The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in the European Union (EU) is one of the oldest fields of cooperation within the European Union. During the past decades the different Commissioners have made several proposals about changes in the CAP and many of them have not been passed but renegotiated. The present Commission has however published a report in 2011, which emphasizes that the CAP has three alternative ways to go in the future. This study aims to predict which one of these three alternative ways it is most likely that the CAP will take according to the historical institutionalist theory. When to be able to predict this text analysis is used. The analysis tools of the study are collected from the theory, which focuses on the conceptions: critical juncture, feedback effects, path dependency and sequencing. These tools as well as the theory are applied on the empirical material, which mainly consists of books about the earlier reforms and proposals from the Commission, academical journals and some reports. The analysis shows that the Luxembourg compromise can be seen as a critical juncture in the history of the CAP and this led to a path dependency, which is characterized by a decision-making procedure by consensus between the political institutions in the EU. The analysis also shows that most of the reforms regarding the CAP, are made with some sort of compromise or consensus (the Delors I budgetary package, the Mac Sharry reforms and so on). Therefore the conclusion of the study is that, from an historical institutionalist perspective, it is more or less possible for the CAP to go with any of the alternative ways that the Commission points out in the report. It is however most likely that the second way is the most prominent one. This is because that option emphasizes that major overhauls of the policy should be made, that the measures should be more targeted, and that the spending of the CAP should be more efficient. All of these changes have been made more or less during the history of the CAP and the institutional framework therefore allows this way.

Intensified agriculture has led to a dramatic decline of farmland biodiversity in Europe during the 20th century, making farmland policies of utmost importance within the European Union [EU]. The Greening, which is a part of the Common Agricultural Policy [CAP] was created to combat the negative effects of intensified agriculture. However, the policy did not achieve the goal of safeguarding farmland biodiversity and will be replaced in the upcoming CAP-reform. This study researches if a landscape perspective and nature-inclusive farming can increase the efficiency of the Greening in Scanian farmlands. Through semi-structured interviews with professionals on a regional level, we investigated: What are the obstacles that hinder regional solutions to farmland biodiversity issues in Scania, Sweden? Through the lens of governance, the results emphasized a need for new arrangements between all stakeholders in order to solve the issue of declining farmland biodiversity in Scania. The main obstacles for incorporating a landscape perspective and nature-inclusive farming are the lack of regional influence in the Greening, short program periods, and low profitability for farmers. We argue that these obstacles stem from the complex, multilevel governing system of the EU, and the projectification of the CAP. We suggest adopting a Common Pool Resource [CPR] framework for farmland biodiversity in Scania as an efficient way of surpassing the obstacles. However, further research is needed to create a cohesive view of the use value of farmland biodiversity. We concluded that although the results might be applicable to other regions within the EU, it is important to further research other regions in terms of local landscape conditions and local governance for effective results. / Intensifierat jordbruk har inneburit en dramatisk minskning av den biologiska mångfalden i jordbrukslandskap i Europa under 1900-talet, vilket gör jordbrukspolitiken central inom Europeiska unionen [EU]. Förgröningsstödet, som är en del av EU:s gemensamma jordbrukspolitik, skapades för att motverka de negativa effekterna av intensifierat jordbruk. Förgröningsstödet uppnådde emellertid inte målet att skydda den biologiska mångfalden i jordbrukslandskap, och kommer att ersättas i nästkommande reform. Den här studien undersökte om ett landskapsperspektiv, samt naturinkluderande jordbruk kunde öka ändamålsenligheten av Förgröningsstödet i det skånska jordbrukslandskapet. Genom semi-strukturerade intervjuer med tjänstemän på en regional nivå, undersöktes: Vilka är hindren som motarbetar regionala lösningar på problem som berör biologisk mångfald inom det skånska jordbruket? Utifrån ett governance-perspektiv, betonade resultaten ett behov av nya arrangemang mellan samtliga aktörer för att lösa problemet med minskad biologisk mångfald inom skånskt jordbruk. De främsta hindren för att inkludera ett landskapsperspektiv samt naturinkluderande jordbruk var bristen på regionalt inflytande, de korta programperioderna, samt låg lönsamhet för jordbrukare. Vi hävdar att hindren härrör från den komplexa flernivåstyrningen inom den gemensamma jordbrukspolitiken, samt projektifiering av den. Vi föreslår att anta ett Common Pool Resource [CPR] ramverk för biologisk mångfald inom skånskt jordbruk som ett effektivt sätt att övervinna hindren. Ytterligare forskning behövs dock för att skapa en enhetlig bild av användningsvärdet av biologisk mångfald i jordbrukslandskap. Avslutningsvis menar vi att även om resultaten kan gå att applicera på andra regioner inom EU, ligger det stor vikt vid att undersöka lokala förhållanden inom landskap och styrning för att nå effektiva resultat