CAP2020 - Home

Addressing the EU’s biodiversity goals through the CAP

2012-05-14T13:51:00Z

What is the relationship between the management of agricultural land and biodiversity? To what extent are the EU’s biodiversity goals addressed through the CAP?

These questions form the focus on a new study by IEEP for DG Agriculture. It is based on a thorough review of the relationship between agriculture and biodiversity and considers how policies, particularly the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), have worked in terms of their design, coordination and implementation for sustaining biodiversity and associated ecosystem services through agriculture, and how their role can be enhanced in the future to contribute towards meeting the EU’s biodiversity goals.

What is the relationship between the management of agricultural land and biodiversity? To what extent are the EU’s biodiversity goals addressed through the CAP?

These questions form the focus on a new study by IEEP for DG Agriculture titled Addressing biodiversity and habitat preservation through measures applied under the Common Agricultural Policy. It is based on a thorough review of the relationship between agriculture and biodiversity and considers how policies, particularly the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), have worked in terms of their design, coordination and implementation for sustaining biodiversity and associated ecosystem services through agriculture, and how their role can be enhanced in the future to contribute towards meeting the EU’s biodiversity goals.

The evidence draws on a wide range of sources, including scientific literature, evaluation studies, an in-depth analysis of the policy framework, along with detailed information collected from six case studies conducted in the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Romania and the UK.

It is hoped that the study’s recommendations will be taken into account during the current negotiations on the proposals for the 2014-2020 CAP, so that it can play its part in achieving the step change needed to achieve biodiversity goals by encouraging farming practices more conscious of their impact of species and habitats.

The full paper can be found here.

Greening the CAP - securing the benefits at the least cost to farm competitiveness

2012-05-08T08:51:00Z

Have your say contribution from principal consultant on agriculture and rural development at Eurinco on the reform proposals to 'green' the CAP.

The clear message from the April ‘12 meeting of the council of Ministers was that the European Commission will not compromise on including greening requirements for farm payments in pillar 1 of the CAP. Dacian Cioloş said he would be willing to broaden the list of measures that can count as ‘greening’, but only if the requirement remains in the first pillar.

So is it time for Defra (and some other) ministers to accept that they cannot succeed in confining ‘greening’ to the second pillar, and look at ways of ensuring that greening pillar 1 is done with least damage to farming competitiveness? Scottish Ministers have made it clear they would like to see greening applied to pillar 1 also.

It is clear that some of our ELS prescriptions in England would not go beyond what is to required in pillar 1, and the same is true of many of the other agri-environment prescriptions analysed throughout EU in a recent report by IEEP.

Perhaps the time has now come to accept that these measures will have to be paid for under pillar 1 as part of the greening payment, for it is very difficult to see how a case could be made for an additional payment for some of these measures under pillar 2. If these were now transferred to pillar 1, that would give some substance and form to the Commission proposals while allowing member states to keep a range of measures adapted to their different farm situations.

Other measures, going beyond the requirements of the greening payment, could still be used to meet the minimum area but qualify for supplementary payment under pillar 2. This would free some of the pillar 2 budget for other measures, such as HLS for which current budgets will not suffice without continuing modulation.

It seems to be widely accepted in the Parliament, even in DG Agri, that the EFA will be negotiated down from 7% to a more realistic 4 or 5% . If some part of this were made tradeable – say 2% or half of the 4% total EFA, as set-aside was in the early years, then the benefits the commission seeks could still be secured EU-wide, on all types of farm, but without significant damage to the most competitive farming businesses on good soils.

Entry-level agri-environment payments

2012-05-01T09:19:00Z

IEEP has just completed a study of all 88 RDPs in the EU-27 and created the first typology of entry-level agri-environment management actions and their potential contribution to EU environmental objectives. Case studies in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Italy, Poland and the UK show how these payments are used to incentivise environmental management just above the reference level, and how schemes are targeted, designed and revised.

Agri-environment land management payments are the only measure that every Member State must implement within their 2007-13 Rural Development Programmes (RDPs). These incentive payments are of particular interest because some of the proposals for ‘greening’ CAP payments, such as crop diversification and maintenance of permanent grassland, are commonly found as part of ‘entry-level’ agri-environment schemes, and after 2014 the new green requirements will become part of the baseline for agri-environment payments.

