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.'

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.

UAE royal family benefits from CAP payments

Professor Alan Matthews highlights ‘An impressive piece of investigative journalism. It not only adds support for the Commission's proposal for degressivity and capping of income support payments, but it also undermines the argument that these payments are necessary to ensure food security in Europe.’

According to a report in The Guardian, ‘The United Arab Emirates’ ruling royal family is benefiting from tens of millions in EU subsidies to grow crops destined for the Gulf, it can be revealed.

A cross-border investigation by DeSmog and shared with the Guardian found subsidiaries controlled by the Al Nahyans collected more than €71m (£61m) in six years for farmland it controls in Romania, Italy and Spain.’

Read more here: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/may/07/uae-ruling-royal-family-eu-farming-subsidies

However, some have that this has argued that this is populist journalism the latest version of a tired 'scandal' trope: "The “scandal” that larger farms receive more than smaller ones under area-based payments distracts from the real problem, which is that EU agricultural policy as a whole is catastrophically inconsistent from a governance ("ordnungspolitische") perspective. Industrial and structural policy cannot be justified on the basis of income arguments. This creates a class ("Stand") of privileged recipients of state funds and causes massive problems through misallocations in structural change. This fundamental problem needs to be addressed."

Another comment was: 'We already had the same story X times: the Queen of England, Rheinbraun, BASF etc. As a result more or less bureaucratic active farmer clauses were introduced which did not change a lot while creating difficult and burdensome administrative problems. Capping would be a solution which however was rejected each time it was proposed by the Commission. These stories distract from the real question: Should the CAP carry on with direct payments and, if yes, should they be merely paid for keeping areas in good agricultural and ecological condition or rather for achieving public goods?'

The CAP always leads to controversy about both policy objectives and instruments.

Is the influence of the farm lobby weakening?

 The Financial Times has a major article this morning on the CAP as discussions take place on the next iteration of the CAP.   And who is in charge as farm commissioner?  A farmer from Luxembourg who went to university in France.  The Grand Duchy is always seen as susceptible to French influence.

I reproduce some highlights from the article below but add some comments of my own in square brackets.

On May 1, decades of resistance by the agricultural lobby were broken when the trade deal Mercosur came into effect. Member states earlier voted narrowly to apply the pact, albeit with significant concessions to assuage the farmers and their powerful special-interest groups. European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen exercised her power to over-rule legal challenges to the deal to ensure it came into provisional force.

It was a moment that suggested the long-held power of the farmers could be weakening. Through political protection and heavy subsidies, European farming has been designed not only to secure food supplies but also to preserve a rural way of life.  [But the future of many rural areas may not be principally in farming but in tourism.  Better broadband connection is vital.]

The result is a sector that remains dominated by small family farms even as agriculture elsewhere in the world has consolidated and industrialised. But the Mercosur deal has shown that the model may be coming under strain, just as policymakers are debating the future of the subsidy regime that underpins it.   [But the deal has been watered down and took quarter of a century to negotiate].

Farming groups say trade deals and other reforms threaten Europe’s food security at a time of growing geopolitical risk and just as farmers come under even more pressure as the Gulf crisis forces up fuel and fertiliser prices.   [It’s a good time for farmers to bang the food security drum].

But supporters of reform to the system argue that Europe’s priority has to be competing in this new geopolitical world, rather than shielding farmers from market forces with a safety net of subsidies.

Some believe these heavy subsidies are slowing down market-driven restructuring that could replace failing family farms with more efficient, large-scale agribusinesses — as is happening already in parts of southern Europe. The impact on overall food production would be limited, they say.   [But the idea of the family farm has sentimental appeal to urban voters].

Smaller farms are also seen by industry groups as central to Europe’s rural identity. Organisations such as Italy’s biggest farm lobby Coldiretti argue that these holdings sustain not just local economies but landscapes, traditions and food cultures that define much of the continent.  [High quality foodstuffs are niche products that can command a price well above that commanded by commodities.  Many consumers are ‘foodies’ interested in cooking and provenance].

But some experts argue the risk to food security is overstated. Recent studies by the EU’s Joint Research Centre show that if the CAP were removed, agricultural production would only reduce by just over 5 per cent.

