Globalization and European Farming:
Agritourism and the WTO
Eastern Sociological Society, Philadelphia
March 3, 2001
Monika and Robert Wood
Rutgers University, Camden
Opening: CD-ROM and Pictures of Landscape and Agritourism in Germany and
Austria
Introduction: Agriculture, Tourism, and Globalization
While it might be entertaining to continue to show images of lovely
landscapes and enterprising farmers in Europe, the purpose of our presentation
today is to suggest that a bigger story—one with important sociological
implications—lies behind them. Our goal this afternoon is to coax out some key
elements of that story and to identify the fundamental sociological and political
issues that they represent.
What we see in the first instance in these images is the rural and mountain
landscapes of southern Germany and Austria, landscapes shaped by centuries
of farming. In Europe, nature and agriculture are generally perceived to be
deeply intertwined. Even the many summer hikers to who take ski lifts up to
mountain ridges to begin their alpine rambles find cows there, the sound of their
bells wafting through the air and their milk being made into cheese at the alms
that offer comfortable respite along the trails. In the minds of many Europeans,
the natural landscape is inconceivable without its shaping by human farming.
Indeed, national parks in England include farmland and are largely maintained by
farmers (Rilla 1999)
European farmers, however, feel themselves very much under siege these
days. Partly this arises from long-standing processes of mechanization,
industrialization and the shift to a service economy common to most developed
countries. But this is compounded by the pressures of globalization, both in
terms of increased international competition in agricultural markets and, more
importantly, in the attack mounted against what has come to be called the
“European model of agriculture.” Globalization has many meanings, but the one
that is most central here, and the one we will be exploring, refers to the triumph
of the neoliberal ideology of free markets and free trade, and its
institutionalization in the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary
Fund, the World Bank, and in international agreements such as NAFTA. Pushed
to its extreme, as it often is, this ideology seeks to make markets the determining
force in more and more aspects of economic and social life. Because agriculture
1
in Europe has long been insulated from pure market forces, globalization in this
sense represents a huge challenge to European farmers.
The farm tourism portrayed in the Urlaub auf dem Bauernhof CD-ROM
and in our slides represents one response to the challenges of globalization. All
around the world, farmers are being encouraged to explore ways to attract
visitors to their farms whose expenditures will supplement their fluctuating and
often-declining incomes. Reflecting the enterprise of farmers, these forms of
what is broadly known as agritourism range from corn mazes to agricultural
theme parks to what in Germany is known as “Urlaub auf dem Bauernhof”—
vacations on the farm, generally lasting a week or more. Agritourism of this latter
type is by far most developed in Europe, where an extensive infrastructure exists
to support it.
Part of that infrastructure involves loans and grants from state and
national authorities and from the European Union. Between 1991 and 1998, an
estimated $2 billion was spent by European authorities to promote farm
vacations. However, the United States has objected to these subsidies, claiming
that they are “trade-distorting,” a violation of GATT and World Trade Organization
agreements (Tagliabue 1998).
There is some irony in the fact that a strategy developed in part in
response to globalization is now being challenged in the name of globalization.
Admittedly, in the broader context of the future of European agriculture, this
dispute over subsidies for agritourism is undoubtedly somewhat peripheral. But
we are pursuing this story today because it brings together the subjects of
agriculture, tourism and globalization in a way that highlights some of the
fundamental choices facing societies in the global arena.
Challenges to Agriculture in the European Union
To some degree, the challenges to agriculture in the countries of the
European Union are the familiar ones arising from structural changes in
agriculture and in the rest of the economy. In most developed countries, the
number of farms and farmers is declining, farm incomes stagnating or declining,
debt burdens rising as prices decline, etc.1 Rural depopulation has proceeded
apace, with consequent pressures on urban areas. These processes have been
at least partly held in check by a system of both national, and since 1962,
EC/EU, supports and subsidies. Indeed, over one-half of the entire budget of the
European Union goes to farm and rural support in member countries embodied in
the Common Agricultural Program (CAP). The program functions to keep
farmers afloat who might otherwise go under, to keep farm incomes relatively
high, to provide general support for rural communities, and to some degree to
reduce regional inequities (under Structural Fund programs). It does this through
a broad array of mechanisms, from subsidized loans for agritourism and other
2
forms of income diversification to targeted income supports to the (highly
controversial) subsidization of exports.