The study concludes that in a reformed CAP there will be two distinct roles for entry-level agri-environment schemes targeting regional environmental priorities. The first is to improve environmental management by building upon the foundation provided by the proposed Pillar 1 ‘greening’ measures. The second is to maintain existing environmentally appropriate land management where this is threatened.

Experience of current schemes could help to inform the process of designing the 2014 agri-environment programmes in several ways, for example:

environmentally targeted and differentiated entry-level requirements and payments could employ cost-effective new technologies such as digital mapping;
farm advisory and support services have a critical role, and Farm Advisory Services could be expanded to cover agri-environment advice; agri-environment training within entry-level schemes could also be beneficial;
involving farmers in scheme design and review processes, and providing them with feedback on environmental impacts, can improve capacity building, understanding and uptake;
guidance to Member States on covering farmers’ transaction costs may need to be revised;
small-scale pilot testing and evaluation of entry-level schemes could improve efficiency, acceptance and delivery;
and initiating ‘fast track’ internal reviews during the first two years of a scheme can be an effective way of resolving problems.

The report can be found here. For more information contact Clunie Keenleyside.

European Parliament: The CAP should be a key tool for biodiversity conservation in the EU

2012-04-24T13:41:00Z

A resolution on the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, adopted on 20 April by the European Parliament stresses that biodiversity should become a much higher political priority and should be better integrated into existing EU policies. In particular, it states that the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) should be a key tool for the conservation of biodiversity, alongside its role in food production and rural development. The forthcoming reform of the CAP, in conjunction with decisions on the next Multiannual Financial Framework, are key to halting the loss of biodiversity.

A resolution on the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, adopted on 20 April by the European Parliament (EP) stresses that biodiversity should become a much higher political priority and should be better integrated into existing EU policies. In particular, it states that the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) should be a key tool for the conservation of biodiversity, alongside its role in food production and rural development. The forthcoming reform of the CAP, in conjunction with decisions on the next Multiannual Financial Framework, are key to halting the loss of biodiversity.

The resolution recognises that the CAP already addresses environmental concerns to some extent. However, it notes that so far the environmental measures such as decoupling, cross-compliance and agri-environment payments have failed to halt the overall decline of farmland biodiversity. To improve the situation in the future, the EP advocate a major shift in emphasis of the CAP to provide compensation to farmers for delivering public goods. The resolution welcomes the proposed greening of Pillar 1 as a way to ‘ensure the conservation of biodiversity in the wider farmed landscape, improve connectivity and adapt to the effects of climate change’, while calling for a modification of the current proposals to introduce a bonus for farmers in Natura 2000 areas. It also flags that the greening measures, in their current form, do not address the diversity of agricultural ecosystems across the EU, with particular gaps noted for certain Mediterranean ecosystems that are critical for maintaining biodiversity, such as olive groves, vineyards, apple orchards and rice crops. MEPs also call for ‘robust cross compliance’ that should cover not only the legislation on birds and habitats, but also legal provisions relating to water, pesticides and biocides.

Regarding rural development policy, the EP highlights the need to strengthen its budget and calls for ‘drastic improvements in all Member States to the environmental focus of that pillar and to the effectiveness of its agri-environmental measures’. MEPs state that there needs to be a clear provision for minimum mandatory spending on environmental measures, including the agri-environment-climate, Natura 2000 and forest environment measures, and to High Nature Value and organic farming. Harking back to the special report on agri-environment published by the European Court of Auditors last year, the EP resolution insists that in the future, the provision of agri-environment support should be linked to clear environmental criteria. The resolution also raises concerns about the risk of land abandonment in certain part of Europe, emphasising the need for ongoing management to maintain certain agricultural habitats that are particularly important for biodiversity.

The resolution represents a slightly weakened version of the text passed in March by the Environment Committee of the European Parliament. Most notable amongst the provisions that have been removed during the vote by the full Parliament, include the call for earmarking at least one per cent of the EU budget for the 2014-20 period for environmental protection, and a recommendation that ecological performance should be a focal point of the European Innovation Partnership for Sustainable Agriculture and Productivity.