“Fertile good land is not going to be left idle if we don’t pay subsidies to farmers,” Alan Matthews, professor of European agricultural policy at Trinity College Dublin, told the Pink ‘Un. He says that to maximise food production and reduce subsidies, the EU needs bigger farms. But that goes against the grain of popular opinion and national culture.   [I have recently been working on a co-authored essay with him].

The current moment “raises interesting questions about whether family farming is the way to continue the structure in the future”, Matthews told the FT, “not only when farmers have to raise their crops but have to be accountants, they have to be vets and environmentalists and work drones and all this stuff. To expect anyone to be even medium level in all these skills is a little too much.”

Institutional investors move in

As many family farmers are selling up, institutional investors are moving in. Spain and Portugal, which already supply a large share of Europe’s fruit, vegetables and olive oil, have become a focal point, where many see an opportunity to expand and modernise farming.   Data from global real estate adviser CBRE shows more than €4.2bn was invested in Iberian agribusiness between 2022 and 2024, with institutional investors accounting for roughly half of that total.

“Until 10-15 years ago, the agricultural asset class wasn’t a prime consideration in investors’ portfolios,” Javier Uribarren, partner at Trifolium Farms told the leading business paper.  This business acquires and manages agricultural land on behalf of institutional investors across Iberia, focusing on permanent crops such as olives, almonds and citrus.

Increasingly, however, it has become more attractive as “an inflation hedge” and as “an asset that is uncorrelated from others” in a typical portfolio, he commented. The attraction is not just the land itself, but how the sector is changing. “There’s a natural consolidation of a sector that was very much driven by family ownership and that is the succession of family ownership into institutional investors, private equity, pension funds etc,” he added, explaining that farms are often too small to compete and in many cases there is no one to take them over.

 Investors are betting that bigger farms work better. “Everything that we do is mechanised,” Uribarren says. “Unless you have the necessary scale . . . it’s not profitable.” Larger operations can invest in irrigation, new planting systems and technology that smaller farms cannot afford.

This will make it easier for the EU to compete with more industrialised producers such as Brazil or Australia, where agriculture operates at greater scale and with fewer subsidies. But Europe’s farmers are unlikely to go down without a manure-slinging fight first.   [Expect more angry demonstrations in Brussels and member states].

 

Member states to do more on CAP, EU institutions less

Interesting blog post recommended by Professor Alan Matthews: https://capreform.eu/institutional-reform-will-shape-the-next-cap/

This authoritative post is well worth reading in its entirety.   The conclusion is: 'We can expect the trend already visible today to intensify, widening disparities between countries, resulting in very divergent emphases within the CAP, not always because of different structural needs, but because of different political priorities.  Meanwhile, the big questions, how the CAP contributes to climate and biodiversity, the future of livestock, the prospects for young and small/remote farmers, will remain only half-answered. Dissatisfaction will not vanish. The main difference is that Member States will now carry more responsibility for better policy and progress, while EU institutions bear a little less.'

At the end of the day it comes down to raw politics

Here are some extracts from the conclusions to an important post by Professor Alan Matthews on changes in CAP governance based on a recent conference presentation.   I certainly agree with his observation that these issues are ultimately political rather than technical but with such a complex policy one has to grasp the technicalities which he helps us to do.   His full analysis is here: https://capreform.eu/strategic-planning-in-the-new-cap/

The proposed NPRR and Performance Regulations represent a structural shift in CAP governance. By embedding agriculture within a horizontal EU performance framework, it moves oversight from predominantly ex post checks to a model combining ex ante compliance verification with real-time monitoring. This will require significant adaptation by Member States and CAP actors but offers the potential for earlier intervention, greater transparency, and stronger alignment with EU-wide objectives.

The fundamental question is whether the proposed changes make genuine strategic planning in the CAP more likely or not. Good strategic planning in the EU budget context requires that objectives are specific and clearly defined, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART). It also requires that interventions are logically linked to these objectives through a coherent theory of change. Resources should be allocated in ways that reflect political priorities and trade-offs rather than institutional inertia.

