Skip to main content
Dossier

Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy: a never-ending story

Peter Weingarten | 08.11.2024

LV Institute of Rural Studies

Six major reforms in the last 30 years and the next one is already being prepared: The reform of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), established in 1962, was described as a "never-ending story" as early as 1991 by agricultural policy professor Wilhelm Henrichsmeyer. Researchers at the Thünen Institute have been involved in these discussions for a long time, providing policy advice through opinions and studies. First, we outline the development of the CAP from its beginnings to the present. Then we take a look at the relevant opinions and studies from the Thünen Institute.

Flagge der Europäischen Union mit deinem Tecker in der Mitte der Sterne und rechts daneben die Beschriftung: "Common Agricultural Policy
© pe3check - stock.adobe.com

The objectives of the CAP proclaimed in 1957, laid down in Article 39 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (EEC), apply to this day. According to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Treaty of Lisbon), which entered into force in 2009, the CAP aims:

  • to increase agricultural productivity by promoting technical progress,
  • thus to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community,
  • to stabilise the markets,
  • to assure the availability of supplies,
  • to ensure that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices.

However, the relative importance of these proclaimed objectives – and additional implicit objectives – has changed over time.

Phases and reforms of the CAP
© according to European Commission (© ), supplemented.

Against the background of food shortages and hunger in the Second World War and first post-war years, the high share of expenditure on food in total household expenditure and the pronounced structural income problems in agriculture, great importance was attached to food security and increased productivity in the 1960s (see above). Regulations for agricultural markets were created. Most of them were characterised by a high level of protection from external competition, minimum producer prices (above the world market price) and state purchases to support prices (intervention system) as well as export subsidies to be able to sell surpluses on the world market.

In the late 1970s and the 1980s, the sharp increase in (surplus) production led to "milk lakes", "butter mountains" and "grain mountains". This was associated with sharply rising agricultural expenditures and disruptions on the world agricultural markets due to subsidised EU agricultural exports. Along with the negotiations on agricultural trade liberalisation under the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), which had been going on since 1986, this increased the pressure for fundamental reforms of the CAP.

In 1992, the Commissioner for Agriculture, Ray MacSharry, pushed through a groundbreaking CAP reform. It represented a first step away from an income-oriented price support policy towards a market-oriented agricultural policy. Intervention price cuts of 35 % for cereals were accompanied by the introduction of compensation payments based on farmland area or livestock numbers as well as compulsory set-aside. As an accompanying measure, support for environmentally sound production methods was introduced.

With the Agenda 2000, adopted in 1999, the reform path towards a stronger market orientation (reduction of intervention prices) and income support via direct income transfers (now called direct payments) was continued. This helped, among other things, to prepare for the EU’s eastern enlargement (2004). At the same time, the EU’s rural development policy was upgraded and transformed into the 2nd pillar of the CAP, which combines support for farm investment, agri-environmental measures and rural development measures going beyond the agricultural sector.

The Luxembourg agreement of 2003 ("mid-term review of the CAP") set the framework for the CAP until 2013. Important elements were further cuts in intervention prices with a simultaneous increase and extensive decoupling of direct payments, which until then had still been linked to production, the linking of direct payments to cross-compliance (rules on environmental protection, human, animal and plant health and animal welfare) and the shifting of funds from the 1st to the 2nd pillar of the CAP by reducing direct payments (modulation).

As provided for in the Luxembourg agreement, a "health check" of the CAP was carried out in 2008. Important results were measures in the dairy sector to achieve a "soft landing" until the abolition of the milk quota in 2015, a general increase in modulation (shifting of funds from the 1st to the 2nd pillar of the CAP) and the introduction of progressive modulation (disproportionate reduction of direct payments for large farms ).

The CAP reform 2013 determined the agricultural policy for 2014 to 2020 – and also, as it would turn out, for the transition years 2021 and 2022. Most important was the retention of direct payments and their "greening". Farmers only received direct payments in full if they fulfilled minimum standards regarding crop diversity and the preservation of permanent grassland, and dedicate at least 5 % of their arable land to ecologically beneficial elements (so-called ecological focus areas). However, the impact on biodiversity and climate protection was small compared to the financial input. Greening was therefore seen as an attempt to re-legitimise direct payments, the original justification (compensation for price cuts) no longer being convincing.

As the European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission had only agreed on the EU's Multiannual Financial Framework for 2021 to 2027 and the so-called "NextGenerationEU" funding instrument at the end of 2020, the decisions on the CAP after 2020 were taken late at the European level, namely at the end of 2021. Therefore, the years 2021 and 2022 were declared transition years in which essentially the CAP regulations from 2014 to 2020 continued to apply.

On 1 January 2023, the national CAP strategic plans of the member states came into force. These represent a core element of the "new delivery model" of the CAP, which aims at greater decentralisation (more room for manoeuvre for the Member States, less detailed rules by the EU) and a stronger focus on results. Another key concept of the new CAP is the Green Architecture, which builds on three elements: a) "conditionality" (stronger requirements for direct payments), b) the so-called eco-schemes in the 1st pillar and c) the agri-environment-climate measures of the 2nd pillar.

For Germany, the new CAP requires greater coordination between the federal government and the Länder: On the one hand, the strategic plan had to be drawn up for the entire federal territory, whereas before the Länder drew up their own rural development programs. On the other hand, the Green Architecture leads to a stronger link between the 1st pillar (with eco-schemes as a form of direct payments) and the 2nd pillar (agri-environment-climate measures, among others). In Germany, the 1st pillar is the responsibility of the federal government, while the Länder are responsible for the 2nd pillar.