Broad popular and elite support for the CAP has declined in recent years,
partly because of concerns about its escalating cost once the EU expands to
include countries from Eastern Europe (Ackrill 2000). The number of people
employed in agriculture in the EU is expected to increase by 66% with the first
wave of five central European applicants (Fischler 1999b). Concerns about
CAP’s long-term effects on the competitiveness of European agriculture have
also been voiced. The main challenge to the CAP, however, has come from the
United States and from the Cairns Group, a set of self-proclaimed “nonsubsidizing” agricultural exporters who came together in 1986 to lobby for free
trade in agricultural commodities. Both the US and the Cairns Group want
greater access to the European market and object to the subsidization of
European agricultural exports. Both call for the virtually complete dismantling of
the CAP as it currently exists. Both have sought to use EU commitments made
in the GATT Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture and in Article 20 of the
WTO Agriculture Agreement to move the process of reform forward as rapidly as
possible along neoliberal market principles (World Trade Organization 2001;
Coleman and Tangermann 1999).
Partly in response to these pressures, European officials have
increasingly articulated a “European Model of Agriculture.” This concept has
been particularly elaborated in a series of speeches by Franz Fischler, European
Commissioner for Agriculture. It is important to recognize that the concept has
been elaborated in the context of significant reform within the CAP, partly brought
about by international pressure but partly resulting from internal pressures as
well. The “European Model of Agriculture” therefore does not represent a
defense of the pre-reform CAP, but rather an attempt to assert Europe’s right to
define the continuing reform process in a way that departs from the neoliberal
certainties of the US and Cairns Group negotiating positions. Fischler’s key
themes are multifunctionality, equity, and sustainability, and he has not shied
away from asserting the model’s ethical basis:
Our European model of agriculture is based on competitive,
multifunctional and sustainable farming throughout the EU. This means
that agriculture must be maintained in less-favoured areas as well…
European agriculture, if it wishes to continue prospering in future, must
also be more prepared to accept ecological and ethical issues as quality
criteria for its products…Social expectations of this type are thus one of
the crucial shaping forces of the distinctive European agricultural model
(Fischler 1999c).
At stake here is the much-feted European model of agriculture. The
features making this a specifically “European” model of agriculture are the
3
focus on high safety standards and food quality, and on a sustainable
development of rural areas across the whole Community (Fischler 1999a)
Fischler has been quick to find support in the mad cow disease (BSE) crisis:
The BSE-crisis has strengthened the EU’s position that agriculture is more
than just an industry and has to be treated accordingly in the WTO.
European agriculture is also about the environment, consumers and food
safety. That is why we will stand firm to defend these non-trade concerns
in the WTO talks (European Commission 2001)
The emphasis on “non-trade concerns” is based on an insistence that
agriculture is different from other industries and commodities regulated by the
WTO. Pascal Lamy, EU Trade Commissioner, states:
Agriculture is different. Partly it is a question of externalities. In a simple
model of profit and loss, the benefits of agriculture, such as the
maintenance of rural populations and rural services, are undervalued.
Moreover there is an undeniable link between sustainable agriculture, food
safety, maintenance of the landscape and the environment. We have to
ensure, for instance, that we can take appropriate measures to protect the
environment, and maintain rural areas, and to assure consumers that food
has been produced according to EU standards, whether relating to animal
welfare or indeed safety (Lamy 2001).