Monitoring and evaluation should provide timely and credible evidence both for accountability and for course correction, while the system as a whole should allow learning and adaptation. Strategic planning is about much more than indicator reporting: it aligns objectives, resources, and accountability mechanisms.

Several limitations in the Commission proposal might be highlighted. I am not convinced that linking output and result indicators to intervention fields rather than specific objectives is a positive step. The CAP alone (including forestry) has 40 different intervention fields, and there are hundreds specified in Annex 1. This proliferation in the number of intervention fields is hardly conductive to making reasoned choices between strategic priorities. There is a danger of formalism, where indicator compliance substitutes for genuine strategic steering.

Ultimately, we must recognise that agricultural policy can never be reduced to solely technical considerations and trade-offs. Strategic planning will always be subject to political dictates. But a question for debate could be whether the proposed strategic planning framework for the CAP does as much as it could to align the incentives of Member States with the needs of the Union as a whole.  

What those affected think about Commission proposals on the CAP

If you're a real CAP buff, this material unearthed by Alan Matthews at TCD may be of interest.   It includes the latest version of proposals for the future of the CAP and the reactions of stakeholders: https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-register/screen/meetings/consult?lang=en&meetingId=63821&fromExpertGroups=3877

'Stakeholders' is common language these days, both in the Commission and in the UK, but we used to call them 'interests' which required us to be cautious about the neutrality of their views.

A small step towards ending the CAP's exceptionalism

The merger of the CAP into another fund under broad horizontal principles is a complex subject, but Alan Matthews takes a deep and comprehensive dive into it here, exploring every possible angle: https://capreform.eu/horizontal-principles-in-the-next-mff-and-implications-for-the-cap/

But it looks as if any impacts on the CAP will be incremental and relatively limited.  Matthews concludes: 'This reframing of the horizontal principles marks a very small step towards eroding the CAP’s historical exceptionalism. CAP spending is treated the same as other shared management spending in the National and Regional Partnership Plans. The impact of the new architecture on the way CAP money is spent remains to be seen.'

Future pathways for the CAP

An important report on the next reform of the CAP has been produced for the European Parliament Agri Committee: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2025/759316/CASP_STU(2025)759316_EN.pdf

The report notes: 'The European agri-food system is facing an increasing number of challenges. Most of these challenges were already present when the current CAP was discussed. Other challenges, such as global food security on the European continent and the autonomy of European agriculture, have been put back on the agenda due to the Covid-19 crisis, the war in Ukraine, world geopolitical tensions and agricultural protests.'

The report helpfully distinguishes five future pathways: Within the two “production” pathways (Pathways A and B), there is a second trade-off between Pathway A (Intensification and exports)based on price competitiveness and Pathway B (Support for all types of farms)which aims at maintaining productive capacity by supporting farm incomes for all types of farms Within the three “climate and environment pathways, Pathway C (Resource use efficiency through the optimisation of current production systems), contrasts with Pathways D and E, which require much more profound changes (land-sparing for Pathway D vs land-sharing/agro-ecology for Pathway E).

The report comments: 'The dominance of transnational companies in food value chains is high and increasing (Howard, 2016). Industrial concentration is very high in the global agricultural commodity market, agri-food industries and farm input suppliers(seeds, pesticides, farm equipment, etc.). Multinational firms have a strong incentive to lobby against measures at the EU border.'

The report also notes: 'The growth in the economic power of multinational companies gives them increasing power over political processes. Interest groups that are financially and politically powerful are able to discredit their rivals on policy decisions (see, for example, Oreskes and Conway, 2010). The EU and MSs should strengthen the rules on the integrity and transparency of lobbying to improve the trade policy-making process.'

New EU farm supremo sets out his stall

The EU’s new agriculture chief is pushing for more of the bloc’s generous subsidies to be doled out to low-income farmers rather than big agribusinesses. Christophe Hansen told the Financial Times that the seven-year €387bn Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) should no longer reward the biggest landowners and instead focus on small farms, as discussions get under way on the bloc’s finances for the next decade.

[This, then, is a move towards treating the CAP as a welfare payment, but it is not an efficient instrument for delivering such payments.   What about international competitiveness and efficiency?]

 “We all know that the CAP budget will not be higher,” he said. “There is a lot of pressure because we have a lot of political priorities in the European Union so we need to better target the support to those most in need.”