‘Environmental public goods in the new CAP: impact of greening proposals and possible alternatives’

2012-04-18T08:46:00Z

A new report on the potential environmental and economic impacts of the proposed Pillar 1 greening measures has been written by Professor Alan Matthews for the European Parliament. The findings of this report were presented at the European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on 19 March 2012.

Entitled ‘Environmental public goods in the new CAP: impact of greening proposals and possible alternatives’, it explores the potential opportunities and difficulties with the Ecological Focus Areas (EFAs), Crop Diversification, and Permanent Grassland proposals under four different approaches. These broadly characterise the types of alternatives being advanced by those engaging in the debate currently:

To weaken or remove the Commission’s greening proposals;
To support modified Commission proposals;
To provide more flexibility to Member States in Pillar 1 greening; and
To promote greening through more ambitious targeted Pillar 2 measures.

The report, as discussed in the presentation, emphasises that increasing spending for the agri-environment-climate measure under Pillar 2 and for cross-compliance under Pillar 1 would be an ‘attractive’ way to allow Member State flexibility while raising the standard for environmental land management at an EU scale. It acknowledges however, that the main downside of any approach taken solely under Pillar 2 would be that it would not guarantee such an EU wide scale uptake of environmental management.

Although the report expresses some doubt that the proposals for maintaining permanent pasture and crop diversification under the greening requirements would be effective, it is optimistic that EFAs could effectively deliver environmental benefits.

The UK Climate Change Risk Assessment

2012-04-17T08:17:00Z

The UK government produced its first Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA) earlier this year. It looks at 100 priority impacts of climate change across 11 sectors in the UK including the agriculture and forestry sectors. The assessment categorises these sectors within five themes showing where the impacts will be most severe and how policy can intervene. Climate change is likely to have considerable impacts on food security, population growth and rising demand for energy. The purpose of the CCRA is to analyse the potential impacts in this wider context in order to facilitate risk management in the respective sectors.

In terms of the agricultural sector, the modelling used provides projections for climate change impacts, using a range of scenarios available for the 2020s, 2050s and 2080s. A criterion was then applied to each impact to calculate the likelihood and the economic, social and environmental consequences of each risk. A series of risk categories have been produced, ranking risks from low to high. Even where the calculated likelihood for risk is high, a level of uncertainty is associated with all the findings, especially for those within longer timeframes such as for the 2050s and 2080s.

The findings for the agricultural sector can be summarised as:

Opportunities from climate change in the UK will have the greatest positive impact on crop productivity. For example, increased wheat, sugar beet and potato yields are anticipated due to warmer conditions and higher CO2 levels. According to the CCRA projections, wheat yield could increase from between 40 and 140 per cent by the 2050s and sugar beet yields have been projected to rise from between 20 and 70 per cent. It is also highly likely that there will be opportunity for new crops to be cultivated, such as blueberries, maize and energy and pharmaceutical crops (currently only grown in small quantities in the UK). However, the projections also show that such yield increases will be vulnerable to likely increases in extreme weather events such as heavy rainfall and storms and as such there is a high degree of uncertainty in the projections made.
Threats from climate change are more varied and are expected to impact water availability, soil quality, flood risk, and dairy livestock. Heat stress is likely to be a particular issue for dairy livestock; although the impacts on water availability, soil quality and flood risk are expected to have the greatest effects. For example, high-quality horticultural and arable land is expected to flood at least once every three years according to their projections, resulting in an increase from approximately 30,000 ha (2011) to a possible 130,000 ha by the 2080s. Furthermore, water demand from the agricultural sector is expected to increase on average by 110 per cent by the 2080s.

The report notes a number of gaps in the research, including the capacity of rural communities to adapt to climate change and the associated implications for agriculture. Gaps were also noted for the potential impact of climate change on pests and diseases, extreme climate scenarios and livestock capacity to adapt to heat waves and droughts.

The assessment concludes that better investment in technology and land management will be necessary to manage climate change in agriculture, for example the strategic planting of trees to act as wind breaks and changes in crop varieties.

Although the need to manage climate change in agriculture is being addressed at an EU level, with projects like Climate Farmers making information on adaptive farming practice available to farmers via the internet and a greater focus on climate change in the CAP proposals, the UK is one of the few Member States to produce a sector specific risk assessment to date. The UK CCRA is therefore an important development that could be promoted as an example of good practice at the EU level.