US trade negotiators have generally contemptuously dismissed the
concept of a distinctive “European model of agriculture” as a pseudo-intellectual
smokescreen for protectionism, just as they have with European concerns about
hormone-treated beef and genetically-engineered foods.2
Agritourism and the Cultural Meaning of Agriculture and Landscape in
Europe
Agritourism is widespread and well-organized in most of Europe today,
with a history that goes back over a hundred years (Oppermann 1996). Its
definition, however, varies widely. Some usages of the term are very broad, as
in the following recent journalistic account:
Agritourism might manifest itself as en-suite guest rooms on a working
farm; rustic quarters in a restored country cottage or a grand, antique-filled
hacienda with its own pool. It may be a revitalised winery, a cheesemaking dairy or a village cooperative reviving traditional handicrafts. But it
will certainly be rural—and often remote (Robinson 2000)
Even when the focus is limited to farms, definitions can vary significantly, as
shown in a recent literature survey (Busby and Rendle 2000). The authors note
4
that the difficulty of obtaining data on farm tourism is linked both to a lack of
agreement on how to define it and to the fact that small accommodations need
not be registered with local authorities (e.g. less than nine beds in Germany).
Their survey of the available literature and sources of data leads them to
estimate 20-30,000 farms each in England, France, Germany and Austria as
providing accommodations for visitors. Earlier sources suggest 6000 such farms
in Italy (Tour and Travel News 1988), and something over 1000 in Spain (GarciaRamon, Canoves, and Valdovinos 1995). While in the past agritourist
accommodations were generally rustic and primitive, today most offer modern
amenities.
According to an EU study, 23% of European holiday makers choose the
“countryside” (defined negatively as not the sea, mountains, or cities) as their
destination (European Commission 1998). Other studies indicate some degree
of regional variation: 25% for the French and 34% for the Germans. (The high
figure for Germans may reflect the uniquely-high level of vacation time Germans
have, along with their penchant for taking several different holiday trips in a
single year. A vacation on the farm need not be the only one when one has six
weeks to “work” with.) Of course, not all countryside tourism is farm tourism, and
farm tourism can be easily combined with mountain vacations in many European
countries. An official at the World Tourism Organization has estimated the
agritourism accounts for between five and ten percent of Europe’s annual tourist
receipts of $218 billion (Tagliabue 1998)
EU subsidies have not only facilitated the conversion of farmhouses and
barns into modern-standard accommodations, but also, along with various
national programs, the development of modern facilities such as pools and spas
which serve both to raise the quality of life in rural areas and to provide
attractions to supplement those on the farm. Agritourism in Europe also benefits
from the fact that the architectural legacies of the past are evident almost
everywhere, in the local towns and villages, fortresses, churches, etc. The
“heritage industry” has reinterpreted and spruced up many rural attractions,
which serve to enhance the appeal of farm vacations (Hewison 1987; Urry 1990).
EU support for agritourism developed in the wake of the influential report
of the Commission of the European Communities (CEC) report, The Future of
Rural Society, which helped establish rural development as the “second pillar” of
the CAP. A new category of Structural Funds under Objective 5b, which targeted
specific problems in poorer rural regions, was established and ran in two phases,
1989-1993 and 1994-1999 (Ward and McNicholas 1998). A similarly-targeted
set of programs, Leader I and Leader II, also provided resources for rural
development in poor areas between 1991-1999.3 Rural development funding
programs under the CAP have been reorganized for 2000-2006. The successor
to the Leader programs, Leader+, applies now to all rural areas, and the
Objective 5b programs have been folded into a broader set of “Article 33”
programs. In all these programs, tourism development in rural areas has been
5
singled out as a major objective; over $2 billion in EU grants and loans was made
available for agritourist projects during the 1990s. Since these funds involved cofinancing, the total project investment was probably in the range of $5 billion.4
Euro 4.34 billion per year has been allocated for farm-related and rural
development projects between 2000 and 2006 (Ministry of Food n.d.).
In Bavaria, Objective 5b areas between 1994 and 1999 covered 56% of
the land and roughly 30% of its population. A Rural Europe summary for Bavaria
states: “The LEADER II actions involve strengthening local identity, renovating
villages, marketing innovative products and services, protecting the environment
(maintenance of landscapes, organic recycling, etc.) and, in parallel to the
extensive farming of the land, developing farm holidays” (Rural Europe 1999). It
is noteworthy that one of the EU-funded projects, Leonardo Agritourism, a joint
project of Sweden, Austria, Portugal and the Netherlands, declares on its web
page the goal of developing “a common European quality trade mark for this
activity” (Leonardo Agritourism 2001).