The new EU commissioner, who took office on December 1, said his reform of CAP would not amount to a “revolution” and would not move “entirely” away from hectare-based payments. But changing the allocation would constitute the most significant overhaul in the history of the 62-year-old subsidy programme, which represents a third of the bloc’s annual budget.

The largest farms in the bloc have traditionally received most of the funding, with an analysis by the Institute for European Environmental Policy, a Brussels-based think-tank, estimating about 80 per cent of the direct payments go to roughly 20 per cent of farms.   [My view is that this is a lazy application of the Pareto rule and the actual figure is lower].

 Nearly 6mn farmers and landowners received direct payments in 2022, according to the European Commission. Discussions around the next EU multi-annual budget, which is due to run from 2028, have shifted towards a much greater focus on defence spending in recent months in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Donald Trump’s return to the White House. The US president-elect has threatened to pull out of Nato if allies refuse to spend more on the military.

Any CAP reduction will be met with fierce resistance from farmers who took to the streets of Brussels and other European capitals last year to protest against stringent environmental regulations, red tape and unfair prices. European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen in September vowed to ensure farmers receive “fair and sufficient income” and preserve farming amid financial and environmental pressures. Hansen, a centre-right Luxembourgish politician, said the commission should encourage farmers to look at “alternative income” streams.   [Historically there has been a suspicion that farm commissioners from Luxembourg are susceptible to French pressure].

While “producing and selling a tomato” was good, “it makes you vulnerable because it’s your only income”, Hansen told the Pinl ‘Un. Farmers could grow crops for biofuels or use their land for solar panels and other renewable energy sources. Planting trees that could be monetised as carbon credits should also be considered, he said.   [Farmers in the UK have been diversifying for decades].

Part of the commission’s response to the protests was to water down environmental standards that farmers were required to meet in order to access CAP support, despite widespread outcry from green groups. Von der Leyen on Tuesday is set to put forward further measures aimed at helping farmers sell their products at a better price.

The proposals, if agreed by EU lawmakers and member states, will make written contracts between farmers and food companies mandatory and allow more co-operation between national authorities to manage cross-border disputes.

Hansen said he also intended to ease competition rules to promote products from young farmers and require greater transparency in retail pricing. “Big retailers use certain products to attract the consumers and they use the weak position of the farmers in the supply chain,” he said. Christel Delberghe, director-general of the retail industry body EuroCommerce, said introducing stricter pricing rules would result in “inflation. What else?”

[Farmers in the UK have certainly been turned into price takers by supermarkets, but changing the balance of power is not easy because consumers demand cheap food]. 

The CAP in review

The CAP will continue after Brexit, albeit with somewhat less money, but will needed changes be made, particularly in terms of 'greening'?   I give an overview here: https://www.europenowjournal.org/2020/11/09/the-common-agricultural-policy-an-overview/

This has attracted some attention on Twitter and I am grateful for the feedback received.   One comment was that 'Seems to suggest that nitrates have been addressed by the ND....if only that were true. There is large scale non compliance with the ND standards never mind the more ambitious water framework ones.' This is a fair criticism, I simply didn't have the word budget to deal with the issue in more depth.

I should have remembered that 'many years ago the OECD “Producer Subsidy Equivalent” was renamed the “Producer Support Estimate” because not all policy transfers are subsidies but some are payments for public goods.'

'Another quibble, but not so minor: at over 30% of its budget, EU expenditure on agriculture is called "substantial", because agriculture is only 1.6% of EU GDP. Unfair comparison: the whole EU budget itself is less than 2% of EU public expenditure.' I can see where this comment is coming from and it is not without validity, but agriculture still secures a disproportionate share of the EU budget.

A new type of CAP?

The French Government has supported the idea of a CAP based on creating farmer employment rather than being based on the area cultivated: Supporting farmers jobs

The second pillar would become a set of incentives and penalties with an emphasis on tackling climate change.

CAP reform plans fall short

This is not the first time the Court of Auditors has criticised the CAP and it probably won't be the last, given that its findings are generally politely brushed aside: Plans fall short

It is argued that 'The proposed reform of the Common Agricultural Policy after 2020 falls short of the EU’s ambitions for a greener and more robust performance-based approach. The auditors identify a number of other issues with the proposal, notably in terms of accountability.'