The figure shows the increasing market orientation of the CAP, particularly in the 1990s and 2000s. Until the 1992 reform, more than 90% of EU agricultural expenditure was spent on export subsidies and other market support (state purchase of surpluses) and thus on instruments that stimulated surplus production, had a trade-distorting effect and provided incentives for an unsustainable use of environmental resources. Reforms in the 1990s and the 2000s all involved reducing state price support and aligning it with levels in world agricultural markets. Direct payments were introduced as a compensation, accounting for 69% of all EU agricultural expenditure in 2021. While direct payments were initially linked to production (e.g., cereal area or number of suckler cows), a steep reduction of coupled payments in 2007 led to the desired stronger orientation of agricultural production to market demand. Since 2015, coupled direct payments have increased in some Member States. Export subsidies no longer play a role. Other market supports have only accounted for a single-digit percentage since 2007.

The reforms since the 1990s were associated with a reduction in price support and an alignment with the price level on the world markets. On average, agricultural producer prices within the EU were 66% higher than world market prices between 1986 and 1988. Between 2000 and 2002, it was still 22 %. In 2019 to 2021, by contrast, the gap was only 4% on average. The aggregate Producer Support Estimates (PSE) , calculated by the OECD, declined from 38 % of gross agricultural revenues (including support) in the period 1986 to 1988 to 19 % in the period 2019 to 2021. The most trade-distorting support measures were reduced particularly sharply.

The importance of rural development measures has increased in recent decades. In 2013, they accounted for a quarter of EU agricultural expenditure. In the 2023 to 2027 funding period, direct payments will remain by far the most important instrument in budget terms. However, the "common" in the Common Agricultural Policy is becoming smaller. Since 2013, the member states have had more leeway than before in the design of their direct payments and can also shift considerable funds between the two pillars of the CAP. The new delivery model introduced with the CAP reform of 2021 further increases the Member States' room for manoeuvre.

    For a detailed account of the development of the Common Agricultural Policy, see:

    Weingarten P (2021): Die Entwicklung der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik der EU [online]. Bonn: Federal Agency for Civic Education, 11 p, to be found in https://www.bpb.de/gesellschaft/umwelt/landwirtschaft/327284/die-entwicklung-der-gemeinsamen-agrarpolitik-der-eu (in German)

    Weingarten P, Rudloff B (2020) The Common Agricultural Policy : State of Development and Need for Reform. In: Becker P, Lippert B (eds) Handbuch Europäische Union. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, pp 843-868, DOI:10.1007/978-3-658-17409-5_33 (in German)

    2. Contributions of the Thünen Institute to the CAP reforms

    Scientists from the Thünen Institute contributed to discussions at all stages of the reform process with policy advice from opinions and studies. These related to impacts of the implementation of the CAP 2014 to 2022, to fundamental considerations of the European Commission in its communication "Food and Agriculture of the Future" of November 2017, to the legislative proposals of the European Commission of June 2018 and the final reform decisions at European level at the end of 2021, as well as to the decisions on national implementation in Germany in 2021 and 2022, including the preparation of the National CAP Strategic Plan. We also commented on possible adjustments of the CAP rules in response to the sharp rise in agricultural prices following Russia's attack on Ukraine. We reviewed other CAP-related strategies of the European Commission, such as the Green Deal of December 2019 and the Farm to Fork Strategy of May 2020. Furthermore, we were involved in the ex-ante evaluation of the CAP strategic plans in Germany and Austria and prepared an overview of their financial and substantive priorities based on the submitted strategic plans of all Member States.

    We have advised the Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture, state ministries, the European Commission, the European Parliament, parliamentary committees of the Bundestag and Land parliaments, the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation and the Federal Environmental Agency as well as the Austrian Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Regions and Water Management.

    CAP post-2020: Opinions and studies

    Scientists from the Thünen Institute were also involved in the reform processes for the CAP after 2013 at all stages of the policy cycle. They contributed opinions and studies to the political discussions in an advisory capacity. These related to fundamental considerations of the European Commission in the run-up to its Communication "The CAP towards 2020: Food, natural resources and rural areas - the challenges ahead" of November 2010; to the policy options outlined in the Communication; to the Commission's legislative proposals of October 2011, and the final reform decisions at European level at the end of 2013/beginning of 2014, as well as to the decisions on national implementation in Germany in 2014.