Agritourism in Germany is well-organized and promoted through several
organizations. The Deutsche Landswirtschaftsgesellschaft (German Agricultural
Association) inspects and certifies farms that are listed and promoted through the
publisher DLG Verlag. The certified farmers have their own regional
organizations, known as the Urlaub auf dem Bauernhof – Landesverband, which
work closely with the official Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft fuer Urlaub auf dem
Bauernhof und Landtourismus. In Bavaria, these organizations work together not
only to produce a series of booklets listing, with pictures and descriptions, all the
certified “Urlaub auf dem Bauernhof in Bayern” accommodations, but also a CDROM version of the regional booklets plus additional regional and tourist
information. Many of these farms have a presence on the internet, and in fact for
some the potential marketing reach of the internet has led them to suspend the
3000 marks annual payment for listing in the DLG Verlag publications.
In Germany and probably elsewhere, the economic importance of
agritourism for farmers and local economies is greatest in mountain regions,
where opportunities for profitable agriculture are limited by the climate and terrain
but where tourists come in abundance. In one such Upper Bavarian region,
Samerberg, the proprietor of one farmstay reported to us that of 84 family farms
in Samerberg, only three got by purely on the basis of agriculture. She estimated
that 90% of the farms were involved in tourism, generally providing
accommodation for visitors, and that tourism constituted more than half of total
income for about 20% of the farms. Her and her husband’s farm, with 24 cows
and 6 calves, was in this latter category. In addition to renting out about a halfdozen rooms or small apartments, the husband works in the winter as a ski
instructor.
The vast majority of agritourists in most European countries are nationals,
and here a variety of cultural and geographical factors come into play.
6
“Landscape” is very much part of regional and national identities, and it occupies
a place in the vision and language of European trade negotiators that would be
inconceivable among their U.S. counterparts. Similarly, the French concept of
terroir, the notion that the taste of food reflects unique local conditions and varies
by region, has been linked to commitment to a certain vision of agriculture
uniquely European, so much so that a September 2000 conference at the
University of Wisconsin had as its theme, “Taste, Technology and Terroir: A
Transatlantic Dialogue on Food as Culture” (European Union Center 2000). In
this context, the concept of a farm vacation has strong cultural resonance, as the
following observation about people’s relationship to food suggests:
Compared to agribusiness in the US, farmland in Europe is much more
integrated into citizens’ daily lives; government planning provides sharp
urban boundaries where farms exist, and commuters may even pass
livestock daily. Europeans have more contact with farming, in part
because many more of their relatives still live in rural areas. There is
heightened awareness in Europe of the way food is produced. The
production of food is not a mystery, only visible in terms of its output,
plastically wrapped on supermarket shelves (Bereano and Kraus 2000).
The point can be underlined by considering the starting point of efforts to develop
agritourism in the United States. One article on Wisconsin’s efforts quotes a
local food authority:
It’s not just nostalgia that drives this special kind of tourism. Many of us
have lost that important connection to the land, to the actual sources of
the food we eat, and we need to educate our senses again. Agricultural
tourism, whether it’s a visit to a farmer’s market or a stay at a farmstead
B&B, can be educational as well as entertaining (Saunders 1998).
Agritourism in Question
As we have seen, agritourism has become a significant part of tourism
and of the rural landscape in most Western European countries. Its development
has been significantly aided by European Union and other public subsidies, both
for modernizing and converting farm facilities and for providing a broader
infrastructure of attractions making rural areas attractive to people on holiday. Its
success is also rooted in the culture and geography of European countries. The
agritourism sector is reasonably well-organized in most countries, and its
importance is recognized by the World Tourism Organization and by national and
local tourist promotion agencies.
