Scenar 2020-II – Update of scenario study on
agriculture and the rural world
Final report -
The objective of the Scenar 2020-II study was to
refine and improve the identification of major
future trends and driving factors – and the
perspectives and challenges resulting from them –
provided by the initial
Scenar 2020 study (December 2006)
on the future of European agriculture and the rural
world. In this respect the study does not aim at
evaluating the impact of potential policy changes
but to compare how the agricultural sector might
evolve under different, and somewhat extreme,
pathways which, to a large, although not full
extent, follow the assumptions of the first study.
Judgement on the quality of the report [pdf]
Full text [pdf,
To reflect elements of the public debate, without prejudging
future policy proposals, three policy scenarios are
proposed within Scenar 2020-II.
- The first is a 'Reference' scenario, in which
reference policy decisions are carried forward in the time
period of the study. For illustrative purposes it assumes a
20% reduction of CAP budget in real terms, the
implementation of a Single Payment System (SPS) as of 2013,
full decoupling, a 30% decrease in direct payments (DP) in
nominal terms and a 105% increase of the European
Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). Trade
agreements are synthetically represented, e.g. the WTO
Agreement is based on the December 2008 Falconer paper. To
some extent this reflects similarities with the 'baseline'
scenario of the first study.
- The second is called 'Conservative CAP' scenario,
and keeps the overall level of the budget devoted to
agriculture but changes the balance between pillars. It
assumes a continuation of the results of the Health Check
(HC) after 2013, a flat rate (regional model) implemented at
national level, coupling as HC, and a 15% decrease of direct
payments in nominal terms, a reduced (45%) increase of EAFRD.
Trade policies are maintained as in the Reference scenario.
- The third is a 'Liberalisation' scenario, in
which all agricultural trade-related measures are
discontinued. The CAP budget is reduced by 75% in real
terms, all direct payments and market instruments are
removed, and there is a 100% increase of EAFRD. Like in the previous study extreme scenarios were chosen in
order to test what would be the maximum range of impacts the
agricultural sector would be faced with over the medium
Comparison between scenarios
The comparison between scenarios occurs in two steps:
first step is a modelling exercise that analyses the likely
outcome of each scenario using simulation models and other
quantitative analyses. This is done to understand the range of
potential shifts in agricultural production, income and markets
which is the first purpose of this study. Where appropriate and
necessary, these in-depth scenario analyses are complemented by
qualitative analyses and expert judgement. The result is a
description about how each scenario is expressed in spatial
terms, across the EU-27.
This first type of analysis is all of a
macro-economic nature, but the rural world is shaped by far more
elements that in particular relate to socio-cultural and
- In order to capture the interplay
between the possible pathways for change in the economy with the
possible adjustment of the other factors that compose the
framework of rural life and work in the EU, a second type of
analysis is required.
The choice made in the two Scenar 2020
studies is to use a 'SWOT' (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities,
Threats) analysis approach – using a regional
breakdown of the EU-27 into 857 territorial units. A contrast is
made among a series of 'strengths' and 'weaknesses' that can be
associated with a group of social and environmental conditions
that appear – to a varied degree – at the regional level. For
this reason, the phrase 'regional reactions' is used to connote
a response that may be expected at the regional level to
specific changes in the agricultural economy at the EU level.
better understand the range of regional responses is the second
purpose of Scenar 2020.
The study was carried out by ECNC-European Centre for Nature
Conservation, Landbouw-Economisch Instituut (LEI) and Leibniz-Zentrum
für Agrarlandschaftsforschung e.V. (ZALF).