    CAP after 2013: Opinions and studies

    3. Selected statements and studies from the Thünen Institute

    1. Baum S, Wegmann J, Röder N (2024) Complying with greening in Germany: The case of ecological focus areas and crop diversification. Schr Gesellsch Wirtsch Sozialwiss Landbaues 59:237–249
    2. Lakner S, Röder N (2024) Stilllegungs-Aus: Über den Tag hinaus denken. Top Agrar 53(5):54–55
    3. Reiter K, Peitz C, Röder N (2024) Die Umsetzung der Grünen Architektur der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik in Deutschland : Bessere Förderbedingungen für die Biodiversität in der Agrarlandschaft? Naturschutz Landschaftsplanung 56(1):26–37, DOI:10.1399/NuL.2024.01.02
    4. Röder N, Krämer C, Grajewski R, Lakner S, Matthews A (2024) What is the environmental potential of the post-2022 common agricultural policy? Land Use Pol 144:107219, DOI:10.1016/j.landusepol.2024.107219
    5. Weingarten P (2024) Nach 2027 weiterhin in der Zweiten Säule? DLG Mitteilungen (10, SH: Eine Agrarpolitik, wie sie sein sollte):16–19
    1. Grajewski R, Becker S (2023) Neue Förderperiode der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik: Was bringt der nationale Strategieplan? Ländl Raum (ASG) 74(1):10-13
    2. Neu C, Berndt H, Bentkämper P, Dehne P, Hamaiyeh Al-Homssi L, Harms K, Körmer G, Kreß B, Niebuhr A, Sander H, Schulte-Döinghaus S, Weingarten P (2023) Die Gemeinsame Agrarpolitik nach 2027: ländliche Entwicklung stärker in den Blick nehmen : Stellungnahme des Sachverständigenrats Ländliche Entwicklung (SRLE) beim Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (BMEL) [online]. Berlin: Sachverständigenrat Ländliche Entwicklung (SRLE) beim Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (BMEL), 10 p, to be found in <https://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/_Ministerium/ Beiraete/srle/Stellungnahme-srle-gap-nach-2027.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2> [cited 11.07.2023]
    3. Rieger J, Freund F, Offermann F, Geibel I, Gocht A (2023) From fork to farm: Impacts of more sustainable diets in the EU-27 on the agricultural sector. J Agric Econ:Early view, DOI:10.1111/1477-9552.12530
    4. Röder N (2023) Ausgestaltung der Ökoregelungen in Deutschland – Stellungnahmen für das BMEL : Band 7 – Differenzierung der Förderhöhe in den Ökoregelungen nach regionalen Kulissen. Braunschweig: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, 18 p, Thünen Working Paper 180, Band 7, DOI:10.3220/WP1690887780000
    5. Röder N, Bergschmidt A, Birkenstock M, Heidecke C, Kreins P, Ledermüller S, Nieberg H, Osterburg B, Sanders J, Schmidt TG, Strassemeyer J, Weingarten P, Witte T de, Zinnbauer M (2023) Ausgestaltung der Ökoregelungen in Deutschland – Stellungnahmen für das BMEL : Band 5 – Vorschläge zur Ausgestaltung der „Grünen Architektur” in Deutschland auf Basis der Legislativvorschläge der Europäischen Kommission zur Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik nach 2020. Braunschweig: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, 114 p, Thünen Working Paper 180, Band 5, DOI:10.3220/WP1690883819000
    6. Röder N, Krämer C (2023) Ausgestaltung der Ökoregelungen in Deutschland – Stellungnahmen für das BMEL : Band 6 – Abschätzung der Kosten und Inanspruchnahme nicht-produktiver Flächen. Braunschweig: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, 64 p, Thünen Working Paper 180, Band 6, DOI:10.3220/WP1690887437000
    7. Röder N, Münnich A, Solle C, Schroers JO, Teßner M (2023) Überlegungen zur Berechnung der Kosten des Grenzanbieters : Bericht der UAG „Grenzanbieter“ für die Extensivierungsreferent:innen des Bundes und der Länder. Braunschweig: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, 21 p, Thünen Working Paper 217, DOI:10.3220/WP1690285311000
    8. Sinabell F, Pufahl A, Resch A (2023) Evaluierungskonzept für den Österreichischen GAP-Strategieplan 2023 bis 2027 bzw. 2029 [online]. Wien: WIFO, 73 p, to be found in <https://info.bml.gv.at/dam/jcr:91ce2d49-14ef-4c83-89bb-e744879f1779/Evaluierungskonzept-final.pdf> [cited 12.05.2023]
    1. Baum S, Chalwatzis D, Böhner HGS, Oppermann R, Röder N (2022) Wirkung ökologischer Vorrangflächen zur Erreichung der Biodiversitätsziele in Ackerlandschaften : Endbericht zum gleichnamigen Forschungsvorhaben, 2017 bis 2021 (FKZ: 3517 840 200). Bonn: BfN, 335 p, BfN Skripten 630, DOI:10.19217/skr630
    2. Becker S, Grajewski R, Rehburg P (2022) Where does the CAP money go? Design and priorities of the draft CAP Strategic Plans 2023-2027. Braunschweig: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, 72 p, Thünen Working Paper 191a
    3. Fynn L-L, Pollermann K (2022) Cross-Länder report on the implementation of LEADER in the funding period 2014-2022 : comparative study in the context of the ongoing evaluation of the rural development programmes of the Länder Hessen, Lower Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia and Schleswig-Holstein [online]. Braunschweig: Thünen-Institut für Lebensverhältnisse in ländlichen Räumen, 210 p, 5 Länder Eval 2022/05, zu finden in <https://www.eler-evaluierung.de/fileadmin/eler2/Publikationen/Projektberichte/5-Laender-Bewertung/2022/5-L%C3%A4nder-Evaluation_5-2022.pdf> [cited 31.05.2022]
    4. Haß M, Deblitz C, Freund F, Kreins P, Laquai V, Offermann F, Pelikan J, Sturm V, Wegmann J, Witte T de, Wüstemann F, Zinnbauer M (2022) Thünen-Baseline 2022 – 2032: Agricultural economic projections for Germany. Braunschweig: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, 126 p, Thünen Rep 100
    5. Pe’er G, Finn J, Diaz M, Birkenstock M, Lakner S, Röder N, Kazakova Y, Sumrada T, Bezak P, Concepción ED, Dänhardt J, Morales MB, Rac I, Spulerova J, Schindler S, Stavrinides M, Targetti S, Viaggi D, Vogiatzakis IN, Guyomard H (2022) How can the European Common Agricultural Policy help halt biodiversity loss? Recommendations by over 300 experts. Conserv Lett:in Press, DOI:10.1111/conl.12901
