Rethinking the CAP

Alan Matthews reports: 'My article "Reimagining the Common Agricultural Policy: Competing Rationales for the CAP after 2027" has now been published in Studies in Agricultural Economics and is available open access here https://lnkd.in/gmft2tVs. I identify four different rationales for CAP spending and argue that the Commission's Vision for Agriculture and Food and its proposals for the CAP post-2027 represent an attempt to construct a new political settlement aiming to reconcile economic competitiveness, environmental sustainability, food security and territorial cohesion. But with a more limited budget, it is more important than ever to ask what we want from EU agricultural policy. Policies should focus on areas that generate European value added and I discuss what this might mean for spending priorities. The whole issue is well worth reading.'

Iceland's CAP dilemma

Voting intentions are on a knife edge as Iceland heads for its referendum on whether even to restart talks with the EU on membership.  Security and economics are drivers for change and the future of the fishing industry is vital.   However, agriculture is also a key issue.

Farming is ingrained in the Icelandic sense of national identity — in the 1970s there were about three sheep for every person — but it has been in decline. In the early 2000s, farms shuttered, young people moved to Reykjavik for higher-paying jobs and immigration surged. The number of humans overtook sheep in 2021.

“A hundred years ago, almost all people in Iceland were either fishermen or farmers,” according to Steinthor Arnarsson, a sheep farmer located in Burdardalur, northwest Iceland, whose family have been sheep farmers “all the way back”.

There has been talk of driving tractors into Reykjavik in protest. “If we’re going to become European farmers we should start acting like them,” Arnarsson joked to the Sunday Times.

Their main concern is that joining the single market will leave farmers priced out by cheap goods from the EU. They also fear that there will end up being fewer, bigger farms, consolidated around the capital, leaving rural communities diminished.

Others argue that EU subsidies would mean Icelandic farmers end up benefiting, and that membership of the bloc could also help to improve crumbling infrastructure in the country. Potholes are regularly mentioned.

Herdis Gunnarsdottir owns a dairy farm in Egilstad in the remote east of Iceland. She fears that her farm, with 80 cows (“big for Iceland”) won’t be able to compete with milk from industrial farms in the Netherlands, for example.   But transporting milk from the Netherlands to Iceland would be expensive, and Icelanders might prefer their home product.

 

Why does food system reform stall?

Professor Alan Matthews gave the presidential address at the 100th conference of the Society of Agricultural Economics held in Oxford earlier this year.  The Princess Royal, Princess Anne, was present for the address and commended the concept of academics as 'honest brokers'.   I had the privilege of reading this and commenting on it in draft form.   The revised version has now been made available on an early view basis in the Journal of Agricultural Economics.   

I found the concept of ideal type policy ontologies particularly helpful.

Here is the abstract: 

Agricultural and food policy is increasingly shaped by geopolitical instability, ecological constraints, technological disruption, political polarisation and declining trust in expertise. At the same time, calls for food system transformation have gained prominence as evidence accumulates on the environmental, health and social shortcomings of current food systems. Yet reform has frequently stalled despite extensive scientific analysis and broad recognition of the need for change. This paper examines why. 

After reviewing some traditional explanations for policy persistence, the paper introduces the concept of policy ontologies: underlying ways of understanding what the food system is, how it functions, what it is ultimately for and how change occurs. Three ideal-type ontologies are identified: a productivity ontology, a power-focused ontology and an ecological ontology. These ontologies shape the definition of policy problems and the selection of preferred policy responses, helping to explain why stakeholders often appear to talk past one another. 

As the Society begins its second century in a more turbulent and contested policy environment, the profession's central role remains the production of rigorous evidence. That contribution will be strengthened by a greater awareness of the different ways in which food systems are understood and of how these perspectives shape both policy debates and the interpretation of evidence. Recognising these underlying assumptions can help agricultural economists contribute more effectively to policy debate as honest brokers of policy alternatives.