Common Agricultural Policy emerged as an attempt to secure important aspects of the economic recovery of post-war Europe. Over time Common Agricultural Policy substantially evolved; however, today this policy absorbs a significant part of the European Union’s budget and attracts attention of policymakers, scientists, taxpayers and farmers due to inefficiency of policy tools. The current situation shows that there is a strong demand for improving the results of Common Agricultural Policy which could be achieved selecting the proper structure and tools for the Common Agricultural Policy post 2013.
The paper is aiming at identifying the likely development directions of the Common Agricultural Policy structure and tools, which are based on the analysis of 2007-2013 Common Agricultural Policy problems, proposed Common Agricultural Policy towards 2020 models and the position of the EU members towards the future of Common Agricultural Policy.
Though the Common Agricultural Policy future is an urgent topic for politics and scientists around the world as the efficiency of this policy makes an impact on world’s economy, the vast majority of contributions to the scientific research in this area has the origin of the European Union. However, there is a lack of research generalizing the accumulated experience and proposals concerning the future of Common Agricultural Policy. The paper provides contribution in this area. The research is implemented applying methods of scientific literature and documentation analysis, comparative analysis, content analysis, generalization, and synthesis.
The paper provides the description of the current two-pillar structure of Common Agricultural Policy and the main problems of policy implementation. The scientific literature analysis identifies first pillar as the most problematic area of Common Agricultural Policy (particularly the future of direct payments as a policy tool). The implemented analysis stresses the importance of second pillar goals for Common Agricultural Policy post 2013 and confirms the suitability of the current four-axis structure after revision of tools.
The comparative analysis covers Common Agricultural Policy towards 2020 models proposed by J.-C. Bureau, L.-P. Mahé (2008), P. Terwan et al. (2008), A. Elekes et al. (2009), V. Zahrnt (2009), ARC (2010), Birdlife International et al. (2010), A. Jambour, D. Harvey (2010), J.-M. Boussard et al. (2010). It should be noted that models propose different ways of resolving the current issues and even radical changes in the Common Agricultural Policy structure and content of policy post 2013.
Think tank opinions are supplemented by the analysis of political situation, e. g. the main scenarios of Common Agricultural Policy development post 2013 proposed by the European Commission in Communication “The CAP towards 2020: Meeting the Food, Natural Resources and Territorial Challenges of the Future“ (COM(2010)672/5). It should be noted that the proposed scenarios reflect only general guidelines for Common Agricultural Policy towards 2020 and the comparative analysis of different authors proposed models give understanding of a wide range of alternatives which could be chosen to implement the aforementioned scenarios. The concluding stage of the research is the analysis of the most important trends of how the European Union member states react towards this document.
Summarizing the said it should be noted that the goals of Common Agricultural Policy post 2013 should be revised in accordance with new challenges. The analysis of Common Agricultural Policy situation, comparative analysis of proposed models and the attitudes of the European Union members towards the European Commission’s Communication allow stating that the most significant problem is the first pillar of Common Agricultural Policy, particularly direct payments. The attention of scientists and politics is dedicated to the first pillar problems and this fact let us presume that the implementation of the first scenario of Communication of the European Commission is impossible due to strong criticism on behalf of direct payments’ distribution principles and its impact on European Union agriculture and economy.
The analysis of models of Common Agricultural Policy towards 2020 identifies opposite Common Agricultural Policy visions (from one-pillar to three-pillar or five support schemes structure) and underlines the importance of environmental problems for the future of Common Agricultural Policy. The implemented research of political situation shows that the Common Agricultural Policy development direction which eliminates rural problems (proposed in some models) is not vital.
However, the analysis of political situation allows stating that the chances that the Common Agricultural Policy will uphold the current two-pillar structure and select implementation of the second scenario of Communication are high. The high level of farmers’ dependence on direct payments and a historical “path dependence“ of Common Agricultural Policy let us state that a radical reform and implementation of changes proposed in the third scenario of the European Commission’s Communication are less possible.
Keywords: Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), reform, agriculture, rural, rural development.
Jurkėnaitė, N. Bendroji žemės ūkio politika artėjant 2020 m.: evoliucija ar revoliucija? // Ekonomika ir vadyba: aktualijos ir perspektyvos. ISSN 1648-9098. Nr. 4(24) (2011), p. 42-50 (Index Copernicus).