    6. Pufahl A, Schwarze S, Roggendorf W, Sander A, Bathke M, Bergschmidt A (2022) Effectiveness and efficiency of EAFRD support for resource protection, climate protection and animal welfare. Ber Landwirtsch 100(1):1-54
    7. Röder N (2022) Der Ukraine jetzt und in Zukunft helfen, Nahrungsmittelversorgung in der Welt sicherstellen sowie europäische und deutsche Landwirtschaft krisenfest gestalten (BT-Drs. 20/1336) : Stellungnahme im Rahmen einer öffentlichen Anhörung im Ausschuss für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft des Deutschen Bundestags am 16. Mai 2022. Braunschweig: Thünen-Institut für Lebensverhältnisse in ländlichen Räumen, 7 p
    8. Röder N, Ackermann A, Baum S, Böhner HGS, Laggner B, Lakner S, Ledermüller S, Wegmann J, Zinnbauer M, Strassemeyer J, Pöllinger F (2022) Evaluation of the 2013 CAP reform from an environmental protection perspective using a database analysis of IACS data of the German Länder : Final report [online]. Dessau: Federal Environment Agency, 288 p, Texte UBA 75/2022, found in <https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/479/publikationen/texte_75-2022_evaluierung_der_gap-reform_von_2013.pdf> [cited 06.07.2022]
    9. Röder N, Wüstemann F, Deblitz C (2022) Auswirkungen der Freigabe bestimmter ökologischer Vorrangflächen auf Flächenumfänge, Produktionsmengen und Umwelt im Jahr 2022. Braunschweig: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, 23 p, Thünen Working Paper 192
    10. Röös E, Mayer A, Muller A, Kalt G, Ferguson S, Erb K-H, Hart R, Matej S, Kaufmann L, Pfeifer C, Frehner A, Smith P, Schwarz G (2022) Agroecological practices in combination with healthy diets can help meet EU food system policy targets. Sci Total Environ 847:157612, DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157612
    11. Runge T, Latacz-Lohmann U, Schaller L, Todorova K, Daugbjerg C, Termansen M, Liira J, Le Gloux F, Dupraz P, Leppanen J, Fogarasi J, Vigh EZ, Bradfield T, Hennessy T, Targetti S, Viaggi D, Berzina I, Schulp CJE, Majewski E, Bouriaud L, et al (2022) Implementation of eco-schemes in fifteen European Union Member States. EuroChoices 21(2):19-27, DOI:10.1111/1746-692X.12352
    12. Schramek J, Horlitz T, Stegmann S, Becker S, Carolus J, Gehrlein U, Müller O, Nitsch H, Jungmann S, Theilen G, Welz D, Fengler B, Franz K, Fynn L-L, Grajewski R, Krämer C, Peter H, Pollermann K, Reiter K, Roggendorf W (2022) Ex-Ante Evaluation of the Strategic Plan for the Common Agricultural Policy in the Period 2023-2027 (CAP Strategic Plan) : Summary of the ex-ante evaluation (Annex I) [online]. Vienna: Rosinak & Partner ; WIFO, 115 p, to be found in https://info.bml.gv.at/dam/jcr:973337ee-c095-480a-a288-32512fd3a0e1/Anhang%20I_GAP_SP_ExAnte_Eval_Zusammenfassung_Final.pdf
    1. Bachtrögler J, Bock-Schappelwein J, Kantelhardt J, Kügler A, Niedermayr A, Pufahl A, Pfefferkorn W, Resch A, Schönhart M, Sinabell F, Steinwidder A, Tasser E, Weber N (2021) Ex-Ante Evaluation of the Strategic Plan for the Common Agricultural Policy in the Period 2023-2027 (CAP Strategic Plan) : Summary of the ex-ante evaluation (Annex I) [online]. Vienna: Rosinak & Partner ; WIFO, 115 p, to be found in https://info.bml.gv.at/dam/jcr:973337ee-c095-480a-a288-32512fd3a0e1/Anhang%20I_GAP_SP_ExAnte_Eval_Zusammenfassung_Final.pdf
    2. Pe'er G, Birkenstock M, Lakner S, Röder N (2021) The Common Agricultural Policy post-2020: Views and recommendations from scientists to improve performance for biodiversity : Volume 2 – Annexes. Braunschweig: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, 264 p, Thünen Working Paper 175, Vol. 2, DOI:10.3220/WP1620647428000.
    3. Pe'er G, Birkenstock M, Lakner S, Röder N (2021) The Common Agricultural Policy post-2020: Views and recommendations from scientists to improve performance for biodiversity : Volume 3, Policy Brief. Braunschweig: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, 46 p, Thünen Working Paper 175, Vol. 3, DOI:10.3220/WP1620647816000
    4. Röder N, Ackermann A, Baum S, Wegmann J, Strassemeyer J, Pöllinger F (2021) Geringe Umweltwirkung, hohe Kosten : Ergebnisse und Empfehlungen aus dem Projekt "Evaluierung der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik aus Sicht des Umweltschutzes II" [online]. Dessau: Umweltbundesamt, 26 p, Texte UBA 71, zu finden in <https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/geringe-umweltwirkung-hohe-kosten>
    5. Röder N, Dehler M, Jungmann S, Laggner B, Nitsch H, Offermann F, Reiter K, Roggendorf W, Theilen G, Witte T de, Wüstemann F (2021) Ausgestaltung der Ökoregelungen in Deutschland – Stellungnahmen für das BMEL : Band 1 – Abschätzung potenzieller ökologischer und ökonomischer Effekte auf Basis der Erstentwürfe. Braunschweig: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, 76 p, Thünen Working Paper 180, Volume 1, DOI:10.3220/WP1633603709000
    6. Röder N, Dehler M, Jungmann S, Laggner B, Nitsch H, Offermann F, Reiter K, Roggendorf W, Theilen G, Witte T de, Wüstemann F (2021) Ausgestaltung der Ökoregelungen in Deutschland – Stellungnahmen für das BMEL : Band 1 – Abschätzung potenzieller ökologischer und ökonomischer Effekte auf Basis der Erstentwürfe. Braunschweig: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, 76 p, Thünen Working Paper 180, Volume 1, DOI:10.3220/WP1633603709000
    7. Röder N, Dehler M, Laggner B, Offermann F, Reiter K, Witte T de, Wüstemann F (2021) Ausgestaltung der Ökoregelungen in Deutschland – Stellungnahmen für das BMEL : Band 2 – Schätzung der Inanspruchnahme der Regelungen auf Basis des Kabinettsentwurfes des GAPDZG. Braunschweig: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, 46 p, Thünen Working Paper 180, Volume 2, DOI:10.3220/WP1633603747000
    8. Röder N, Laggner B, Reiter K, Offermann F (2021) Is the DVL model "Gemeinwohlprämie" suitable as a potential eco-regulation of the CAP after 2020? Braunschweig: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, 85 p, Thünen Working Paper 166, DOI:10.3220/WP1611566848000
