Exploring the Determinants of CAP Reform: A Delphi Survey of Key Decision‐Makers*

Abstract

A panel of key decision-makers, closely involved in the 1992, 1999 and 2003 CAP reforms, participated in a Delphi survey designed to ascertain what had prompted the European Commission to launch these reform initiatives and what factors were relevant in determining the reform packages subsequently decided by the Council. Copyright (c) 2009 The Author(s). Journal compilation (c) 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Agricultural decline and sustainable development on mountain areas in Greece: Sustainability assessment of future scenarios

“…In addition, a growing understanding of the negative impacts of agriculture on the environment have brought to the political agenda public demands for a more environmental friendly agriculture and support regimes (Walford, 2003;Winter, 2000). The recent reform of Common Agricultural Policy (also known as Fischler reform), although still partially resistant to liberalisation (Potter and Tilzey, 2005), is mainly motivated by international negotiations (Gatt/WTO) (Cunha and Swinbank, 2009) and the decoupling of payments from production could be considered as an important move towards a free market. Thus, thinking about the future through a scenario approach, the investigation of a policy shift towards agricultural liberalisation becomes topical.…”

The New Common Agricultural Policy: Ηow do Member States Respond to Flexibility?

“…In a similar vein, the importance of the CAP in the EU budget, despite its many detractors, as well as the rather intact status quo in the resource allocation, can be largely attributed to the organized power of the traditional CAP beneficiaries (Kauppi and Widgrén, 2009). The role of geopolitical and institutional aspects (EU enlargement, extension of the European Parliament's co-decision power) or of societal concerns (food safety, territorial development, climate change) in driving CAP reforms over time has also been largely recognized (Burrell, 2009;Cunha and Swinbank, 2009;Greer and Hind, 2012;Jensen et al, 2009;Papadopoulos, 2015;Roederer-Rynning and Schimmelfennig, 2012). Besides, different branches of literature have documented the large set of CAP determinants which in turn had a differential reflection at the country level.…”

“…Besides, different branches of literature have documented the large set of CAP determinants which in turn had a differential reflection at the country level. In particular, the most notable are policy paradigm shifts (Daugbjerg and Swinbank, 2009), the institutional setting within which reforms were negotiated (Daugbjerg and Swinbank, 2007;Greer and Hind, 2012), the nature of endogenous institutional forces (Cunha and Swinbank, 2009;Greer and Hind, 2012), the pressure exerted by lobby groups (Bednafiíková and Jílková, 2012), the precedents of previous CAP reforms (Bureau and Witzke, 2010;Swinnen, 2008), the sectorial structure (Sorrentino et al, 2011), and budget and trade constraints (Ackrill et al, 2008;Swinbank, 2008). Taken together, all of these aspects played a major role in determining MSs positions on the CAP through its entire history, let alone in the flexibility that was eventually indorsed by the latest reform.…”

The implications of the 2003 Common Agricultural Policy reforms for land-use and landscape quality in England

“…By the mid-1980s a growing understanding of the negative impacts of agriculture on the environment impacted the political agenda via public demands for "greener" agricultural regimes (Walford, 2003;Winter, 2000). Driven by these environmental concerns, the requirements of international trade agreements (Gatt/WTO), and the need to reduce surpluses and reign in the CAP budget (Cunha & Swinbank, 2009), three major reforms of the CAP were undertaken, in 1992, 2000 and 2003. The last of these packages of reforms, known as Fischler reforms, marked a change in the basis of agricultural support (Happe, Kellermann, & Balmann, 2006) with the decoupling of support payments from production decisions through the introduction of the Single Farm Payment (SFP), together with cross-compliance measures as a means of securing environmental benefits from public investment in agriculture.…”