best

rates of reduction of environmental pressure in these areas. To interpret the influence of the reformed

CAP of the EU, it is very important to note that the late EU member countries Sweden, Finland, and

Austria (entry in 1995) have the best agri-environmental performance in comparison to the other

23

member states. Of course, these countries did not live in an ‘EU-free area’ within Europe. However,

they are interesting cases in this framework.

Table 3: Top 5 EU countries for consumption of nitrogenous fertilizer, pesticide, and area of

irrigated land

fertilizer consumption pesticide consumption use of irrigated area 1970 ITA, FRA, DEU, BEL, NLD x BEL, DEU, FRA, ITA, NLD 1975 ITA, FRA, IRL, DNK, GBR x GBR, BEL, DEU, FRA, DNK 1980 ITA, FRA, DNK, GBR, DEU IRL, DNK, DEU, FRA, GBR GBR, BEL, DEU, FRA, DNK 1985 ITA, FRA, DNK, GRC, DEU GRC, IRL, DEU, DNK, FRA GBR, BEL, DEU, FRA, GRC 1990 PRT, ESP, ITA, FRA, GRC GRC, IRL, DEU, DNK, FRA GBR, BEL, DEU, FRA, ESP 1995 PRT, ESP, SWE, FIN, AUT FIN, SWE, ESP, DNK, GRC AUT, GBR, BEL, DEU, FIN 2000 PRT, SWE, FIN, ESP, AUT FIN, SWE, DNK, IRL, ESP AUT, GBR, BEL, DEU, FIN % change NLD, GRC, DNK, PRT, FIN NLD, ITA, DNK, DEU, ESP PRT, AUT, FIN, SWE, ESP

Table 4 with the bottom five EU countries affirms the impression received above. The assumed

pioneer countries are not present as much as in table 3 of the top five EU countries. Additionally, in

the bottom five positions are occupied by countries, which were characterized by a strong

development of industrialized agriculture in former times. However, the same countries are not in the

bottom five positions for the percentage change from 1970 (1980) to 2000. This, and of course the

results of the analysis of convergence indicates that these countries have tried to reduce their high

level of consumption. The countries of southern Europe on the other hand perform from a low level of

consumption to a high level of consumption and they capture the low positions of percentage change

and are not successful in reducing of agri-environmental pressure.

Table 4: Bottom 5 EU countries for consumption of nitrogenous fertilizer, pesticides, and area of

irrigated land15

fertilizer consumption pesticide consumption use of irrigated area 1970 x x x 1975 NLD, BEL, DEU x NLD, ITA 1980 NLD, BEL, IRL NLD, ITA, BEL NLD, ITA 1985 NLD, IRC, BEL, GBR NLD, ITA, BEL, GBR NLD, DNK, ITA 1990 NLD, IRL, BEL, GBR, DNK NLD, ITA, BEL, GBR, FRA NLD, ITA, PRT, DNK, GRC 1995 NLD, IRL, GBR, BEL, DEU ITA, BEL, NLD, GBR, FRA NLD, DNK, ITA, PRT, GRC 2000 IRL, NLD, BEL, GBR, DEU ITA, BEL, NLD, PRT, GBR NLD, ITA, GRC, DNK, PRT % change IRL, ITA, FRA, GBR, ESP PRT, GRC, IRL, SWE, GBR BEL, FRA, DNK, GBR, NLD

Summarizing the tables 1 to 4, it becomes apparent that the assumed ‘output’ pioneers (by the study of

Knill 2003) are not in the same position in the agri-environmental sector. Especially in the level of

consumption they are ranked in a medium or lower position. That means the agricultural sector has a

higher pressure on environment. Contrary, attending the rank positions of the percentage change these

countries show a better performance and that is a sign for reducing pressure in the last years.

15 The limited number of countries in the first rows is caused by the low number of EU member states in former times. Thus, five countries are always filled in the top five country table, the remaining in the table of the last 5 position.