    9. Röder N, Offermann F (2021) Ausgestaltung der Ökoregelungen in Deutschland – Stellungnahmen für das BMEL : Band 3 – Erste Schätzung des Budgetbedarfes auf Basis der im GAPDZG festgelegten Ökoregelungen. Braunschweig: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, 30 p, Thünen Working Paper 180, Volume 3, DOI:10.3220/WP1633603797000
    10. Röder N, Offermann F (2021) Ausgestaltung der Ökoregelungen in Deutschland – Stellungnahmen für das BMEL : Band 4 – Zweite Schätzung des Budgetbedarfes auf Basis der im GAPDZG festgelegten Ökoregelungen in Abhängigkeit von verschiedenen Optionen zur Ausgestaltung. Braunschweig: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, 36 p, Thünen Working Paper 180, Volume 4, DOI:10.3220/WP1633603832000
    1. Birkenstock M, Röder N (2020) Rewarding environmental services of agriculture in EU agricultural policy based on the concept of "public goods premium": results of an administrative survey. Braunschweig: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, 59 p, Thünen Working Paper 139, DOI:10.3220/WP1579077912000
    2. Böhning-Gaese K, Klein A-M, Wägele W, Bruelheide H, Brühl C, Dauber J, Fenske M, Freibauer A, Gerowitt B, Krüß A, Lakner S, Mupepele A-C, Plieninger T, Potthast T, Schlacke S, Seppelt R, Stützel H, Weisser WW (2020) Biodiversity and management of agricultural landscapes : Comprehensive action is important now. Halle (Saale): German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina; acatech - German Academy of Science and Engineering; Union of the German Academies of Sciences and Humanities, 76 p.
    3. Grajewski R, Bergschmidt A, Reiter K, Roggendorf W, Sander A (2020) Beitrag für eine Anhörung der Enquetekommission Zukunft der Landwirtschaft des Landtags NRW : "Wie trägt das NRW-Programm Ländlicher Raum (ELER-Förderung) dazu bei, die hiesige Landwirtschaft zu unterstützen? "Which functions of agriculture could be better supported by EAFRD measures? What needs to be taken into account in the future design of EAFRD measures so that they are used more for the benefit of agriculture?". Braunschweig: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, 28 p
    4. Isermeyer F, Nieberg H, Banse M, Bolte A, Christoph-Schulz IB, Dauber J, Witte T de, Dehler M, Döring R, Elsasser P, Fock HO, Focken U, Freund F, Goti L, Heidecke C, Kempf A, Koch G, Kraus G, Krause A, Kroiher F, Lasner T, Lüdtke J, Olbrich A, Osterburg B, Pelikan J, Probst WN, Rahmann G, Reiser S, Rock J, Röder N, Rüter S, Sanders J, Stelzenmüller V, Zimmermann C (2020) Impacts of current policy strategies (Green Deal, Farm-to-Fork, Biodiversity Strategy 2030; Insect Conservation Action Programme) on agriculture, forestry and fisheries. Braunschweig: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, 102 p, Thünen Working Paper 156, DOI:10.3220/WP1600775202000.
    5. Haß M, Banse M, Deblitz C, Freund F, Geibel I, Gocht A, Kreins P, Laquai V, Offermann F, Osterburg B, Pelikan J, Rieger J, Rösemann C, Salamon P, Zinnbauer M, Zirngibl M-E (2020) Thünen-Baseline 2020 – 2030: Agricultural economic projections for Germany. Braunschweig: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, 146 p, Thünen Rep 82, DOI:10.3220/REP1601889632000
    6. Oppermann R, Chalwatzis D, Röder N, Baum S (2020) Biodiversity in the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) after 2020 : results and recommendations from the research and development projects "Naturschutzfachliche Ausgestaltung von ökologischen Vorrangflächen" (OEVForsch I; 2015 – 2017) und "Wirkung ökologischer Vorrangflächen zur Erreichung der Biodiversitätsziele in Ackerlandschaften" (OEVForsch II; 2017 – 2020) [online]. Bonn: BfN, 11 p, zu finden in <https://www.bfn.de/fileadmin/BfN/landwirtschaft/Dokumente/Broschu__re-Biodiversitaet_in_der_Gemeinsamen_Agrarpolitik__GAP__der_EU_nach_2020.pdf>
    7. Pe’er G, Lakner S, Seppelt R, Bezak P, Bonn A, Concepción ED, Creutzig F, Daub C-H, Diaz M, Dieker P, Eisenhauer N, Hagedorn G, Hansjürgens B, Harrer-Puchner G, Herzon I, Hickler T, Jetzkowitz J, Kazakova Y, Kindlmann P, Röder N, et al (2020) The EU's common agriculture policy and sustainable farming: A statement by scientists. Zenodo, 23 p, DOI:10.5281/zenodo.4311314
    8. Pe'er G, Bonn A, Bruelheide H, Dieker P, Eisenhauer N, Feindt PH, Hagedorn G, Hansjürgens B, Herzon I, Lomba A, Marquard E, Moreira F, Nitsch H, Oppermann R, Perino A, Röder N, Schleyer C, Schindler S, Wolf C, Zinngrebe Y, Lakner S (2020) Action needed for the EU Common Agricultural Policy to address sustainability challenges. People Nature 2(2):305-316, DOI:10.1002/pan3.10080
    9. Runge T (ed) (2020) Innovative contract solutions for the provision of environmental services by farmers and foresters : profiles of selected German case studies. Braunschweig: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, 39 p
    1. Grethe H, Nieberg H, Renner B, Balmann A, Birner R, Christen O, Gauly M, Latacz-Lohmann U, Martinez J, Pischetsrieder M, Spiller A, Taube F, Voget-Kleschin L, Weingarten P (2019) Möglichkeiten, Ansatzpunkte und Grenzen einer Verwaltungsvereinfachung der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik der EU : Stellungnahme des Wissenschaftlichen Beirats für Agrarpolitik, Ernährung und gesundheitlichen Verbraucherschutz beim Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft. Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher Beirat für Agrarpolitik, Ernährung und gesundheitlichen Verbraucherschutz beim BMEL, 34 p
    2. Grethe H, Nieberg H, Renner B, Balmann A, Birner R, Christen O, Gauly M, Latacz-Lohmann U, Martinez J, Pischetsrieder M, Spiller A, Taube F, Voget-Kleschin L, Weingarten P, Grajewski R, Röder N, Schmid JC (2019) On the effective design of agri-environmental and climate protection policy under the EU Common Agricultural Policy after 2020 : Opinion of the Scientific Advisory Council for Agricultural Policy, Nutrition and Consumer Health Protection at the Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture; Mai 2019. Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher Beirat für Agrarpolitik, Ernährung und gesundheitlichen Verbraucherschutz beim BMEL, 100 p
