Greening of CAP has been a failure

Researchers have suggested that the 'greening' of the CAP has been a failure. The latest version of the CAP is no greener than its predecessor and would fail a basic Advertising Standards Authority test in terms of its claims: No greening

The researchers conclude that it fails to encourage greater wildlife abundance or adequate protection for vulnerable habitats such as grasslands.

I would not wish to dispute the specific conclusions made. Policy instruments have often not been well designed and policy effectiveness insufficiently monitored. The sums of money available do not match the scale of the challenge, but have often not been well used.

However, one must beware of reducing environmental policy to the protection of biodiversity or landscape effects. Reducing water pollution from agricultural activities has been a key policy objective and some progress has been made. Climate change mitigation is surely the key objective, but little progress has been made, despite the contribution of modern agriculture to greenhouse gases.

Threat to biodiversity funds

The RSPB and Defra are concerned about a potential threat to funds paid under Pillar 2 of the CAP to support biodiversity and wildlife schemes: Biodiversity

It would be very unfortunate to say the least if savings in the CAP budget were made by capping payments that compensate for the provision of positive externalities for which there is the strongest case for public subsidy.

The bulk of any reductions should come from the SFP, although the concern here is that an attempt will be made to penalise efficient and competitive farms by capping payments. MEPs have been urged to vote against these proposals: Capping

Cross-compliance is not delivering

Cross-compliance has no clear objectives, does not reflect the 'polluter pays' principle and is not being properly enforced, and is therefore not providing concrete diversity promotion, according to a new report. Published by Birdlife International it is entitled 'Through the green smokescreen. How is CAP cross compliance delivering for biodiversity.' It can be found here: Birdlife

Birdlife highlights that some of the biggest burdens imposed by cross-compliance are perversely felt by extensive livestock producers, i.e. the production systems which are most important for biodiversity and for which subsidy levels are usually lower than more intensive farms. It advocates a complete and urgent overhaul of the whole system and the need to realign the whole CAP to the principles of Rural Development.

EU could do better on environmental farming

Millions of pounds of txapayers' money intended for environmental projects is instead being used to prop up damaging farmning practices across Europe, according to a report Could Do Better compiled for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds by Birdlife International.

The report highlights some of the positive work being done in EU member states with CAP funding which is helping farmers create and protect habitants for wildlife. 'In principle this European funding is great news for wildlife because it supports agri-environment schemes which protect biodiversity - but the truth is that implementation of the policy by many member states is weak,' warned RSPB's head of agriculture policy Gareth Morgan.

'In compiling this report we found examples of agricultural schemes receiving large amounts of public subsidy from the EU which had no environmental benefit at all, in fact some were causing the degradation of the environment.'

Farmland bird species are in decline across Europe and this is often linked to changes in agricultual activities. Many of these threatened species are extremely senistive to changes in their habitat caused by intensification of farming. For example, the Spanish imperial eagle requires large areas of sparse wood picture rich in rabbit and the eastern European red-footed falcon requires traditional farmland with ponds rich in dragonflies.

'The findings of this report make it clear that the CAP is still not functioning properly and requires radical reform,' Gareth added. 'Agri-environmental schemes can and do deliver great results for farming and wildlife, but only if member states commit to them properly - otherwise it is simply an exercise in handing out money for nothing.'

'Some EU governments are clearly unprepared to stand up to the vigorous lobbying of their agricultural sector. If they continue to put forward dodgy agri-environmental schemes which have no positive impact on biodiversity then Brussels should have the backbone to kick them out.'

Examples of money down the drain included €790m in Portugal that has been invested in irrigation projects which will destroy wildlife habitats and increase water over-abstraction. In Cyprus conservation money is being spent on opening forestry roads and creating forest firebreaks which fragment bird habitats and disturb populations. Italy, France and Ireland also get the thumbs down for spending money on agri-environmental schemes that have no impact on normal farming practice and no benefit for the environment.

However, in England agri-environment schemes are judged to have been well designed and to be delivering benefits for biodiversity.

The full report can be downloaded here: Birdlife