In December 2005 the Government launched a "Vision for the Common Agricultural Policy", which was intended to stimulate debate and show how the Common Agricultural Policy should change in 10-15 years. This report examines the proposals and finds them a lost opportunity. The Government should have directed the debate towards scrapping the existing CAP and replacing it with a Rural Policy for the European Union. There should thus be a new Vision document, launched in a more subtle way so that allies for reform can be enlisted. The credibility of the document depends on the Government providing full and detailed evaluation of the impact of proposals on biodiversity, the environment, markets for agricultural goods and individual farm enterprises. This should be done by mid 2008. The long-term justification of the expenditure of taxpayers' money is the provision of public benefit. These public goods should be measurable and capable of evaluation.

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)

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee criticises the European Commission's proposed sweeping reforms of the CAP that would see the current complex and bureaucratic system of direct payments replaced by one that could be even worse. These changes include a new tier of environmental conditions, with penalties for farm businesses that do not comply or fail to meet new criteria for 'active' farmers, farm size and number of employees. The Committee sets out the key principles the UK government should promote. The first objective of the CAP should be to maintain and enhance the EU's capacity to produce food with a significant degree of self sufficiency and, in the long term, less reliance on income support from the tax payer. The UK's future food security is threatened by the low profitability of its agriculture. More than half of UK farm businesses would be unprofitable without the support they receive through the CAP. The Committee concludes that direct payments have a place within the CAP for as long as business conditions in agriculture fail to deliver a thriving and profitable industry. The CAP must deliver a competitive and viable agricultural sector that produces safe and high quality food with a lower environmental impact. The UK should press for the EU to argue more strongly for recognition of environmental and animal welfare production standards within trade agreements. The committee also warns that the EU proposal for a multi-tiered single farm payment will require expensive new computer systems and auditing.

This book provides a multidisciplinary analysis of the impact of Brexit on British agriculture and associated areas, discussing the Common Agricultural Policy and the Agriculture Act 2020. The Brexit referendum provoked new debates and questions over the future of agriculture in Britain and the potential positive and negative impacts of Brexit on both farmers and consumers. These debates, as well as the ensuing proposals relevant to the Agriculture Act 2020, have exposed the multidimensional effects of Brexit when it comes to agriculture. With a focus on profitability, the rights of farmers, environmental protection, as well as animal welfare, this book brings together an interdisciplinary analysis of the future of British agriculture in post-Brexit Britain. More specifically, it addresses the criticisms over the Common Agriculture Policy, presents an analysis of the Agriculture Act 2020, and considers suggestions for future developments. Through this analysis, the book suggests a way towards the future, with a positive outlook towards a competitive and sustainable agriculture that will satisfy the needs of farmers and consumers while ensuring environmental protection, animal welfare, and rural development. This book will be of great interest to students and scholars of food and agricultural policy and politics, agroecology and rural development, as well as policymakers involved in Britain’s post-Brexit environmental policy.

The 2003 reform of the Common Agricultural Policy marked the culmination of a gradual reorientation of EU farm subsidies from product support to direct income support. A mid-term "Health Check" of this reform is now underway, exploring what further adjustments may be required for the period 2009 to 2013. The Commission's proposals for short-term adjustments to the CAP merit broad support. The Committee is not convinced of the long-term justification for maintaining direct subsidy payments in their present form, and advocates a phased reduction in direct payments over the course of the next financial period beginning in 2014. A significant proportion of the funds released should remain earmarked for the CAP, but be spent on the rural development element of the policy rather than on farm subsidies. The report also addresses the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead for the EU agriculture industry. The sector is a significant contributor to climate change, but also vulnerable to its effects. Climate change may present a business opportunity for the industry, which is uniquely placed to deliver environmental services. Soaring global demand for many agricultural commodities has allowed some sectors of the European farming industry to prosper, while others are grappling with rising input prices and stagnant or falling output prices. Were supply shortages to ensue in future, the Committee expects that food scarcity would be a function of income rather than of production capacity. Those most at risk are consumers on low incomes in the developing world. Further trade liberalisation in the agriculture sector is supported, but if direct payments are withdrawn and import tariffs reduced-as the UK Government advocates-then the production standards that EU producers of agricultural goods are obliged to meet should be re-examined.

Work of the Committee In 2007 : Third report of session 2007-08, report, together with formal Minutes

The authors present 165 fabulous recipes that use ingredients now found in supermarkets everywhere to create home-cooked southeast Asian meals in less than half an hour.

This annual report details the work and expenditure of the Department for International Development (DFID) during the period April 2006 to March 2007, working as part of the wider international effort to tackle world poverty and promote the sustainable development of low-income countries. The report includes chapters on: reducing poverty in Africa and Asia and progress towards the Millennium Development Goals; making the multilateral system and bilateral aid more effective; fragile states, conflicts and crises; environment, climate change and natural resources; and working with others on policies beyond aid. The assessment of progress is structured around the DFID Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets.

Acknowledging the challenges and opportunities raised by Brexit for the agrifood supply chain and agricultural policies across the UK, this book provides the first in-depth analysis of agricultural policy developments across the UK’s four nations rooted in strong theoretical and practical underpinnings. Arguing that the four nations could be more ambitious in departing from the Common Agricultural Policy and extending beyond the ‘public money for public goods’ approach adopted across the UK, it critiques the core attributes of their policies with focuses including the debate over outcome-based schemes, governance mechanisms, impacts on farm diversity and path dependency on the Common Agricultural Policy and English approaches. It promotes a ‘resilient agriculture’ paradigm and utilises social-ecological services, net zero, agroecology and agri-food democracy as the main pathways to achieve this. In doing so, it scrutinises the evolving contextual, political and legal landscape within which devolved and UK agricultural policies are developing from a multilevel governance perspective, examining the implications of WTO law for the UK and its devolved administrations to determine environmental, food and animal welfare standards under the GATT, the SPS and TBT Agreements and financial support schemes under the Agreement on Agriculture. The book assesses the significance of the Northern Ireland Protocol, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the EU and other free trade agreements for standards across the UK and access to markets. From a domestic perspective, challenges to devolution and the stability of the Union are highlighted. Elements of unilateral recentralisation are visible via financing mechanisms, the UK Internal Market Act and the Agriculture Act. The book’s interdisciplinary nature makes it of interest to lawyers, political scientists, economists, human geographers and scientists, as well as policymakers, agricultural communities, civil society organisations and think tanks in the devolved administrations, the UK, the EU and beyond.