In a recent debate about a future CAP, members of the EU Parliament’s Agriculture and Rural Development Committee discussed the need to integrate environmental policies into the CAP in light of population and climate changes.

At the first Agriculture Council of the Spanish Presidency new Council President Spanish Minister Elena Espinosa outlined the Presidency priorities for agriculture over the next six months.

A UK Government report analysing the price spikes for agricultural commodities in 2007/08, concludes that these were exacerbated by poorly performing markets. Authors argue for a further opening up of the international agricultural market and specifically, for the EU to “phase out agricultural subsidies such as Pillar 1 of the CAP" over market intervention protecting consumers.

The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has released two new papers entitled “Review of evidence on drylands pastoral systems and climate change: Implications and opportunities for mitigation and adaptation,” and “Organic Agriculture and Carbon Sequestration: Possibilities and constraints for the consideration of organic agriculture within carbon accounting systems.”

A new report published by DG Agriculture shows that reducing CAP Pillar One payments by up to 20 per cent appears to have a negligible impact on agricultural commodity production and the viability of farm businesses at the EU level, while redirecting these funds to Pillar Two, leads to significant additional beneficial impacts.

IEEP and WWF launch a discussion paper to raise the profile of biodiversity in the context of the EU budget.

The conclusions of last months Agriculture and Fisheries Council, including key decisions on the Common Fisheries Policy Controls, the dairy situation, poultry marketing standards and GMOs.

Agriculture must become more productive if it is to feed a much larger world population while responding to the daunting environmental challenges ahead, FAO Director-General Jacques Diouf told 300 experts from around the world at a two day forum discussing policy responses to the impacts of climate change.

Speculation surrounding the future of a post 2013 EU budget was fuelled last week with the leaking of a first draft of the Commission’s paper emanating from the 2008/2009 EU Budget Review.

If Irish voters deliver a 'yes' vote in the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty taking place today, then the role of the European Parliament is likely to become increasingly important in the CAP decision making process. A recent report by IEEP provides an overview of some of the new EP committees.

The budget has succeeded in providing continued and stable funding as well as avoiding placing additional financial burdens on Member States, in a year characterised by significant economic turbulence.

Talks held in Växjö, Sweden, at the recent informal meeting of EU agriculture ministers, focused on the theme of 'agriculture and climate change'. Member States emphasised the need for an increase in support for research and development, although no legislative proposals were put on the table.

Mariann Fischer Boel will retire as EU Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, when the current Commission’s mandate expires later this year. With no obvious successor apparent at this stage, the field to succeed her and guide the EU through negotiations on the future of the CAP post-2013 remains wide open.

IEEP recently attended an event organised by Notre Europe and Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies, where the the future of the CAP post-2013 was the main topic of discussion.

As expected, the current ‘dairy crisis’ dominated discussions at the September Agriculture Council, although no firm conclusions were reached. Other issues discussed at the meeting included CAP simplification, authorisation of GMOs and the state of play with WTO discussions.

After lengthy deliberations, on 19 March, the Agriculture Council agreed its negotiating mandate on the CAP reform package of legislative texts. This agreement, which significantly watered down green elements, provides the Council with their mandate to enter into trialogue discussions with the European Parliament and the Commission.

The unprecedented cuts in the EU’s future spending plans, agreed by Heads of State and Government in early February, have been much in the spotlight. But what are the implications for the policies which shape the longer term sustainability of European society?

‘There is mixed news for the EU’s environment and the green economy from today’s MFF deal’ says David Baldock, Director of the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP).

The results of last week’s vote (23-24 Jan) in the European Parliament’s Committee on Agricultural and Rural Development was disappointing for the environment, with the proposals for greening Pillar 1 significantly weakened, double funding permitted, coupled support increased and extended to a wider set of agricultural sectors and cross compliance weakened and reduced in scope. On the positive side MEPs voted to increase the proportion of Pillar 1 funds that could be transferred to Pillar 2 (rural development) to 15 per cent, although worryingly this was balanced by an increase in the proportion of funds that can be transferred in the opposite direction (up to 10 per cent). They also propose that Member States should be required to spend 25 per cent of their rural development budget on environmental measures. The amendments have been met with a mixed response, with political parties split in their views. Environmental NGOs have reacted with anger at the environmentally backward direction of travel, while farming organisations have welcomed the increased flexibility. It is hoped that some of the decisions taken can be reversed at the plenary session in March.