Search

This study examines how changing the mix of materials accepted in Ontario's residential recycling program (Blue Box) affects provincial material management costs and recycling rates. Specifically, this study quantifies the impact of “non-core” material recycling on system costs and diversion levels (where non-core materials are defined as materials with high material management costs and low levels of recyclability). Using a systems based cost model, focus is placed on analyzing: (1) how has the generation of “non-core” materials changed in the past decade? (2) What would happen to provincial recycling costs and diversion levels if non-core materials were removed from the Blue Box program? (3) Is it possible to achieve the provinces’ 70% recycling target if non-core materials were no longer being collected? The results of this analysis show that removing non-core materials from the Blue Box program significantly decreased system costs without negatively impacting overall recycling rates. This study also found that it was possible to increase the provincial recycling rate while simultaneously reducing program costs by targeting specific materials for recovery. The findings of this study suggest that Ontario reevaluate the types of material included in the residential Blue Box program.

This study examines the effects of pay as you throw schemes (PAYT) on municipal recycling rates in Ontario, Canada. Using a combination of panel and semi-structured survey data from provincial municipalities, focus is placed on analyzing: (a) the effects of PAYT systems on municipal recycling rates, (b) the relationship between mandatory recycling legislation and the effectiveness of PAYT policy, (c) the impact of Ontario's “one Blue Box per household” provision on PAYT schemes and (d) whether the presence of PAYT systems significantly modify household recycling behavior. The results of the analysis show that while the implementation of PAYT schemes does increase municipal recycling rates, there are opportunities for further improvement. In Ontario, the effectiveness of PAYT policy is impaired by inconsistent enforcement and the inadequate capacity of household recycling bins (“blue bins”).

The extent to which the multifunctionality of agriculture can justify continuing domestic subsidies to farmers that may be trade distorting in their effects, has emerged as a key bone of contention in the current World Trade Organization (WTO) agriculture trade talks. Supporters of multifunctionality point to the contribution of agriculture in terms of food security, rural development and environmental protection. In this paper, we focus on the environmental component in order to examine three interconnected questions. First, how robust is multifunctionality as a policy concept? Second, if multifunctionality is a reality, how valid is the claim made by European negotiators that the liberalization of agricultural policy and the abolition of blue box subsidies threaten the joint production of food and environmental goods in rural space? Third, what are the precise implications of this analysis for agri-environmental policy design, and the likely compatibility of the European Union's favoured model with current and future WTO disciplines? We conclude that, while multifunctionality is a genuine, and in some respects, unique, feature of European agriculture, it is in relation to the perceived threat of extensive agricultural restructuring to biodiversity and landscape values in the European Union that the concept has been most fully realized. This has profound implications for policy design, suggesting a need to retain some element of income support in the policy mix in order to defend environmental assets against the extreme consequences of farm structural change. We conclude by exploring what these deductions might mean for the future course of the WTO talks and for the long-term design of agri-environmental policy in industrialized countries.

There is a long tradition of advocacy of decoupled compensation payments to facilitate reform of agricultural policies. To illustrate this, we cite some of the European literature of the 1960s and 1970s. In the 1980s and 1990s, decoupled payments were frequently proposed, but despite years of discussion there is still surprisingly little agreement on the role that decoupled compensation payments can play in facilitating common agricultural policy (CAP) reform. The Uruguay Round Agreement introduced the so-called blue and green boxes; and the MacSharry and Agenda 2000 reforms have made extensive use of the blue box to shelter an increasing proportion of CAP support from international scrutiny. Blue-box payments are not, however, fully decoupled; and cross-compliance will not turn them green. The Peace Clause provides limited protection for the blue box, but if this were to lapse in 2003/04 the blue-box provisions would be of little worth. We assert that the EU must engage in radical reform of the CAP, and make truly decoupled and transitory compensation payments the central element of that reform. This could best be facilitated by allocating transferable bonds to the present generation of farm operators, with annual payments made to the bond owner. We set out the essential conditions that must be met for a bond scheme to be put in place, and explore in a very preliminary fashion the budgetary implications.

This study examines the Agreement on Agriculture under WTO, issues arising out of its implementation, the process of Doha Round of mandated negotiations, various country/group positions, developing country perspectives and provides suggestions for future negotiations. The Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture has not achieved the extent of liberalization it was supposed to. The heavily subsidized agriculture sectors of most developed countries tend to distort world agricultural trade patterns and adversely affect the developing countries. The Doha Ministerial Declaration had set up guidelines and deadlines for formalizing modalities for the process of negotiations, none of which were met. The last phase of the current negotiations culminated into the Fifth Ministerial Meeting held at Cancun in September 2003, which ended without a Ministerial Declaration. The widely divergent country positions on Agriculture are considered as one of the reasons for the failure of the Fifth Ministerial.Given the set back at Cancun and the need to make progress on trade liberalization, any prescriptions for further negotiations requires a significant analysis of the positions of different countries/groups. Our analysis shows the support levels to agriculture remains very high in the developed countries and these support levels are distorting world agricultural markets for major commodities. This sets in a chain of adverse effects on the agricultural sector and in turn on the livelihood of a large number of farmers in the developing countries. Continuation of current agricultural policies of the developed countries, therefore, could disturb the political and social equilibrium in the developing countries. There is an urgent need to establish a level playing field through reductions in agricultural support levels in the developed countries in order to ensure realization of benefits of trade liberalization to farmers of the developing countries. For this purpose, a definite time frame needs to be established for effecting major policy reforms to reduce the agricultural support levels. Elimination of export subsidies and blue box support, substantial reduction in amber box subsidies and limiting green box subsidies within the next five years will enable achieving level playing field and encourage developing countries to effectively engage in the ongoing negotiations.