Agritourism’s ability to survive is probably not dependent on the
continuation of direct agritourism subsidies, since these currently take the form of
grants covering only a portion of any given project (generally 30-50%, depending
on cost)5 and since past loans and grants have left a legacy to build on. Still,
7
these subsidies remain important, especially in poorer areas, and they are likely
to be critical for the development of competitive facilities in the Eastern European
countries scheduled to join the EU in the next few years. Their future is of
importance to many farmers and regions.
While rather overstated, the following statement from Europe captures
some of the fears and hopes behind EU agritourism policies:
The dwindling number of EC farmers….symbolizes the “Americanization”
of European agriculture. More efficient, highly automated, well financed
and still heavily dependent on E.C. and government support programs,
E.C. farmers compete more effectively worldwide. But vast rural areas are
now deserted as farmers and their families have retired with no willing
successors. The only bright hope, particularly in scenic, mountain
regions, is growing rural tourism…..E.C. funding has been generous, amid
signs that rural populations are slowly reviving” (Kraus 1992).
Agritourism itself is not in question in international trade negotiations. But
the challenge to agritourism subsidies as part of a negotiating position that
agriculture should be ruled by the same kind of free trade regulations as exist for
other commodities is one that questions the whole social, cultural, and economic
framework of agriculture in European countries. The dispute is interesting not
only for its potential impact on agritourism, but for its broader social implications
as well.
United States trade negotiators reportedly challenged EU subsidies for
agritourism in 1998 (Tagliabue 1998). The details of the US challenge remain
unclear, but to understand the context, one must understand the WTO’s
classification of agricultural subsidies into “boxes.” The “amber box” includes all
domestic support measures for farmers that are considered to distort production
and trade.6 Countries are expected to be in the process of reducing or phasing
them out. “Green box” subsidies, on the other hand, are those which are
considered not to distort trade and are considered allowable within limits. In
between is the “blue box,” subsidies considered distorting but less so than those
in the amber box, generally because they are linked to schemes to limit
production or set aside farmland. There is considerable controversy within
among WTO members about whether blue box subsidies should continue to be
allowed.
With the passage of the 1996 “Freedom to Farm Act,” which (technically)
decoupled income supports to farmers from production, the United States claims
to have moved all its subsidies into the allowable green box.7 Using calculations
challenged by the EU, it claims that 85% of the world’s export subsidies are
accounted for by the EU and that “there is no economic justification for their
continued use.” (Galvin 1999). In the case of subsidies for agritourism
development, the EU would undoubtedly claim that that they are green-box
8
subsidies, hence allowable.8 US trade negotiators, however, have made clear
their intention to eye carefully all green box subsidies and to accept only those
that are truly non-distorting. Presumably because agritourism subsidies may
help keep “inefficient” farmers in business who would otherwise be driven off the
land, US negotiators appear to have challenged their green box status.9 As US
Trade Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky said in mid-1998:
The fact that we have so many WTO cases involving the EU reflects, in
part, the diversity of transatlantic activity. It also reflects the fact that we
will not tolerate non-compliance with trade agreements or WTO rules, and
we will exercise our rights vigorously to ensure that American trade
interests are respected.
Both the US and the Cairns Group oppose the general EU argument that
agriculture is different and requires special treatment. A statement on behalf of
the Cairns Group by the Australian Minister-Counsellor for Agriculture and
Resources proclaims:
The Cairns Group is united in its resolve to ensure that the next WTO
agriculture negotiations achieve fundamental reform which put trade in
agricultural goods on the same basis as trade in other groups. All tradedistorting subsidies must be eliminated and market access must be
substantially improved so that agricultural trade can proceed on the basis
of market forces (Morris 1999).
A statement of the US position is slightly more nuanced, but also rejects the idea
that agriculture should be treated differently than other sectors:
Agriculture occupies a special place in the national economies of most
countries around the world. Farmers are responsible for feeding and
clothing people. Farming also holds a powerful claim on our national
cultures that calls for the preservation of rural lifestyles and values. Farm
production is subject to the cruel vagaries of weather and the relentless
decline in prices and increases in costs. Some people point to these
factors as justifying a differential treatment for agriculture in the
international economy, including justifying trade-distorting agricultural
policies. This is wrong-headed…(Schumacher 1999)
US officials have likewise made clear their stance against the EU
concepts of multifunctionality and non-trade concerns, concepts which the EU
sees as closely related. James Murphy, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for
Agriculture, has been quoted as saying that the US accepts the notion of
farming’s multiple functions, but only on the condition that it does not result in
trade distortions by covertly subsidizing unprofitable farm products—an argument
that could easily be used against EU agritourism grants (Tagliabue 1998), since
their main raison d’etre is to keep otherwise marginal farmers in business.