The auditors note that many of the proposed policy options are very similar to the current CAP. In particular, the largest part of the budget would continue to be direct payments to farmers, based on a given amount of hectares of land owned or used. However, this instrument is not appropriate for addressing many environmental concerns, nor is it the most efficient way of supporting viable income.

EU needs to offer leadership on global trade

Alan Swinbank looks at Brexit, Trump and the unintended consequences of incomplete agricultural tariff reform: Incomplete CAP reform

He points out, 'Export subsidies are no more. Taxpayer support for Europe’s farmers is largely decoupled, and unthreatened by WTO disciplines. Despite successive reforms of the CAP, bringing down domestic support prices, these excessively high tariffs remain in place, rather like a whale’s carcass left stranded on a beach.'

'If the global trading system is to be saved, the EU needs to lead. Why not counter Trump’s threats and offer to unilaterally reduce farm tariffs?'

A new and lasting food governance

Tim Lang, Erik Millstone and Terry Marsden call for a new and lasting food governance in a paper on 'Food Brexit: a time to get real': Food Brexit report

They argue, 'Brexit could, all too easily, diminish food security in the UK, where parts of our food system are already far too insecure; this rich country is pocketed with real food poverty, for example, and diet-related disease is part crippling the NHS. We understand food security to be the achievement of a system that provides food that is sufficient, sustainable, safe and equitable.

Brexit could, however, undermine all four of those aspects, in what is an already insufficiently secure food system. Moreover, the UK food system should not only aim for domestic security, it should also not undermine food security in any of the countries from which we buy, or to which we sell, foodstuffs.

This briefing suggests changes that the UK food system should be undertaking if its long-term structural needs are to be addressed. Our case is that the UK food system is highly vulnerable to the rising costs of diet-related ill-health, ecosystems damage, economic dependency, and social reliance on migrant and relatively low-waged labour.'

As far as the CAP is concerned, they state, 'So far, the national UK discussions about the various options for, and effects of, Brexit on food and agriculture policy have been discussed as if they were separate and independent variables, rather than interconnected.'

They note, 'The Brexit process is happening at a particularly vulnerable time for the UK food system - a time when it has become excessively dependent upon imports, while some of its population face worrying levels of ‘food poverty’, i.e. poverty which affects food consumption, 119 and while its productive base is declining, in terms of the number of farms and of small independent businesses, upon which it has historically relied.'

Thinking out of the box

Somehow I missed this comprehensive report by three leading agricultural economists and an environmental specialist when it first came out. It considers the issue of further modernisation of the CAP: RISE Report

The analysis laid out in this RISE Foundation report shows how the current CAP does not make best use of the considerable resources deployed to support land managers through the necessary transition.  The largest instruments of the CAP, the pillar 1 direct payments, which account for over 70% of CAP funds are ineffective, inefficient and inequitable.  It is suggested that these direct payments should be systematically reduced and resources switched to provide targeted assistance, including transitional adjustment assistance to help farmers adapt and rise to the specific challenges of improving productivity, resource efficiency and risk management and to pay farmers to provide specific environmental and other public goods.

The report argues that the two principal aspects of the CAP requiring the most attention are land management and risk management. Where land management is concerned, the greatest worry is that the current environmental standards are not being met. The report therefore proposes a redesigned, more integrated tiered structure of supports with clearer targets on the environmental outcomes sought.

The core issue concerning risk management is that the present approach in the CAP towards market orientation has not gone far enough. Indeed the sheer scale of direct payment inhibits farmers from better mitigating the risks they face.  The report outlines the full range of instruments that are most appropriate for managing risk at the farm level, market level and nationally at times of catastrophic risk.

Finally, following the lessons that have been learnt from previous successful reforms, the report suggests some procedural changes to kick-start a more effective reform process which brings together more constructively the conflicting interests in agricultural policy. This is particularly important given the difficulty of securing effective reform in the past.

