Food security has been high on the agenda in the UK recently with the publication of documents by the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. However, at present the policy implications remain largely unclear, within the CAP or nationally.

A recent report by DG Environment concludes that the abandonment of traditional management practices and a tendency towards more intensive agricultural practices has resulted in significant loss of EU biodiversity.

The Doha Round of WTO negotiations could have significant implications for the future of the CAP, assuming an agreement can be reached. A Working Paper by the Petersen Institute for International Economics outlines what's on the table as of August 2009.

A report for the European Parliament has been published which discuses the potential implications of the Doha round of WTO talks on the CAP. The report includes conclusions and recommendations about possible actions and changes to the CAP.

A report by the UK House of Lords on the EU Budget has criticised expenditure on the CAP and concludes by stating that 'in the light of the recession the distribution of the Budget in favour of agriculture is deeply frustrating'.

Following the first Agriculture Council meeting of its Presidency, Sweden has published a discussion document on 'climate change and agriculture' in preparation for the informal meeting of Agriculture Ministers in September. In addition, the Commission has also published a report on market conditions in the dairy sector.

France and Germany have established a new working group on the future of the CAP post-2013. The working group, which intends to engage with other Member States, will hold its first meeting in September with initial positions on the future of the CAP to be put forward prior to this.

The European Forum for Nature Conservation and Pastoralism is organising a conference on 'High Nature Value (HNV) farming - State of play, stakes and prospects' in France on 8 October, with the support of the French Ministries of Agriculture and Environment.

The Czech Presidency came to end last week with several Member States refusing to sign up to conclusions on the future of the CAP, in a re-run of the French experience. However, Communications on product quality policy and retargeting aid in Less Favoured Areas proved less controversial, whilst the 'dairy crisis' remains on the EU agenda.

The Swedish Presidency of the EU, which starts on 1 July, has identified two main priorities related to agriculture, namely the relationship between agriculture and climate change and animal health and welfare. In addition, discussions on the future of the CAP beyond 2013 look set to continue informally.

The need for CAP expenditure (currently more than 40% of the total EU budget) to be justified and effectively targeted – given competing spending priorities such as competitiveness and R&D in line with the Lisbon Agenda – was the theme of a recent conference held in Brussels.

On 23 June, the German Marshall Fund of the United States is hosting a half day conference in Brussels entitled 'From the CAP to Competitiveness: The Common Agricultural Policy and the European Budget'.

A recent report by IEEP assesses the influence of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) on livestock and feed production. The study then explores policy options for promoting more sustainable forms of livestock production, including through reform of the CAP both in its current form and in the longer term (post-2013).

The Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has published its vision for the CAP after 2013. The Ministry argues in favour of retaining the structure and level of funding of the CAP largely in its current form. The document suggests that all Member States should move towards a flat rate per hectare model for the Single Payment Scheme, which should be justified as compensation for the provision of public goods, without implying any fundamental retargeting of direct payments.

The German Marshall Fund of the United States is hosting three events this May which you may be interested in attending.

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.