In this paper we analyse the economic and environmental impacts of CAP greening introduced by the 2013 CAP reform using the CAPRI model. CAPRI captures the farm heterogeneity across the EU and it allows to depict the implementation of the greening measures in high detail while integrating the environmental effects and the market feedback of the simulated policy changes. The simulated results reveal that the economic impacts (land use, production, price and income) of CAP greening are rather small, although some farm types, crops (fallow land and pulses) and Member States may be affected more significantly. The CAP greening will lead simultaneously to a small increase in prices and a small decrease in production. Farm income slightly increases because the price effects offset the production decline. Similarly to economic effects, the environmental impacts (GHG emissions, N surplus, ammonia emissions, soil erosion, and biodiversity-friendly farming practices) of CAP greening are small, although some regions may see greater effects than others. In general, the environmental effects at EU level are positive on a per hectare basis, but the increase in UAA can reverse the sign for total impacts. Overall, simulated GHG and ammonia emissions decrease in the EU, while the total N

No abstract

No abstract

Summary Agricultural stakeholders have concerns regarding the potential impact of the Farm‐to‐Fork and Biodiversity strategies on the agricultural sector. Several studies have been published recently trying to understand how these strategies would affect the sector, including a JRC report on modelling environmental and climate ambition in the agricultural sector written by the authors of this article. In this article, we argue that the narrow focus of the analysis undertaken is the main driver of the reported reduction in agricultural production in the EU, its deteriorating trade balance and increased prices. We highlight that the strategies include a much broader set of interventions that are not accounted for in the analysis and that the tools used have limitations preventing them from capturing the full scope of potential impacts. The evidence gained from improvements to our modelling approach further reinforce the idea that reported impacts are a higher bound of the potential impact of the input reduction targets. In addition, we signal the limited evidence available on the co‐benefits of improved environmental quality the strategies aim to attain. Both aspects lead us to conclude that we are currently far from being able to assess the impacts that a transition to more sustainable food systems will have on the agricultural sector.