    3. Röder N, Ackermann A, Baum S, Birkenstock M, Dehler M, Ledermüller S, Rudolph S, Schmidt TG, Nitsch H, Pabst H, Schmidt M (2019) Evaluierung der GAP-Reform aus Sicht des Umweltschutzes – GAPEval : Abschlussbericht [online]. Dessau: Umweltbundesamt, 291 p, Texte UBA 58, zu finden in <https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/evaluierung-der-gap-reform-aus-sicht-des> [zitiert am 19.06.2019]
    4. Schoof N, Luick R, Ackermann A, Baum S, Böhner HGS, Röder N, Rudolph S, Schmidt TG, Hötker H, Jeromin H (2019) Impacts of the new Common Agricultural Policy framework on grassland-related biodiversity [online]. Bonn: BfN, 234 p, BfN Skripten 540
    1. Birkenstock M, Röder N (2018) Design and implementation of the Common EU Agricultural Policy from 2021 - Overview of the political debates. Dessau: Federal Environment Agency, 66 p, Texte UBA 108
    2. Fährmann B, Grajewski R (2018) Will the future CAP lead to less implementation costs and higher impacts of Rural Development Programmes? : paper prepared for presentation for the 162nd EAAE Seminar The evaluation of new CAP instruments: Lessons learned and the road ahead ; April 26-27, 2018 Corvinus University of Budapest, Budapest, Hungary. 25 p
    3. Fährmann B, Grajewski R, Bergschmidt A, Fengler B, Franz K, Pollermann K, Raue P, Roggendorf W, Sander A (2018) The EAFRD in the Common Agricultural Policy after 2020 : how do evaluators assess the European draft regulations? Braunschweig: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, 52 p, Thünen Working Paper 107, DOI:10.3220/WP1540817931000
    4. Forstner B, Duden C, Ellßel R, Gocht A, Hansen H, Neuenfeldt S, Offermann F, Witte T de (2018) Effects of direct payments in agriculture - selected aspects related to structural change. Braunschweig: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, 42 p, Thünen Working Paper 96, DOI:10.3220/WP1524561399000
    5. Offermann F, Banse M, Freund F, Haß M, Kreins P, Laquai V, Osterburg B, Pelikan J, Rösemann C, Salamon P (2018) Thünen-Baseline 2017 – 2027: Agricultural economic projections for Germany. Braunschweig: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, 116 p, Thünen Rep 56, DOI:10.3220/REP1516952942000
    6. Offermann F, Efken J, Ellßel R, Hansen H, Klepper R, Weber SA (2017) Selected risk management tools in agriculture: systematic compilation and evaluation. Braunschweig: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, 52 p, Thünen Working Paper 72, DOI:10.3220/WP1492604951000
    1. Hart K, Mottershead D, Tucker G, Underwood E, Maréchal A, Menet L, Martin I, Dayde C, Bresson C, Deniel E, Sanders J, Röder N, Osterburg B, Klages S (2017) Evaluation study of the payment for agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the environment : final report. Luxembourg: European Commission, 248 p, DOI:10.2762/71725
    2. Nitsch H, Röder N, Oppermann R, Milz E, Baum S, Lepp T, Kronenbitter J, Ackermann A, Schramek J (2017) Naturschutzfachliche Ausgestaltung von Ökologischen Vorrangflächen. Bonn: BfN, 192 p, BfN Skripten 472, DOI:10.19217/skr472
    1. Offermann F, Banse M, Deblitz C, Gocht A, Gonzalez Mellado AA, Kreins P, Marquardt S, Osterburg B, Pelikan J, Rösemann C, Salamon P, Sanders J (2016) Thünen-Baseline 2015-2025: Agricultural economic projections for Germany. Braunschweig: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, 116 p, Thünen Rep 40, DOI:10.3220/REP1458557428000
    2. Dwyer J, Kubinakova K, Lewis N, Powell J, Vigani M, Fährmann B, Gocht A, Grajewski R, Coto Sauras M, Nieto Cachinero P, Mantino F, Berriet-Solliec M, Pham HV (2016) Research for AGRI committee – Programmes implementing the 2015-2020 Rural Development Policy : Study. Brussels: European Parliament, 102 p, DOI:10.2861/44088
    3. Gocht A, Ciaian P, Bielza M, Terres J-M, Röder N, Himics M, Salputra G (2016) Economic and environmental impacts of CAP greening : CAPRI simulation results. Luxembourg: European Commission, 56 p, DOI:10.2788/452051
    4. Nitsch H, Röder N, Oppermann R, Baum S, Schmarek J (2016) Naturschutzfachliche Ausgestaltung von Ökologischen Vorrangflächen : Praxishandbuch. Frankfurt am Main: IflS, 17 p
    5. Weingarten P, Bauhus J, Arens-Azevedo U, Balmann A, Biesalski HK, Birner R, Bitter AW, Bokelmann W, Bolte A, Bösch M, Christen O, Dieter M, Entenmann S, Feindt M, Gauly M, Grethe H, Haller P, Nieberg H, Osterburg B, Rüter S, et al (2016) Klimaschutz in der Land- und Forstwirtschaft sowie den nachgelagerten Bereichen Ernährung und Holzverwendung : Expert opinion of the Scientific Advisory Council for Agricultural Policy, Nutrition and Consumer Health Protection and the Scientific Advisory Council for Forest Policy at the Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture. Berlin: Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL), 479 p, Ber Landwirtsch SH 222
    1. Offermann F (2015) Assessment of agricultural policy measures to support adaptation to extreme weather events. Thünen Rep 30:225-239
    2. Schroeder LA, Gocht A, Britz W (2015) The impact of Pillar II Funding: validation of a modelling and evaluation perspective. J Agric Econ 66(2):415-441, DOI:10.1111/1477-9552.12091
    3. Tietz A, Horlitz T, Eberhardt W, Fährmann B, Grajewski R, Raue P, Reiter K, Röder N, Sander A (2015) Ex-ante evaluation of PFEIL 2014-2020 : Programme for the Promotion of Rural Development. Braunschweig: Thünen-Institut, 215 p
    1. Isermeyer F (2014) Future demands on agriculture - conclusions for agricultural policy. Braunschweig: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, 30 p, Thünen Working Paper 30, DOI:10.3220/WP_30_2014
    2. Isermeyer F, Forstner B, Nieberg H, Offermann F, Osterburg B, Schmidt TG, Röder N, Weingarten P (2014) Draft law on the implementation of direct payments to owners of agricultural holdings under support schemes of the Common Agricultural Policy : statement at a public hearing of the Committee on Food and Agriculture of the German Bundestag on 7 April 2014 ; Braunschweig, 31. März 2014. Braunschweig: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, 25 p