It is suggested that the Commissioners (and their Directorates General) for Agriculture and Rural Development, for Climate and for Environment15, should be tasked to work jointly to produce the next reform proposals for adoption by the College of Commissioners. Following this, the co-decision process should be correspondingly adapted. This might involve the proposals being considered by an appropriate configuration of the Council Ministers who normally serve on the Agriculture, Environment or perhaps Energy Councils.

The need for a Common Sustainable Food Policy

An authoritative and informative survey of the CAP by Alison Bailey, Tim Lang and Victoria Shoen concludes with a call for change and the formulation of a Common Sustainable Food Policy: Common Food Policy

Whatever else the referendum debate has done, it has stimulated some excellent work on the future direction of policy.

Single market is key for agriculture

The importance of the single market to agriculture was emphasised by Martin Haworth, deputy director-general of the NFU, in a presentation earlier today at a conference in London organised by the UK in a Changing Europe programme. Subsidies to farmers were not the most important issue. 65 to 70 per cent of agricultural exports from the UK went to Europe and there was no other alternative. He also noted that the EU had over fifty trade agreements with third countries.

The uncertainty inherent in the Article 50 process was of itself damaging and the CBI had estimated that it could lead to a fall in GDP of 0.75 per cent to 1.5 per cent.

UK agriculture required 20,000 - 25,000 seasonal workers and there were another 35,000 full-time EU workers in agriculture. Analysis by Oxford University of the effects of a point system showed that 96 per cent of the workers would not get through.

Governments of other EU member states showed more sympathy with agriculture. Britain was a more urban society than most of the rest of Europe. He noted, 'I get much more access, interest and sympathy in Brussels.'

Farming formed part of a food chain and virtually the whole chain was in favour of staying in the EU. Food manufacturers would have to consider relocating in the event of Brexit. The catering industry was highly dependent on migrant labour.

He had not heard a credible argument on agriculture that suggested we would be better off leaving.

Responding to questions he said that the Ciolos reform had not offered a strategic vision of agriculture, but was a tactical attempt to green the CAP to attract more support. The division between Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 had been blurred.

Britain in the EU had been sullen and budget obsessed and had never punched with the weight we should have done.

Natalie Bennett, leader of the Green Party, said that going around the country food issues had been raised relatively rarely. However, she occasionally heard the demand 'We must take control of our fish' which created the vision of a fish swimming round with a passport tucked under its fin. We now had a reasonably sustainable fisheries policy that took account of the biological capacity of the ocean. The fact that we had been able to reform the CFP raised hopes for the reform of the CAP.

What is very clear is that fishers want to get out of the EU, in contrast to the more divided views of farmers: Fishermen and the EU

As for the referendum debate, it had degenerated into a Tory leadership contest masquerading as a EU referendum debate.

Is the CAP fit for purpose?

50 NGOs have urged the European Commission to carry out a fitness check of the CAP: Fit for purpose?

They say that it needs to be assessed in terms of its effectiveness, efficiency, coherence with other EU policies and the advantages of an EU wide policy compared with national policies.

An imperfect storm

A new book edited by Johann Swinnen entitled The Political Economy of the 2014-20 Common Agricultural Policy judges it to be an 'imperfect storm' compared with the 'perfect storm' of the Fischler reforms dealt with in an earlier book. The book has chapters written by leading experts on the CAP such as Alan Matthews, Tim Josling and Alan Swinbank.

The authors generally found the outcome of the 2013 decision to be disappointing. The policy changes were relatively minor and not always coherent. The term 'reform' is probably inappropriate.

In terms of explanation, the reform proposals presented by Commissioner Ciolos were not very ambitious to begin with, reflecting his inexperience and that of his cabinet. Another factor was the role of the European Parliament with COMAGRI able to control much of the decision-making with farm interests having more influence than environmental organisations. A final element was that the increase in global food prices pushed food security up the agenda.

The new CAP provides an unprecedented amount of flexibility for member states. However, flexibility may have been a rational choice by decision-makers to reach an agreement. It may become a permanent part of the CAP, reflecting the need to come to political decisions in an increasingly heterogeneous EU.

Alan Matthews suggests in his chapter that the reformist camp, always a minority among member states, seems to have lost much of its momentum and cohesion during the 2013 negotiations. The UK in particular was preoccupied with other issues.