Support a Sustainable Future for Europe’s Pastoral Landscapes

2012-04-02T11:42:00Z

The European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism (EFNCP) have issued a document presenting the fears and proposals of 80 farming and environmental organisations concerning the current CAP rules for permanent pastures, and those being considered for 2014-2020 period. It sets out clear and simple proposals for changing these rules for the benefit of farmers and the environment.

The aim is to raise awareness of key issues amongst all those concerned with the sustainable future of the pastoral landscapes typically found in Europe’s more marginal regions, as well as with policy makers and political representatives involved in the reform of the CAP.

Petition on CAP permanent pasture rules (in English)
Pétition sur les règles sur les pâturages permanents de la PAC (in French)
Petición sobre las normas PAC para pastos permanentes (in Spanish)

Delivering Environmental Benefits through Ecological Focus Areas

2012-03-09T14:45:00Z

On Tuesday 6 March stakeholders involved in the CAP reform debate, researchers, representatives from the Commission, European Parliament, Member States, NGOs and farmer organisations, came together to engage in a constructive debate on how to get the most for the environment out of the Ecological Focus Area (EFA) measure under the CAP proposals for the greening of direct payments. The event, held in Brussels, was hosted by Scottish Natural Heritage on behalf of the UK statutory conservation, countryside and environment agencies and organised by IEEP.

The European Commission (Pierre Bascou) provided an overview of the proposals, their objectives and intended impacts. This was followed by evidence on the potential environmental benefits from EFAs presented by Allan Buckwell (IEEP), Rainer Opermann (IFAB), Jaroslav Prazan (UZEI) and Henk van Zeijts (PBL). After lunch representatives from Birdlife (Trees Robijns), COPA-COGECA (Pekka Pesonnen), the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture (Ignacio Atance Muniz) and the European Parliament (George Lyon) gave their perspectives on the evidence, stimulating further debate and discussion.

Many of the ideas raised at the workshop will be incorporated into the final version of a report which is being produced by IEEP on behalf of the UK Land Use Policy Group. The report seeks to set out the evidence and choices surrounding the EFA proposals and how they can best deliver environmental benefits across the EU. This report will be finalised in the coming weeks and be available on both the CAP2020 and LUPG websites.

To find out more about the workshop the agenda, and presentations can be found here:

Proposed Greening of the CAP: only small gains

2012-02-22T14:11:00Z

PBL has published a brief analysis of the European Commission’s proposals for the Common Agricultural Policy called 'Greening the CAP: An analysis of the effects of the European Commission’s proposals for the Common Agricultural Policy 2014–2020'.

The impact of the proposed greening measures of the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) on the sustainable development of agriculture appears to be relatively small. Member States must assign 30 percent of their Pillar I budget to these measures, a total annual amount of 13 billion euros. Greening measures could be made more effective by tailoring the proposed ecological focus areas to local conditions and by promoting the formation of a green infrastructure.

Furthermore, the attribution of 5 percent to 10 percent of the total CAP budget to stimulating more sustainable animal husbandry systems may solve persistent issues in the intensive livestock production regarding environmental quality, and animal health and welfare. These are the main conclusions of the report by PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, ´Greening the CAP: An analysis of the effects of the European Commission’s proposals for the Common Agricultural Policy 2014–2020´.

CAP Reform Towards 2020: Franco-Spanish Talks

2012-02-21T15:17:00Z

Compared to the two years of active debates and discussions which preceded the publication of the legislative proposals for CAP reform post 2014, we seem now to be in a quieter period of reflection. This is partly caused by the suggestion that the real negotiations cannot progress in detail until there is greater clarity about the budget the CAP has to work with. In turn this is dependent on political decision on the EU’s Multiannual Financial Framework, and no one expects progress on that until well after the French Presidential elections (second round on 6 May) and maybe not settled until spring 2013.

In the meantime bilateral discussions are taking place as the Member States develop their formal opinions on the numerous dimensions of the reform proposals. Following the 6 February meeting between French and German Ministers of agriculture, the French Minister Bruno Le Maire also held discussions with his Spanish counterpart Miguel Arias Cañete (15 February) out of which has emerged a franco-spanish statement. It differs little in content from the franco-german statement, although its tone is more strident.

