208
the basic policy parameters, objectives and requirements of the CAP, ‘while Member
States should bear greater responsibility as to how they meet the objectives and
achieve targets’, according to the recital to the proposed legislation (European
Commission 2018). Each MS will be required to introduce a strategic plan for its
entire territory (with possible regional implementation), setting out a comprehensive approach for implementing the new CAP framework. These must include a
number of elements detailed in Articles 96-103 of the proposed legal texts and will,
according to the Commission, ensure ‘greater overall contribution to the achievement of the specific environmental-and climate-related objectives...in comparison
to the overall contribution made to the achievement of the objective...in the period
2014 to 2020’ (European Commission 2018).
Secondly, the new delivery model will be based on increased flexibility on the
part of MSs, who will be able to choose from a range of options when implementing
their strategic plans. Undoubtedly, this would mark a significant shift in the governance structure of the CAP, which has been defined by its highly centralised
approach for decades (Henke et al. 2017). On the one hand, increased flexibility
may enhance the ability of MSs to implement targeted measures that are more
appropriate for local and regional conditions than centrally determined ‘one-size fits
all’ measures. However, recent experiences relating to the implementation of the
greening measures suggest that MSs generally ‘do not use this flexibility to maximize the policy’s environmental and climate benefits’ (European Court of Auditors
2017). Thus, while increased flexibility is expected to unlock certain potentials, it is
impossible to determine the extent to which MSs are likely to use their powers to
simply choose those options that are most easily satisfied by their own farmers
(Henke et al. 2017).
The Commission has tried to address these and other concerns by stating that
national plans will have to reflect ‘strong sustainability principles embedded in the
CAP objectives’ (European Commission 2019), but important questions undoubtedly remain as to the extent to which environmental improvements can actually be
achieved under the future framework. Not least, the extension of increased powers
and flexibility for MSs comes at a challenging time for the EU. Handing over more
power to MSs to set their own objectives therefore also comes with considerable
risks and few guarantees that the new framework will serve to enhance the environmental dividends of the CAP. Thus, until further details of the reforms are announced,
it would appear that the current proposals will be unable to transform EU agriculture and deliver the outcomes necessary to reverse unsustainable resource use.
5 Conclusions
The monumental scale of the ecological and climate-related challenges posed to
future productivity and agricultural systems, makes it imperative upon the EU to
take the action necessary to provide meaningful and viable solutions. Indeed, given
the considerable impact of EU agriculture, failure to adequately address these and
A. A. Epstein
the basic policy parameters, objectives and requirements of the CAP, ‘while Member
States should bear greater responsibility as to how they meet the objectives and
achieve targets’, according to the recital to the proposed legislation (European
Commission 2018). Each MS will be required to introduce a strategic plan for its
entire territory (with possible regional implementation), setting out a comprehensive approach for implementing the new CAP framework. These must include a
number of elements detailed in Articles 96-103 of the proposed legal texts and will,
according to the Commission, ensure ‘greater overall contribution to the achievement of the specific environmental-and climate-related objectives...in comparison
to the overall contribution made to the achievement of the objective...in the period
2014 to 2020’ (European Commission 2018).
Secondly, the new delivery model will be based on increased flexibility on the
part of MSs, who will be able to choose from a range of options when implementing
their strategic plans. Undoubtedly, this would mark a significant shift in the governance structure of the CAP, which has been defined by its highly centralised
approach for decades (Henke et al. 2017). On the one hand, increased flexibility
may enhance the ability of MSs to implement targeted measures that are more
appropriate for local and regional conditions than centrally determined ‘one-size fits
all’ measures. However, recent experiences relating to the implementation of the
greening measures suggest that MSs generally ‘do not use this flexibility to maximize the policy’s environmental and climate benefits’ (European Court of Auditors
2017). Thus, while increased flexibility is expected to unlock certain potentials, it is
impossible to determine the extent to which MSs are likely to use their powers to
simply choose those options that are most easily satisfied by their own farmers
(Henke et al. 2017).
The Commission has tried to address these and other concerns by stating that
national plans will have to reflect ‘strong sustainability principles embedded in the
CAP objectives’ (European Commission 2019), but important questions undoubtedly remain as to the extent to which environmental improvements can actually be
achieved under the future framework. Not least, the extension of increased powers
and flexibility for MSs comes at a challenging time for the EU. Handing over more
power to MSs to set their own objectives therefore also comes with considerable
risks and few guarantees that the new framework will serve to enhance the environmental dividends of the CAP. Thus, until further details of the reforms are announced,
it would appear that the current proposals will be unable to transform EU agriculture and deliver the outcomes necessary to reverse unsustainable resource use.
5 Conclusions
The monumental scale of the ecological and climate-related challenges posed to
future productivity and agricultural systems, makes it imperative upon the EU to
take the action necessary to provide meaningful and viable solutions. Indeed, given
the considerable impact of EU agriculture, failure to adequately address these and
A. A. Epstein