9
Conclusion
In the farms of Bavaria and elsewhere in Europe, we have found a story of
globalization playing itself out which has profound consequences for almost all
aspects of societies everywhere. While the story we have told appears to pit
Europe against the United States, in fact it is equally a story about competing
models of European capitalism. Focusing on a different but related aspect of EU
policy, Hooghe (1998) has argued that “contestation around EU cohesion policy
is best understood as part of a deepening struggle between those favouring
neoliberal capitalism in Europe and proponents of European regulated
capitalism.” Clearly speaking from the latter viewpoint, the German sociologist
Ulrich Beck has claimed:
Globalism is a thought-virus which has by now stricken all parties, all
editorial departments, all institutions. Its main article of faith is not that
people must engage in economic behavior, but that everyone and
everything—politics, science, culture—should be subordinated to the
primacy of the economic…Neoliberalism is high politics which presents
itself as completely non-political….Its ideology is that people do not act but
fulfill world market laws—laws which, regrettably, force them to whittle the
(social) state and democracy down to a minimum (Sa'adah 1918).
We have seen how these issues are playing themselves out in Europe
over tourism and the future of agriculture. Not least because of the powerful
place of agriculture in both the lives and the imagination of so many Europeans,
we believe that this represents an area where resistance to the kind of extreme
market ideology represented by U.S. elites and their allies in Europe is likely to
be particularly strong. Dealing with the future of agriculture and rural areas may
nurture a revitalization of a vision of regulated capitalism with local and
participatory roots.
We close by quoting once again EU Agriculture Commissioner Franz
Fischler, who appears to be looking in this direction:
The farming landscape in Europe is as much a product of the farmer’s
work as our bread, wine and meat. This is an area in which we have erred
in the past. More meat, more grain has often been won at the expense of
less environmental quality, less diversity in the landscape. Without
agricultural reform, Europe will literally lose its familiar face. If it is to have
a future, Europe’s agriculture needs to steer its own unique course
between the Scylla of interventionism and the Charbydis of raw market
forces, otherwise it could find itself shipwrecked on one or other of these
two extremes (Fischler 2000).
Endnotes
10
1
According to the Statistical Office of the European Communities in Luxembourg (Eurostat),
there was a 40% decline in the number of agricultural holdings in the original six EU member
countries between 1967 and 1997. The largest absolute reductions were France (minus 1 million
holdings); Germany (minus 700,000), and Italy (minus 660,000). These declines were
accompanied by increasing concentration: average holding sized increase by more than 70%
during this period. The report notes: “10% of European holdings accounted for two-thirds of total
SGM [standard gross margin] and 50% generated 95% of the total. Although the economic
importance of the remaining 50% is small, they nevertheless play a very important role in
maintaining both the land and the rural fabric.” (Eurostat 2000)
2 It is worth noting in this context that as late as June 1996, the U.S. Information Agency’s
electronic journal, Economic Perspectives, carried an article on the United States’ formal
complaint against the EU ban on hormone-treated beef which, while noting European fears about
BSE (mad cow disease), stated that “most scientists” believed that the risk of humans becoming
infected with BSE were “slight.” See (Hanrahan 1996).
3 As Liesbet Hooghe points out, EU policies to reduce inequalities focus almost entirely on spatial
economic disparities, not disparities within regions (Hooghe 1998).
4 Interestingly, several studies credit the program with creating new and strengthened local
identities, often an important precursor to regional tourism development (Ward and McNicholas
1998; Ray 1998). A study of an Objective 5b agritourism program in the Danish islands raises
the interesting issue of the “traditional” experiences demanded by tourists are compatible with
modern farming (Hjalager 1996).