24

5. Conclusion

From the investigation of the research question ‘What are the trends (convergence and divergence) in

agri-environmental pressure and which countries are successful in reducing agri-environmental

stress?’ the following conclusions are drawn. Firstly, there is a strong trend of convergence in the

consumption of fertilizer and pesticides and in the area of irrigated land among OECD countries. The

same pattern can be seen for fertilizer and pesticide consumption in the EU member states. Secondly,

Non-EU countries clearly have a lower fertilizer and pesticide consumption than EU member states

thus capturing the position of pioneers. Therefore, it can be stated that the environmental pioneers

identified by comparative research (Knill 2003, Jänicke & Weidner 1997, Anderson & Liefferink

1997) do not confirm this position in the reduction of agri-environmental pressures. Among EU

member states, however, they perform slightly better, especially during the last years, and show

potentially positive change of agri-environmental pressure partly. The reason for the poor positions of

EU member states among OECD countries seems to be the orientation towards industrial growth in the

agricultural sector previous to the reform of the CAP. Thirdly, regarding to the influence of the

reformed CAP, there is an indication that different regulations and directives of the EU, to improve

agri-environmental pressure, from the late 1970s to the early 1990s, have an impact on the levels of

fertilizer and pesticide consumption. This can be not be affirmed regarding area of irrigated land.

There are, certainly, some deficits in this explorative study of outcome variables concerning agri-

environmental pressure to examine trends and pioneers in the agri-environmental performance. Up to

now, the comparable investigation of the agri-environmental policy in EU member states is still open,

the influence of international agreements is not measured, and differences in histories, institutional

configurations and policies can be further investigated. However, the first step is taken and further

research is necessary.

25

References Almås, Reidar (1994): The Rise and Fall of Agricultural Policy Cycles: From Planned Economy to Green Liberalism, in: Journal of Rural Studies, 10 (1), 15-25. Anderson, Mikael Skou & Liefferink, Duncan (eds) (1997): European Environmental Policy. The Pioneers, Manchester: Manchester University Press. Baldock, David (1992): The Polluter Pays Principle and Its Relevance to Agricultural Policy in European Countries, in: Sociologia Ruralis, XXXII (1), 49-65. Binder, Manfred (2002): Umweltpolitische Basisinnovationen im Industrieländervergleich. Ein grafisch-statistischer Überblick, Forschungsstelle Umweltpolitik Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin: FFU-Report 06-2002. Botcheva, Liliana & Martin, Lisa L. (2001): Institutional Effects on State Behaviour: Convergence and Divergence, in: International Studies Quarterly, 45, 1-26. Brouwer, Floor & Crabtree, Bob (1999): Environmental Indicators and Agricultural Policy, Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Bruckmeier, Karl & Ehlert, Wiking (eds.) (2002): The Agri-Environmental Policy of the European Union: The Implementation of the Agri-Environmental Measures within the Common Agricultural Policy in France, Germany and Portugal, Frankfurt/Main: Lang. Busch, Per-Olof; Jörgens, Helge & Tews, Kerstin (2004): The Global Diffusion of Regulatory Instruments: The Making of a New International Environmental Regime, in: European Integration Online Paper, 8 (21). Castles, Francis G. (1998): Comparative Public Policy: Patterns of Post-War Transformation, Northampton: Edward Elgar. Clay, Jason (2004): World Agriculture and the Environment: A Commodity-by-Commodity Guide to Impacts and Practices, World Wildlife Fund. Commission of the European Communities (1998): Fifteenth Annual Report on Monitoring the Application of Community Law, Brussel: Commission of the European Communities. Convery, Frank J; Fry, John; Matthew, Alan; O’Shea, Siobhan & Peader, Anne (2002): European Union Agri-environmental Policy: Issues and Potentials, in: Clinch, J. Peter; Schlegelmilch, Kai; Spencer, Rolf-Ulrich & Triebswetter, Ursula (eds.), Greening the Budget. Budgetary Policies for Environmental Improvement, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Daedlow, Katrin (2003): Corporatism and Environmental Performance in the Agricultural Sector, Conference-Paper presented at the European Consortium for Political Research Conference, Marburg, 18-21 September. Daedlow, Katrin (2004): Indexbildung und Messprobleme bei der Anwendung von Umweltdaten in der Aggregatdatenforschung, Conference-Paper presented at the Conference of the DVPW working groups Intercultural Comparison of Democracies and Empirical Methods of Political Science, September, University of Marburg. Daugbjerg, Carsten (1998): Linking Policy Networks and Environmental Policies. Nitrate Policy Making in Denmark and Sweden 1970-1995, in: Public Administration, 76 (2), 275-94.