    3. Offermann F, Deblitz C, Golla B, Gömann H, Haenel H-D, Kleinhanß W, Kreins P, Ledebur O von, Osterburg B, Pelikan J, Röder N, Rösemann C, Salamon P, Sanders J, Witte T de (2014) Thünen-Baseline 2013-2023: Agricultural economic projections for Germany. Braunschweig: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, 112 p, Thünen Rep 19, DOI:10.3220/REP_19_2014 PDF Document (not barrier-free) 3155 KB
    4. Röder N, Osterburg B, Liebersbach H, Bormann K (2014) Faktencheck Agrarpolitik : Beitrag der EU-Agrarreform zur Bewirtschaftung organischer Böden im Einklang mit Natur- und Klimaschutz – Möglichkeiten und Grenzen. Braunschweig: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, 58 p, Thünen Working Paper 24, DOI:10.3220/WP_24_2014
    5. Schmidt TG, Röder N, Dauber J, Klimek S, Laggner A, Witte T de, Offermann F, Osterburg B (2014) Biodiversity-relevant regulations for the national implementation of greening of the EU Common Agricultural Policy after 2013. Braunschweig: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, 70 p, Thünen Working Paper 20, DOI:10.3220/WP_20_2014
    1. Röder N, Osterburg B, Kätsch S (2013) Fact check agrarian reform: integrating climate change mitigation and adaptation into the EU Common Agricultural Policy after 2013. Braunschweig: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, 40 p, Thünen Working Paper 11, DOI:10.3220/WP_11_2013, PDF Document (not barrier-free) 456 KB
    2. Weingarten P (2013) Nationale Umsetzung der Reform der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik : Stellungnahme im Rahmen einer öffentlichen Anhörung des Ausschusses für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz des Landtags Mecklenburg-Vorpommern; Braunschweig, 5. Juli 2013 [online]. Braunschweig: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, 4 p, zu finden in <http://www.landtag-mv.de/fileadmin/media/Dokumente/Ausschuesse/Agrarausschuss/Mitteilungen/Stellungnahme_vTI_nat_Umsetzung_GAP.pdf> [zitiert am 26.08.2013]
    1. Forstner B, Deblitz C, Kleinhanß W, Nieberg H, Offermann F, Röder N, Salamon P, Sanders J, Weingarten P (2012) Analysis of the EU Commission's proposals of 12 October 2011 on the future design of direct payments under the CAP after 2013. Braunschweig: vTI, 127 p, Arbeitsber vTI Agrarökonomie 2012/04 PDF Dokument 929 KB
    2. Freibauer A, Röder N, Tiemeyer B (2012) Approaches to the definition for area settings for GAEC Standard 7: "Protection of wetlands and carbon-rich soils including a ban on first rupture". Braunschweig: vTI, 15 p, Arbeitsber vTI Inst Agrarrelevante Klimaforsch 2012/10 PDF Document (not barrier-free) 378 KB
    3. Gocht A, Albrecht R, Gömann H, Ledebur O von, Kleinhanß W, Offermann F, Osterburg B, Rothe A, Wendt H, Klepper R, Ehrmann M, Schroeder LA (2012) Analyse des Vorschlags zur Reform der Zuckermarktordnung. Braunschweig: vTI, VII, 67, 7 p, Landbauforsch SH 360 PDF Document (not barrier-free) 3005 KB
    4. Grajewski R, Fährmann B, Pollermann K (2012) Stellungnahme des Instituts für Ländliche Räume des Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Instituts (vTI) zum Antrag der Fraktion BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN "Strukturfonds zukunftsfähig für Schleswig-Holstein gestalten" : Umdruck Landtag Schleswig-Holstein 17/3531 [online]. Kiel: Schleswig-Holsteinischer Landtag, 10 p, zu finden in <http://www.landtag.ltsh.de/infothek/wahl17/umdrucke/3500/umdruck-17-3531.pdf> [zitiert am 25.04.2012] PDF Document (not barrier-free) 183 KB
    5. Isermeyer F, Weingarten P (2012) GAP-Reform : Stellungnahme im Rahmen einer öffentlichen Anhörung des Ausschusses für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz des Deutschen Bundestages am 22. Oktober 2012 von Prof. Dr. Folkhard Isermeyer, Prof. Dr. Peter Weingarten, Thünen-Institut. Berlin: Deutscher Bundestag, 25 p, Ausschussdrucks Dt Bundestag 17
    1. Gocht A, Britz W, Adenäuer M, Ciaian P, Gomez y Paloma S (2011) Farm level policy scenario analysis. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 80 p, JRC Sci Techn Rep 64334
    2. Grajewski R, Bathke M, Bergschmidt A, Bormann K, Eberhardt W, Ebers H, Fährmann B, Fengler B, Fitschen-Lischewski A, Forstner B, Kleinhanß W, Nitsch H, Osterburg B, Plankl R, Raue P, Reiter K, Röder N, Sander A, Schmidt TG, Tietz A, Weingarten P (2011) Rural development policy from 2014 : an assessment of the European Commission's October 2011 regulation proposals. Braunschweig: vTI, 302 p, Arbeitsber vTI Agrarökonomie 2011/08 PDF Document 1895 KB
    3. Hart K, Baldock D, Weingarten P, Osterburg B, Povellato A, Vanni F, Pirzio-Biroli C, Boyes A (2011) What tools for the European agricultural policy to encourage the provision of public goods? : study. Luxembourg: European Commission, 111 p
    4. Isermeyer F, Otte A, Bauhus J, Christen O, Dabbert S, Gauly M, Heißenhuber A, Heß J, Kirschke D, Latacz-Lohmann U, Qaim M, Schmitz M, Spiller A, Sundrum A, Weingarten P (2011) Short Opinion on the Communication from the European Commission on the Design of the Common Agricultural Policy up to 2020. Ber Landwirtsch 89(1):5-8
    5. Moreddu C, Martini R, Kimura S, Britz W, Gocht A, Pérez Dominguez I, Hart K, Baldock D (2011) Evaluation of agricultural policy reforms in the European Union. Paris: OECD, 180 p
    1. Baldock D, Bureau JC, Butault JP, Cooper T, Delame N, Erjavec E, Gohin A, Hart K, Heckelei T, Kleinhanß W, Matthews A, Rudloff B, Salvatici L, Witzke HP, Zahrnt V, Zintl A (2010) The single payment scheme after 2013: New approach – new targets; study. Brussels: European Parliament, 168 p
    2. Isermeyer F, Otte A, Bauhus J, Christen O, Dabbert S, Gauly M, Heißenhuber A, Heß J, Kirschke D, Latacz-Lohmann U, Qaim M, Schmitz PM, Spiller A, Sundrum A, Weingarten P (2010) EU agricultural policy after 2013 : plea for a new policy for food, agriculture and rural areas : expert opinion May 2010. Ber Landwirtsch 88(2):173-202