5 For a typical call for proposals for EU-funded agritourism projects, see Revitalising Farm
Tourism: A Programme of Financial Assistance and Business Support for Farm Tourism in the
European Objective 5b Area for the South West at
http://www.swtourism.co.uk/quality/revitalising_farm_tourism.htm.
6 It should be noted that in the language of neoliberal economics and the WTO, “distortions” have
a narrow economic meaning having to do with departures from pure market outcomes.
Environmental and social “distortions” are not part of the discussion. The term “subsidy” is
similarly restricted.
7 This claim is hotly disputed by EU officials, who point out that US payments to farmers have
risen to record levels since 1996. The new modes of income support are clearly not fully
detached from production decisions and outcomes. Food aid and other US programs are also
seen by EU officials as disguised export subsidies.
8 This is suggested by Agriculture Commissioner Fischler’s statement: “As regards internal
support, the green box has not so far been significantly called into question by any of our
negotiating partners. Almost all European measures for protecting the environment through
agriculture and developing rural areas currently fall into this category. We naturally, therefore,
have a major stake in this situation continuing in the future. With regard to the multiple roles of
European agriculture, we must even consider whether we shouldn’t negotiate for an extension of
the green box” (Fischler 1999c).
9 Apart from John Tagliabue’s New York Times report that the US had made EU agritourism
subsidies an issue, I have found no documentation of the manner in which this was done. This
paragraph therefore is speculative, although based on related statements by US officials.
Reference List
Ackrill, Robert W. 2000. "CAP Reform 1999: A Crisis in the Making?" Journal of
Common Market Studies 38(2):343-53.
Bereano, Phil and Kraus, Florian. 2000. "TransAtlantic Food Wars" [Web Page].
Accessed 24 Jan 2001. Available at
http://www.thecampaign.org/bereano1.htm.
11
Busby, Graham and Samantha Rendle. 2000. "The Transition From Tourism on
Farms to Farm Tourism." Tourism Management 21:615-42.
Coleman, William D. and Stefan Tangermann. 1999. "The 1992 CAP Reform, the
Uruguay Round and the Commission: Conceptualizing Linked Policy
Games." Journal of Common Market Studies 37(3):385-405.
European Commission. 1998. The Europeans On Holidays, 1997-1998.
Brussels.
European Commission. 5 Feb 2001. "EU makes proposal for "win-win" solution to
WTO agricultural negotiations" [Web Page]. Accessed 21 Feb 2001.
Available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/newsroom/en/64.htm.
European Union Center. 2000. ""Taste, Technology and Terroir: A Transatlantic
Dialogue on Food as Culture"" [Web Page]. Accessed 24 Jan 2001.
Available at
http://wiscinfo.doit.wisc.edu/eucenter/Conferences/Foodweb/Sept92000.ht
m.
Eurostat. 2000. "Physical and Economic Cencentration of Agricultural Holdings."
News Release 35/2000.
Fischler, Franz. 21 Jan 1999a. "The European Model of Agriculture--the Future of
Modern Farming" [Web Page]. Accessed 21 Feb 2001a. Available at
http://www.agroplan.simplenet.com/bibliovirtual/Documentos/Fischler%20
European%20Modelo%20299.pdf.
Fischler, Franz. 23 Jan 1999b. "The WTO and Agriculture in East and West"
[Web Page]. Accessed 21 Feb 2001b. Available at
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=SP
EECH/99/14%7C0%7CAGED&lg=EN.
Fischler, Franz. 24 Sep 1999c. "The European Model of Agriculture--Facing the
WTO Acid Test" [Web Page]. Accessed 21 Feb 2001c. Available at
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=SP
EECH/99/117%7C0%7CRAPID&lg=EN.
Fischler, Franz. 2000. "Reform of the CAP is the Road, A Living Countryside is
the Goal" [Web Page]. Accessed 24 Jan 2001. Available at
http://www.stpa.unibo.it/picci/preface.htm.
