Additional written evidence is contained in Volume 3, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/efracom

Providing an updated state of the art report on the effects of the 2003 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform, this volume has a particular emphasis on the governance of institutional changes and national/regional implementation. Written from an agricultural economist's point of view and enriched by the contribution of political scientists and policy makers, this book offers: - an updated report of the European debate on agricultural and rural policies; -an in-depth analysis of the decoupling process of the agricultural financial support in Europe; - an analysis of the CAP implementation in the old and new Europe Member States ; - a discussion on the future scenarios for the European Agricultural Policies Based on a selection of papers from the 109th Seminar of the European Association of the Agricultural Economists (EAAE), this book, with a foreword by Franz Fischler, also includes four commissioned contributions from leaders in the field including Sofia Davidova, Roberto Esposti, Tassos Haniotis and Johan Swinnen.

After five years of debates, consultations and negotiations, the European institutions reached an agreement in 2013 on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for the 2014-2020 period. The outcome has major implications for the EU’s budget and farmers’ incomes, but also for Europe’s environment, its contribution to global climate change and to food security in the EU and in the world. It was decided to spend more than €400 billion during the rest of the decade on the CAP. The official claims are that the new CAP will take better account of society's expectations and lead to far-reaching changes by making subsidies fairer and ‘greener’ and making the CAP more efficient. It is also asserted that the CAP will play a key part in achieving the overall objective of promoting smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. However, there is significant scepticism about these claims and disappointment with the outcome of the decision-making, the first in which the European Parliament was involved under the co-decision procedure. In contrast to earlier reforms where more substantive changes were made to the CAP, the factors that induced the policy discussions in 2008-13 and those that influenced the decision-making did not reinforce each other. On the contrary, they sometimes counteracted one another, yielding an ‘imperfect storm’ as it were, resulting in more status quo and fewer changes. This book discusses the outcome of the decision-making and the factors that influenced the policy choices and decisions. It brings together contributions from leading academics from various disciplines and policy-makers, and key participants in the process from the European Commission and the European Parliament.

Evidence taken before Sub-committee D (Environment and Agriculture)

Showing how the method of sustainability assessment plays a key role in choosing the best agricultural productive mode, this book guides the reader through the process of selecting, from among the various approaches for building farming systems, the method of decision-making that will result in the most appropriate outcome, given the context. Case studies hail from polities as diverse as Portugal and Canada, Argentina and Lebanon. The work thus offers a valuable critical survey of the assessment methods that account for sustainability and economics, and which have developed considerably in the last two decades. The heterogeneous approaches covered here make this volume appropriate for consultation in a wide variety of social, political and geographical contexts.

This book engages in the controversies of the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reforms, demonstrating how these are reiterated by mainstream theoretical approaches in the field. The reforms that the European Union’s CAP underwent during the last three decades were intended to make it less trade-distorting, more taxpayer-friendly and more able to meet the new challenges of environmental concerns and rural development/territorial cohesion. The outcome of the reforms has, however, contradicted these objectives, with the controversies being reiterated by the mainstream theoretical approaches in the field. European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy Reforms argues that these controversies are due to reductionist, rationalist and idealist assumptions with regard to the object of inquiry applied by mainstream approaches. It proposes an alternative critical approach that takes into account the role of real material factors. Critical realism is not just an alternative explanation of CAP reforms but an alternative theory of how explanations can be made, which enables readers to reflect upon and endorse the results of existing lines of research in proceeding towards deeper level theory.

This ground-breaking book sets out a comprehensive governance framework to raise the welfare of animals across EU agriculture and the agri-food chain. Diane Ryland argues that a global response is needed to promote animal wellbeing in agriculture, focusing on the importance of the relations between public and private standard-setting bodies.

This Monitoring and Evaluation report of agricultural policies covers OECD member countries and a range of emerging economies which are key players on agro-food markets.

The European Union has launched an important debate on the future of the EU budget from 2013. This discussion is to cover all aspects of EU revenue and expenditure, including that on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The CAP has been radically transformed in recent years, but the issue of its reform, including its goals, its effectiveness in reaching them and the question of division of responsibility and financing between the EU and member states, is once again at the centre of attention. This collection features well-known experts in the field and aims to contribute to the debate on the present state and future prospects of the CAP and other EU policies. The topics covered range from the EU budget to food safety, rural development, sustainable food consumption, and the influence of international trade negotiations. Many of the ideas presented here are original and controversial and intended to fuel the debate on this important topic. For instance, there are various proposals for the EU budget, the division of responsibilities between the EU and its member states, and the shape of the CAP post-2013.

The European Commission proposes that 30% of 'direct payments' made to farmers under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) would be conditional on compliance with three new 'greening' measures. While supporting the Commission's desire to improve the environment, the EFRA Committee rejects the approach proposed. Instead it calls for the EU to set high-level objectives for the CAP that provide for flexibility to apply the right measures for local conditions through 'decentralising' environmental protection under the CAP to Member States. This report highlights the huge benefit that UK 'agri-environment' schemes have brought to biodiversity, food production and the countryside. The Committee also urged Defra to ensure that the UK's tenant farmers should not be excluded from these schemes. The Committee concludes that Defra must ensure the balance of funding between mandatory and voluntary aspects of the CAP should not leave UK farmers at a competitive disadvantage relative to their counterparts in the rest of Europe. MPs also warn that measures proposed by the Commission would be even more complex than the current system - adding costly bureaucracy and generating more errors in the system. Likewise, the committee concludes that the Commission's crop diversification measure would in the UK have perverse consequences that are far less environmentally beneficial than crop rotation. Of the three 'greening' measures offered, the Commission's proposal for Ecological Focus Areas (EFA) has the potential to deliver the greatest environmental benefit. However, the lack of definitions within the proposals make it difficult to assess what, if any, such benefits would actually be delivered