The CAP and EU enlargement: Prospects for an alternative strategy to avoid the lock-in of CAP support

The integration of the central and east European countries (CEECs) into the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) could become a major problem. At the Copenhagen European summit in December 2002, the EU agreed a transitional period with a gradual phasing in of direct payments. However, this strategy will not solve the problems of the CAP: budgetary limits remain problematic, the policy ignores possible developments in the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the extension of direct payments to the CEECs will further capitalize, and hence lock-in, agricultural support. The latter makes future reform even more difficult and, to overcome these problems, we suggest an alternative strategy to integrate the CEECs into the CAP. The EU should phase out direct payments by applying a bond scheme. Finally, we consider whether this option is politically viable.

The 2003 CAP Reform: Accommodating WTO Pressures

In 2003, the EU agreed a major reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP). Its centrepiece was a new Single Payment Scheme (SPS). Policy concerns at the time involved the budget, EU enlargement to the East, the WTO negotiations, and a perception (articulated by Commissioner Fischler) that there should be a shift of budget funds from CAP's Pillar 1 (price and income support) to Pillar 2 (rural development). We outline these concerns, conclude that the WTO was the main driving force of the reforms, set out the key parameters of the new support scheme, and outline some thoughts on the durability of the reformed CAP in the face of continued internal and external pressures.

Innovative approaches For enhancing the flow of funds into the Benefit Sharing Fund of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture: an evaluation of options

This report assesses the implications and revenue-generating potential of options for reform of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture in the context of the structure of the global seed industry and the emerging landscape of plant variety innovation for different crops. The implementation of these options would require modifications of Treaty and provisions of the Standard Material Transfer Agreements to alter the nature of payment obligations related to different categories of products, the payment rates under different options and the coverage of crops in Annex-I to the Treaty.