Galvin, Timothy J. 1999. "Export Subsidies: A Distortion to Free Trade in
Agriculture." Economic Perspectives: An Electronic Journal of the U.S.
Information Agency 4(2):14-15.
Garcia-Ramon, M. D., Gemma Canoves, and Nuria Valdovinos. 1995. "Farm
Tourism, Gender and the Environment in Spain." Annals of Tourism
12
Research 22(2):267-82.
Hanrahan, Charles. 1996. "Hormone-Treated Meat: A Test of Global Food Safety
Rules." Economic Perspectives 1(6):23-25.
Hewison, R. 1987. The Heritage Industry. London: Methuen.
Hjalager, Anne-Mette. 1996. Tourism Management 17(2):103-11.
Hooghe, Liesbet. 1998. "EU Cohesion Policy and Competing Models of
European Capitalism." Journal of Common Market Studies 36(4):457-77.
Kraus, Axel. 1992. "Europe in the 21st Century." Europe(318):28-29.
Lamy, Pascal. 4 Jan 2001. "Special Treatment for Agriculture: The Way Ahead"
[Web Page]. Accessed 21 Feb 2001. Available at
http://europa.ed.int/comm/trade/speeches_articles/spla44_en.htm.
"Leonardo Agritourism" [Web Page]. Accessed 25 Feb 2001. Available at
http://www.hlcn.nl/agritourism/03e%20projectinformatie.htm.
Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Forestry, Federal Republic of Germany. "EU
Agricultural Policy" [Web Page]. Accessed 16 Oct 2000. Available at
http://www.bml.de/englisch/daten-und-fakten-200-english/kap11.htm.
Morris, Paul. 1999. "WTO Agricultural Negotiations--Completing the Task."
Economic Perspectives: An Electronic Journal of the U.S. Information
Agency 4(2):23-24.
Oppermann, Martin. 1996. "Rural Tourism in Southern Germany." Annals of
Tourism Research 23(1):86-102.
Ray, Christopher. 1998. "Territory, Structures and Interpretation--Two Case
Studies of the European Union's Leader I Programme." Journal of Rural
Studies 14(1):79-87.
Rilla, Ellen. 1999. "Unique Niches: Agritourism in Britain and New England" [Web
Page]. Accessed 27 Dec 1999. Available at
http://www.sfc.ucdavis.edu/agritourism/printer.html.
Robinson, Richard. 15 Apr 2000. "Rural Idylls Tempt the Adventurous." News
International (Times of London), p. 26.
Rural Europe. 1999. "Bayern" [Web Page]. Accessed 6 Mar 2000. Available at
http://www.rural-europe.aeidl.be/rural-en/plr/de/de-ba.htm.
Sa'adah, Anne. 1918. "The Headaches and Heartaches of Globalization."
German Politics and Society 1(Spring 2000):124-33.
13
Saunders, Lucy. 1998. "Ag Tourism: Growth-Friendly in Wisconsin" [Web Page].
Accessed 25 Feb 2001. Available at
http://milwaukee.bcentral.com/milwaukee/stories/1998/08/24/focus1.html.
Schumacher, Jr. 1999. "The Future of Agricultural Trade." Economic
Perspectives: The Electronic Journal of the U.S. Information Agency
4(2):6-10.
Tagliabue, John. 13 Aug 1998. "Preserving A Heritage Via Bed and Barns;
European Governments Subsidize Agritourism." New York Times,
Business, pp. D1,4.
Tour and Travel News. 1988. "Rural Tourism Outlook Bright, Study Shows." Tour
and Travel News.
Urry, John. 1990. The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary
Societies. London: Sage.
Ward, Neil and Kate McNicholas. 1998. "Reconfiguring Rural Development in the
UK: Objective 5b and the New Rural Governance." Journal of Rural
Studies 14(1):27-39.
World Trade Organization. 15 Feb 2001. "WTO Agriculture Negotiations: The
Issues, and where we are now" [Web Page]. Accessed 21 Feb 2001.
Available at
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/agric_e/AgNegs_bkgrnd.pdf.
14