

A future for the EU’s common agricultural policy

In February 2017 the European Commission launched a three-month public consultation on the future of the common agricultural policy (CAP). The Commission plans to use the input from the consultation to modernise and simplify the CAP and to define agricultural policy priorities for the future in response to existing social, political, environmental and economic challenges.1

Over the decades of its existence the CAP has faced criticism from various stakeholder groups, including economists, consumers, farmers and environmentalists. The policy has been accused of preventing productivity gains; hampering competition; favouring larger farms and industry giants; holding back development in poorer countries outside the EU by imposing import tariffs on their agricultural products; pushing up food prices for consumers; and creating food waste. It has also been charged with having adverse environmental effects, including the overuse of water resources.

Linking the CAP to broader European challenges

LandscapeA key challenge for the Commission will be to justify its larger budget spending on the CAP in a climate of weaker economic growth after years of fiscal austerity in much of the EU. It spends approximately 39% of its budget on the CAP and on its rural development policy, which is closely linked to the CAP. Although this share has gradually decreased from around 70% in 1980,2 the expenditure in constant prices has almost tripled to €58bn (US$61bn at current exchange rates) over that time.3

Many within the EU have long been critical of the size of the CAP budget and have questioned how effectively the money is being used. These debates are likely to intensify now that the UK—one of the three main net contributors to the EU budget—is on its way out of the bloc, which will reduce the pot of money available significantly. Broadening the focus of the CAP to tie it into wider European priorities could negate some of these criticisms.

Certainly, the discussions over the CAP will need to fit in with the EU’s obligations under international treaties, notably the Paris Agreement on climate change adopted in 2015.4 A reformed CAP could also contribute to the EU’s fulfilment of the UN’s sustainable development goals. Six of the goals (on hunger, health, inequality, sustainable consumption and production, climate change and ecosystems) overlap with the activities of the CAP.

A focus on food sustainability and nutritional challenges

One theme that ties most of the criticisms of the CAP together is food sustainability. According to the Food Sustainability Index (FSI) developed by The Economist Intelligence Unit with the Barilla Center for Food and Nutrition, the three largest European agricultural producers, France, Germany and Italy, which together account for 43% of the EU’s total agricultural output,5 rank in the top six globally for food sustainability among 25 countries assessed. The index ranks countries across three broad metrics: food loss and waste; sustainable agriculture; and nutritional challenges.

However, the FSI also identifies several areas in which EU countries could do more to support food sustainability, each of which provides a potential pointer towards future CAP priorities. First, perhaps surprisingly, the index shows that the productivity indicator in the three largest European agricultural countries lags behind the likes of Brazil, China and Russia. A number of factors could have caused this, but the quality and targeting of agricultural subsidies may be one of them.

A second issue for European countries, according to the FSI, is food loss. Per-capita food loss (defined as the decrease in food mass intended for human consumption during the production, post-harvest and processing stages) in Europe is 280-300 kg/year, compared with 120-170 kg/year in Sub-Saharan Africa and South and South-east Asia.6 Although the policy response to food loss across the European countries studied in the FSI was found to be relatively strong, there is evidently a need for additional measures to encourage waste reduction.

Third, the FSI shows that the top three agricultural producers in Europe perform poorly in the percentage of agricultural land lost each year to desertification or pollution, ranking in the bottom half of the countries assessed. More than half of the countries included in the index perform better than Germany and France on the share of fertiliser emissions in agriculture.

Finally, the FSI suggests that there is room for improvement on the nutritional challenges pillar. Although France comes first on the index, the other EU countries, such as Italy (8th) and Germany (11th), perform less well. The FSI identifies a number of actions that governments can take, and which are also relevant for the consultation over the CAP: reducing the availability of highly processed foods; better labelling and information for consumers; and a greater focus on nutrition in schools.

FlowersTackling Europe’s biggest challenges

The areas for improvement identified by the FSI feed into broader priorities at the European level—employment, the environment and health and nutrition—on which a refocused CAP could place more emphasis.

First, commentators have highlighted the positive role that the CAP could play in tackling the high unemployment rates in much of the EU. In the ten years to 2013 one-quarter of EU farms disappeared, despite the fact that the overall agricultural land area remained stable during that time.7 This indicates that smaller farmers, in particular, are finding current conditions difficult. In the majority of the EU member states people living in rural areas, who make up around one-quarter of the EU’s total population,8 are at the highest risk of being poor or socially excluded. This suggests that the support provided to these communities in terms of economic incentives, education and infrastructure has been insufficient.

Second, the CAP could have more of a focus on environmental protection. Food production is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. Activists and some academics argue that, so far, the CAP has failed to place sufficient emphasis on the protection of the environment and water resources and the sustainable use of land.

Third, others have noted the potential for the CAP to include more of a focus on broader debates around nutrition and health. Health problems such as type 2 diabetes and heart disease—which are associated with poor diets—account for a reported 70% of deaths in the EU.9 Over 50% of adults in the EU are obese or overweight.10 The CAP has been criticised for stimulating the production of foods such as red meat and sugar that are linked to negative health outcomes, including high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, obesity and premature coronary heart disease and stroke. At the same time, the CAP has also been accused of reducing the output of healthier foods, such as fruit and vegetables. A change in subsidies could redress this balance.11


1. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-187_en.htm

2. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/cap-post-2013/graphs/graph1_en.pdf

3. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/cap-funding/pdf/cap-spending-09-2015_en.pdf

4. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/international/paris_protocol_en

5. https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/statistics/factsheets/pdf/eu_en.pdf

6. http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/mb060e/mb060e.pdf

7. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Farm_structure_statistics#Further_Eurostat_information

8. http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=2&series=SP.RUR.TOTL.ZS&country=#

9. http://www.politico.eu/article/opinion-time-to-put-a-common-food-policy-on-the-menu/


11. http://www.fph.org.uk/uploads/r_CAP.pdf