26

Dolowitz, David P. & Marsh, David (2000): Learning from Abroad. The Role of Policy Transfer in Contemporary Policy Making, in: Governance, 13 (1), 5-24. Dryzek, John S. & Schlosberg, Daniel (eds.) (1998): Debating the Earth. The Environmental Politics Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Eurostat: Statistical Office of the European Union, http://europa.eu.int/en/comm/eurostat/serven-/home.htm Evans, Mark & Davies, Jonathan (1999): Understanding Policy Transfer: A Multi-Level, Multi-Disciplinary Perspective, in: Public Administration, 77 (2), 361-85. FAO (2005): Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations – FAO Statistical Databasis: http://faostat.fao.org/faostat/collections, Rome: FAO. Glasbergen, Peter (1992): Agro-Environmental Policy: Trapped in an Iron Law?, in: Sociologia Ruralis, XXXII (1), 30-48. Härdtlein, Marlies; Kaltschmitt, Martin; Lewandowski, Iris & Wurl, Holger N. (eds.) (2000): Nachhaltigkeit in der Landwirtschaft. Landwirtschaft im Spannungsfeld zwischen Ökologie, Ökonomie und Sozialwissenschaften, Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag. Hawke, Neil & Kovaleva, Nadia (1998): Agri-Environmental Law and Policy, London: Cavendish. Hill, Marquita K. (1997): Understanding Environmental Pollution, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hoberg, Georg (2001): Trade, Harmonization, and Domestic Autonomy in Environmental Policy, in: Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 3, 191-217. Hodge, Ian (2000): Agri-Environmental Relationships and the Choice of Policy Mechanism, in: The World Economy, 23 (2), 257-74. Holzinger, Katharina (2003): Common Goods, Matrix Games, and Institutional Solutions, in: European Journal of International Relations, 9, 173-212. Holzinger, Katharina; Knill, Christoph & Schäfer, Ansgar (2002): European Environmental Governance in Transition? Preprints aus der Max-Planck-Projektgruppe Recht der Gemeinschaftsgüter, Bonn: Max-Planck-Institut. Ingersent, Ken A. & Rayner, A. J (1999): Background to Agricultural Policy, in: Ingersent, Ken A. & Rayner, A. J. (eds.), Agricultural Policy in Western Europe and the United States, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 1-23. ISO: International Organization for Standardization, Standard 3166, http://www.iso.org/iso/en/-ISOOnline.frontpage Jänicke, Martin (ed.) (1996): Umweltpolitik der Industrieländer. Entwicklung-Bilanz-Erfolgsbeding-ungen, Berlin: Edition Sigma. Jänicke, Martin & Jörgens, Helge (2000): Umweltplanung im internationalen Vergleich. Strategien der Nachhaltigkeit, Berlin: Springer. Jänicke, Martin; Mönch, Harald & Binder, Manfred (1992): Umweltentlastung durch Industriellen Strukturwandel? Eine explorative Studie über 32 Industrieländer (1970 bis 1990), Berlin: Edition Sigma.