Unsurprisingly both Ministers stressed the importance of sustainable, competitive and productive EU agriculture and for a commensurate CAP budget, as proposed by the Commission, to stabilise the CAP. The statement is critical of two of the three main themes of the reform proposals, the redistribution of direct payments and the greening of Pillar 1. It is a restatement of a traditional protectionist stance, and continues to emphasise the CAP’s role in the regulation of agricultural markets.

The Ministers emphasised the increased volatility in agricultural markets and hence the need for new approaches for their regulation. They stoutly defend the continuation of the sugar quotas to 2020, and the work of the high-level group on wine and the need to extend planting rights beyond 2015. On the redistribution of direct payments between Member States, there is clear nervousness. They suggest this must take account of the diversity of national economic conditions, the balance between the two CAP pillars, and must be limited in volume. They also criticise as ‘unacceptable’ the proposed starting level and pace of moving to flat-rate area-based payments from the historic reference for Pillar 1 payments. Furthermore, they are particularly critical of the proposed 30% greening and the 7% ecological focus areas, arguing that the percentages set are far too high. This element of the proposals is described as being out of touch with the challenges faced by EU agriculture.

It is becoming evident that the Commission’s proposals have few strong supporters, but it is equally clear is that neither has there emerged a strong alternative narrative for this reform. This suggests the outcome may turn out to be a watered-down version of the proposals which have smoothed away the roughest corners irritating the key protagonists.

France and Germany Unite Forces in the CAP Reform Discussions

2012-02-15T13:49:00Z

French and German Agriculture Ministers, Bruno Le Maire and Ilse Aigner, met on 6 February at the 14th Franco-German Council of Ministers to discuss the Commission’s proposals for the future CAP. The outcome is a two-page declaration highlighting those areas of the policy reform on which they hold a common view.

Increased flexibility for Member States to take decisions on how to implement the proposals for a new approach to Direct Payments under Pillar 1 is a key theme of the declaration as is the need for any decisions to take account of the current economic situation facing Europe.

In light of this, they both agree on the need to redistribute direct payments more equitably between Member States, but emphasise unsurprisingly that any redistribution must be carried out progressively so as not to upset the ‘internal balance of the EU’, thereby rejecting the calls from the new Member States for greater redistribution than the 30% closing of the gap between current payments and 90% of the EU27 average that is currently proposed by the Commission.

In terms of the move towards allocating payments on a regional average area basis within Member States, they stress the wide degree of economic diversity that exists between different types of farming within Member States and reinforce the need for Member States to be allowed to factor this in to any redistribution. They would also like to see greater flexibility applied to other Pillar 1 measures determining eligibility for payments within Areas with Natural Constraints, for young and small farmers, active farmers and the proposals for voluntary coupled support for sectors that are facing difficulties or are particularly important for economic and/or social and/or environmental reasons.

In terms of greening Pillar 1, they support the opportunity that this offers to encourage sustainability within the agricultural sector EU-wide, but express doubts on the feasibility and workability of the proposals given the current economic climate. They call for improvements to be made to the proposals to provide more detail on the greening measures, to improve the visibility and environmental importance of grassland management, to support ‘new methods’ of sustainable agriculture and to increase efforts to simplify the CAP by making conditionality more streamlined and reducing administrative red-tape and cost. In the same vein, they note that they would like to see the proposed market management instruments made simpler and better adapted for immediate reaction to crises.

Although this rhetoric reveals nothing new and is much in keeping with the views expressed by both Le Maire and Aigner in previous Council meetings, what is new is the decision from two of the most significant players in the CAP reform debate to issue a formal joint statement at this stage in the negotiations. In doing so they have made it very clear that they intend to stand for greater subsidiarity in implementing the reforms and against any major redistribution of budget allocations between Member States and hence for maintaining the status quo as far as this is feasible in relation to the bulk of payments to farmers.

The Debate at UK Level on Innovation in EU Agriculture Continues

2012-02-15T13:42:00Z

The UK government published their response on 2 February 2012 to the findings published by the UK House of Lords Select Committee inquiry into innovation in EU agriculture last July.

