Suchergebnisse

EU has decided a Common Agriculture Policy(CAP) reform in 2003 on decoupling farm subsidies, the 2014-2020 reform follows the spirit of the 2003 reform. In order to investigate the impact of CAP reforms on farmers' production, consumption and investment decisions, first, I summarize different farm models on farmers' choice behaviors in previous literature. Second, I develop my dynamic stochastic farm model with investment. I use second order perturbation method, Bayesian estimation and the Monte Carlo method in solving and estimating my model. With an application with French data, I am expecting a change in farms' risk aversion level before and after the CAP reform.

A lecture on the history of the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the new EU Green Deal, the Farm to Fork strategy, the politics of choice, and the challenges of food sustainability.

As part of a 'fitness check' evaluation of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), completed in autumn 2017, we conducted an in depth literature review to evaluate both direct and indirect effects of the CAP on biodiversity (BD) and ecosystem services (ESS). Beyond instruments that are designated towards the protection of BD and ESS, such as agri-environment(-climate) schemes (AECM), greening, and cross compliance (CC), we considered and evaluated non-designated instruments such as Direct Payments, that likely have indirect effects on BD and ESS by affecting land-use changes, farm structure and management. Although literature suggests that AECM can be locally effective (1), their effectiveness at the EU level remains limited due to a restricted budget and extent, low uptake and acceptance by farmers, lack of spatial design, and poor implementation in many cases. Greening measures are both ineffective and cost-inefficient since most farmers are either exempt or can comply with the greening requirements without any action (2). Additionally, administrative requirements bias farmers toward choosing the simplest and least effective measures (3) and management requirements and spatial design are lacking. With respect to supporting farming systems that can be considered as sustainable, our review indicates that the CAP offers adequate support to promote organic farming, but much greater support is given to unsustainable farming systems. Moreover, the protection of High Nature Value farming systems is scarce and inadequate. Concerning ESS, current measures (AECM, CC) are somewhat effective with respect to soil protection and water quality but the performance of the CAP is very low with regard to climate issues by failing to address the most important sources of greenhouse-gas emissions, namely livestock production and nitrogen fertilization. Overall, the CAP's design and implementation poorly takes up existing knowledge and experience with respect to necessary interventions and best indicators, and its various instruments operate with little coherence (e.g. AECM and organic farming) or even in conflict (e.g. AECM and greening). Moreover, the CAP only marginally addresses the EU's global ecological footprint and its contribution to land-use changes outside of Europe. Thus, the global efficiency and effectiveness of the CAP in terms of BD and ESS remains weak. Our literature review indicates the availability of a wealth of evidence to inform current and future policy design processes. Integration of all available knowledge, in collaboration with the scientific community, will be essential for achieving higher effectiveness, efficiency, and coherence within instruments and among the CAP and the EU's biodiversity strategy. A much more inclusive, transparent and evidence-based process will be necessary if the European Commission wishes to address the concerns over the CAP's performance with respect to public goods. ; peerReviewed

This paper seeks to look at certain fundamental features of the EU food and agricultural sector adjustment process as it manifests itself through the reform of the CAP. It highlights the shift in policy tools, from price support for agricultural products to income support for EU farmers and the shift in policy emphasis from the quantity of agricultural products to the quality of food and agriculturalproducts. It reviews the implications of this policy shift for the EU's diminishing tolerance of the use of trade policy tools as part of agricultural development policies in third countries. It highlights in passing the implications of these developments for the African food and agriculturalsectors, before drawing out some broad conclusions and recommendations.

Recent scientific research highlights the urgent need to protect Europe's remaining – and rapidly declining – biological diversity. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is one of the major tools with which policymakers in the European Union (EU) can achieve this aim. However, so far, the CAP has proved largely ineffective – or even detrimental – to this goal. With relatively localised exceptions, the Policy's notable success in ensuring supplies of food and fiber by supporting Europe's farmers has been at the expense of environmental objectives. This report presents the findings of an Expert Working Group (EWG) convened to explore the ways in which the Common Agricultural Policy could be made more effective in protecting biodiversity and delivering associated ecosystem services, particularly through the implementation of effective biodiversity measures by Europe's farmers.

Common Agricultural Policy has strengthened the economy of the EU since the 6th decade of the 20th century. Agriculture is the sensitive sector of economic activity,and consequently CAP constantly evolves influenced by alternating problems of the sector. This evolution is accompanied by reforms, which increase efficiency of the CAP tools. The current CAP is criticized because its objectives do not meet challenges of the agricultural and rural development. CAP for 2014–2020 is being realized as a new phase of policy evolution and its outcome depends on the selection of the appropriate development directions and the determination of workable tools. Identification of CAP development directions is empowered by the provided in the paper research, which establish the most important CAP problems and challenges.

Common Agricultural Policy has strengthened the economy of the EU since the 6th decade of the 20th century. Agriculture is the sensitive sector of economic activity,and consequently CAP constantly evolves influenced by alternating problems of the sector. This evolution is accompanied by reforms, which increase efficiency of the CAP tools. The current CAP is criticized because its objectives do not meet challenges of the agricultural and rural development. CAP for 2014–2020 is being realized as a new phase of policy evolution and its outcome depends on the selection of the appropriate development directions and the determination of workable tools. Identification of CAP development directions is empowered by the provided in the paper research, which establish the most important CAP problems and challenges. Article in Lithuanian. Bendrosios žemės ūkio politikos plėtros problematika Santrauka.Bendroji žemės ūkio politika nuo XX a. 6-ojo dešimtmečio stiprina Europos Sąjungos ekonomiką. Žemės ūkis yra jautrus ekonominės veiklos sektorius, todėl jį reglamentuojanti politika nuolat evoliucionuoja, reaguodama į kintančias sektoriaus problemas, o tai verčia įgyvendinti naujas reformas, skirtas BŽŪP instrumentų veiksmingumui didinti. Dabartinė BŽŪP yra kritikuojama, nes jos tikslai neatitinka žemės ūkio ir kaimo plėtros iššūkių. 2014–2020 m. BŽŪP laikotarpis suvokiamas kaip naujas raidos etapas, o jo rezultatai priklausys nuo tinkamų BŽŪP krypčių nustatymo ir veiksmingo instrumentarijaus parinkimo. Remiantis straipsnyje atliktos analizės rezultatais, nustatomos svarbiausios BŽŪP problemos ir iššūkiai bei identifikuojamos sistemos tobulinimo kryptys. Reikšminiai žodžiai: bendroji žemės ūkio politika (BŽŪP), BŽŪP iššūkiai, BŽŪP reforma.