27

Jänicke, Martin & Weidner, Helmut (1997): Summary: Global Environmental Policy Learning, in: Jänicke, Martin & Weidner, Helmut (eds.): National Environmental Policies. A Comparative Study of Capacity-Building, Berlin: Springer, 299-313. Jahn, Detlef (1998): Environmental Performance and Policy Regimes: Explaining Variations in 18 OECD-Countries, in: Political Science, 31, 107-131. Kern, Kristine; Jänicke, Martin & Jörgens, Helge (2001): The Diffusion of Environmental Policy Innovations. A Contribution to the Globalisation of Environmental Policy, Berlin: Wissenschafts-zentrum für Sozialforschung. Kern, Kristine (2001): Konvergenz umweltpolitischer Regulierungsmuster durch Globalisierung. Ursachen und Gegentendenzen, in: Röller, L.-H. & Wey, C. (Hg.), Die Soziale Markwirtschaft in der neuen Weltwirtschaft, Berlin: WZB Jahrbuch 2001, 327-350. Kitschelt, Herbert; Lange, Peter; Marks, Gary & Stephens, John D. (ed.) (1999): Continuity and Change in Contemporary Capitalism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Knill, Christoph & Lenschow, Andrea (eds.) (2000): Implementing EU Environmental Policy. New Directions and Old Problems, Manchester: Manchester University Press. Knill, Christoph & Lenschow, Andrea (2001): Adjusting to EU Environmental Policy: Change and Persistence of Domestic Administrations, in: Cowles, Maria Green; Caporaso, James & Risse, Thomas (ed.): Transforming Europe: Europeanization and Domestic Change, Cornell University Press: Ithaca, London, 116-136. Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe & Hodge, Ian (2003): European Agri-Environmental Policy for the 21st Century, in: The Australien Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 47 (1), 123-39. Levi, Margaret (2002): The State of the Study of the State, in: Katznelson, Ira & Milner, Helen V. (eds.), Political Science. State of the Discipline, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 33-55. Martin, Lisa & Simmons, Beth (1998): Theories and Empirical Studies of International Institutions, in: International Organization, 52, 729-757. McCormick, John (2001): Environmental Policy in the European Union, Palgrave. Meadows, Donella H. & Meadows, Denis (1972): The Limits of Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind, New York: Universe Books. Miles, Edward L.; Underdal, Arild; Andresen, Steinar; Wettestad, Jørgens; Skærseth, Jon Birger & Carlin, Elaine M. (2002): Environmental Regime Effectiveness. Confronting Theory with Evidence. Cambridge, London: MIT Press. Neumayer, Eric (2001): Improvement without Convergence: Pressure on the Environment in European Union Countries, in: Journal of Common Market Studies, 39 (5), 927-37. OECD (2000): Environmental Indicators for Agriculture. Methods and Results. Executive Summary, Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD (2001): Improving the Environmental Performance of Agriculture: Policy Options and Market Approaches, Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD (2003): Agri-Environmental Policy Measures: Overview of Developments, Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

28

OECD Compendia (1991-2004): OECD Environmental Data, Paris: OECD. Przeworski, Adam & Teune, Henry (1970): The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry, Malabar. Rat von Sachverständigen für Umweltfragen (ed.) (1992): Umweltprobleme der Landwirtschaft, Sachbuch Ökologie, Stuttgart: Metzler-Poeschel. Rieger, Elmar (2000): The Common Agricultural Policy. Politics against Markets, in: Wallace, Helen & Wallace, William (eds.), Policy-Making in the European Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 179-210. Schmidt, Manfred G. (2004): Wörterbuch zur Politik, Stuttgart: Kröner Verlag. Scruggs, Lyle A. (2003): Sustaining Abundance. Environmental Performance in Industrial Democra-cies, Cambridge. Tews, Kerstin; Busch, Per-Olof & Jörgens, Helge (2003): The Diffusion of New Environmental Policy Instruments, in: European Journal of Political Research, 42 (4), 569-600. Umweltbundesamt (1997): Nachhaltiges Deutschland. Wege zu einer dauerhaft umweltgerechten Entwicklung, Berlin: Erich Schmidt. Vogel, David (1986): National Styles of Regulation: Environmental Policy in Great Britain and the United States, Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Vogel, David (1997): Trading up and Governing across: Transnational Governance and Environmental Protection, in: Journal of European Public Policy, 4 (4), 556-71. Vogel, David (2001): Environmental Regulation and Economic Integration, in: Daniel C. Esty & Damien, Geradin (eds.): Regulatory Competition and Economic Integration, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 330-347. Weidner, Helmut & Jänicke, Martin (2002): Capacity Building in National Environmental Policy. A Comparative Study of 17 Countries, Berlin: Springer.

29