The UK government published their response on 2 February 2012 to the findings published by the UK House of Lords Select Committee inquiry into innovation in EU agriculture last July. A few key points to flag are:

The Government supports the Select Committee’s call to promote ‘sustainable intensification’ and ‘climate smart food systems’. It stresses the need for improved efficiency of resource use and for ‘sustainable consumption’ to address healthier diets as well as to minimise waste.
The Government supports the Select Committee’s emphasis on using the CAP to facilitate innovation in the agricultural sector, referring in particular to knowledge transfer. They also stress the need for more transparency in sharing research outcomes across sectors throughout the EU.
Lastly, the Government recognises the need to act with caution to ensure the provision of environmentally beneficial and safe agricultural production, but stresses that this must not hinder the implementation of new technologies in the sector, such as the use of genetically modified crops.

The government response was followed by a debate on the topic in the House of Lords on 6 February. Lord Carter of Coles (Labour), Chair of the Committee, urged more funds to be made available for innovation, arguing that these funds could be made available by shifting resources from direct payments to innovation. He claimed that ‘Europe is increasingly becoming the granny of the world’, further claiming that the potential consequences of no action would be disastrous for the EU agricultural sector.

There has been very little said to date on innovation in the agricultural sector during debates on the CAP reform proposals in the European Agriculture Council and Parliament, with the focus tending to be more on the greening Pillar 1 proposals and the redistribution of payments, although a number of informal debates have been held. It will be interesting to see how these discussions will take shape in the coming months under the Danish EU Presidency, who have outlined innovation and knowledge transfer and key areas to address during their Presidency.

CAP@50 – ‘A Partnership between Europe and Farmers’

2012-01-31T12:44:00Z

At an inter-institutional event on 23 January 2012 in Brussels, the Commission marked the beginning of a year long communication campaign, CAP@50, to celebrate 50 years of CAP in EU agriculture. The CAP@50 campaign aims to bring together all actors in EU agriculture, with past and current stakeholders invited to participate in this ‘partnership between Europe and farmers’. At the inauguration event, Agriculture Commissioner, Dacian Cioloş, noted in particular how the CAP has evolved since 1962 to accommodate new concerns as they have emerged, such as climate change and the sustainable use of natural resources.

At an inter-institutional event on 23 January 2012 in Brussels, the Commission marked the beginning of a year long communication campaign, CAP@50, to celebrate 50 years of CAP in EU agriculture. The CAP@50 campaign aims to bring together all actors in EU agriculture, with past and current stakeholders invited to participate in this ‘partnership between Europe and farmers’. At the inauguration event, Agriculture Commissioner, Dacian Cioloş, stressed that this campaign must ‘not only remember the past 50 years of history, but…look ahead towards a new reform of the CAP’ He noted in particular how the CAP has evolved since 1962 to accommodate new concerns as they have emerged, such as climate change and the sustainable use of natural resources.

In addition to the inter-institutional event that took place on 23 January in Brussels, there will be events in different Member States throughout the year. A second inter-institutional event is planned for early April in Benelux and an itinerant exhibition is to be launched in March in several Member States (still to be confirmed) on ‘the CAP, Past, Present and Future’.

More details about all the events can be viewed online. The campaign also invites the public to participate, providing a toolkit and a networking system on the website to help those planning events to promote them.

The Danish EU Presidency Priorities for the CAP Reform

2012-01-11T17:17:00Z

The Danish Presidency of the EU began on 1 January 2012 outlining four principal themes for the forthcoming six months: 'A responsible Europe; a dynamic Europe; a green Europe; and a safe Europe’. In terms of the CAP reform discussions, the Danish EU Presidency and the Danish Minister for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, Mette Gjerskov, have stressed the need for both a green and market-oriented CAP.

The Danish Presidency of the EU began on 1 January 2012 outlining four principal themes for the forthcoming six months: ‘A responsible Europe; a dynamic Europe; a green Europe; and a safe Europe’. The detailed programme was announced on 6 January by the Prime Minister, Helle Thorning-Schmidt, the Minister for Economics and the Interior, Margrethe Vestager, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Villy Soundal and the Minister for European Affairs, Nicolai Wammen.