    Reforms are often limited to incremental change within an established policy framework. We offer corresponding policy advice. However, we also question the established framework and develop concepts for fundamental change. To this end, scientists from the Thünen Institute are also actively involved in various bodies such as the Scientific Advisory Board for Agricultural Policy, Nutrition and Consumer Health Protection (WBAE), the Competence Network for Farm Animal Husbandry (Borchert Commission), the Commission on the Future of Agriculture (ZKL) or the German Advisory Council on Rural Development (SRLE). They have also developed and published their own proposals for a fundamental reorientation of agricultural policy.

    The WBAE advocates for the development of an integrated nutrition policy that also takes agricultural production into account in its 2020 report Promoting sustainability in food consumption - Developing an integrated food policy and creating fair food environments.

    The WBAE (2018) advocates for a common good-oriented transformation of the CAP after 2020 in its report For an EU Common Agricultural Policy serving the public good after 2020: Fundamental questions and recommendations.

    The report of the Commission on the Future of Agriculture (“Zukunftskommission Landwirtschaft”) of 2021 shows development paths towards an agriculture that meets society's expectations and at the same time provides farmers with an adequate income: The Future of Agriculture. A common agenda: Recommendations of the Commission on the Future of Agriculture.

    The Scientific Advisory Board on Agricultural Policy pointed out Pathways to a socially accepted livestock husbandry in Germany in its 2015 report. In 2019, the Thünen Working Paper 124 (Animal Welfare: Voluntary Label, Compulsory Labelling or State Label?, in German) and the Competence Network for Farm Animal Husbandry (Kompetenznetzwerk Nutztierhaltung) built on this in the "Borchert Report" (in German) of 2020 and its recommendations of 2022 (in German).

    Whether a “Public Goods Premium” (in German) is a sensible agri-environmental policy measure was investigated by researchers at the Thünen Institute in 2021.

    With its opinion "Strong rural areas for a strong Europe" (in German), the Advisory Council on Rural Development 2021 contributed to the debate on a "Long-term vision for rural areas" of the European Commission.

    Requirements for a rational policy design and different options for a further development of the joint task for the improvement of agricultural structure and coastal protection are briefly outlined here.

    What a fundamentally improved agricultural policy could look like was shown by the President of the Thünen Institute, Prof. Folkhard Isermeyer, in 2014 (Künftige Anforderungen an die Landwirtschaft - Schlussfolgerungen für die Agrarpolitik). As early as 2012, he explained in detail why the justifications (still common today) for the alleged necessity of (greening) direct payments are not viable: First the means, then the end? How EU agricultural policy is maneuvering itself into a dead end and how it can get out of it again manoeuvring itself into a dead end and how it can get out of it.

    In view of the ongoing social controversies surrounding agricultural policy, the president of the Thünen Institute 2020 addressed the question of whether the establishment of concrete target images for agriculture could be a solution approach and how this concept could be implemented in concrete terms (Ausstieg aus der Dauer-Kontroverse - die schwierige Suche nach Zielbildern für unsere Landwirtschaft).

    Scroll to top
    Follow us
    Öffnet Webseite des BMEL in neuem Tab
    Follow us Opens LinkedIn in new tabOpens Bluesky in new tabOpens Mastodon in new tab