In terms of the CAP reform discussions, the Danish EU Presidency and the Danish Minister for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, Mette Gjerskov, have stressed the need for both a green and market-oriented CAP. In particular, the Danish work plan outlines the importance of ‘strengthening research, development and innovation in the EU budget (Horizon 2020) as well as greater focus on knowledge transfer… to support the agricultural and food sector’. They support the Commission’s proposals for greening as a key aspect of reorienting the CAP towards the provision of public goods, stating that ‘it should be possible to use the entire CAP for targeted interventions towards environmentally friendly agricultural production for the benefit of the climate and the environment’. A second key priority concerning the reforms is to achieve a simplified CAP for 2014-2020. However, it is unclear how this will be achieved in practice, given that many Member States criticise a number of aspects of the Pillar 1 proposals, including greening and the definition of ‘active farmer’ as complicated additions to an already complex policy.

The first Agriculture Council under the Danish EU Presidency will take place on 23 January and the provisional agenda indicates that the focus will be on the proposals for the reformed Single CMO Regulation. According to the draft agenda, an orientation debate on the simplification of the CAP will take place at the second Council meeting on 23 February. Subsequent Agriculture Council meetings will focus on trying to achieve some initial agreement and conclusions on the technical elements of the proposals on direct payments, horizontal regulations and EAFRD.

Provisional Dates and Focus for the Agriculture Council under the Danish EU Presidency:

23 January 2012 - Single CMO

23 February 2012 - Simplification

19-20 March 2012 - Distribution of Direct Payments and Pillar 2 proposals

26-27 April 2012 - Pillar 1: definitions of active farmer, capping, proposals for support to small farms, young farmers and Areas of Natural Constraint

14-15 May 2012 - Pillar 1: rules underpinning direct payments

18-19 June 2012 - Pillar 2 – rules underpinning Pillar 2 payments

Informal Meeting: 3-5 June, Horsens, Denmark – no fixed agenda to date

Regarding other environmental issues and as a backdrop to these discussions on the CAP, the Danish EU Presidency will be facilitating talks on the future financing for LIFE and the preparation for RIO+20 to ensure a strong common position for the EU on sustainable development. Helle Thorning-Schmidt has also stated their aim to reach a general agreement among 27 Member States for the seventh environment action plan (EAP) by June 2012, given that the sixth EAP will expire at the end of 2012.

The role of the CAP in the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2020

2012-01-11T10:09:00Z

At the Environment Council on 19 December 2011, the EU Environment Ministers decided to omit certain details concerning the third target which outlines the role of European agriculture in meeting the EU 2020 biodiversity targets. This came following strong opposition from several Member States led by the German Environment Minister, Norbert Rӧttgen, who claimed that this drafted text was too closely linked to talks on the future CAP and might falsely pre-empt the ongoing negotiations.

The proposals for a new Biodiversity Strategy, published on 4 May 2011, outline six priority targets needed to meet the biodiversity objectives for 2020. The original text for target three, which specifically relates to agricultural and forestry land use, proposes ‘to maximise the potential of the CAP for delivering biodiversity objectives and introduce Forest Management Plans to ensure the conservation of biodiversity is provided’. Under Article 22, this target was outlined in detail as: ‘Maximising areas under agriculture across grasslands, arable land and permanent crops that are covered by biodiversity-related measures under the CAP so as to ensure the conservation of biodiversity and to bring about a measurable improvement in the conservation status of species and habitats that depend on or are affected by agriculture and in the provision of ecosystem services as compared to the EU 2010 Baseline, thus contributing to enhance sustainable management’ (see CAP2020 article: 11 May 2011). At the Environment Council meeting, Ministers agreed to delete Article 22 from the draft proposals, whilst a more generic Article 21 remains, that ‘notes the Commission proposals of 12 October 2011 for a reform of the CAP; and recognises in particular the importance of an enhanced contribution of the agricultural sector to the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 ’.

The EU Environment Commissioner, Janez Potočnik, has expressed regret that ‘all concrete indications on the required way forward to strengthen the contribution of the CAP to biodiversity objectives’ have been eliminated from the proposals. He has maintained however, that the Commission priorities to maintain permanent grasslands, introduce Ecological Focus Areas, and ensure crop diversification, as outlined in the CAP proposals which were published on 12 October 2011, would ‘continue to guide the Commission’s position in inter-institutional discussions on the reform of the CAP’.

Although the conclusions of the Environment Council note that Ministers agree on the important role of agriculture in maintaining and restoring biodiversity, it is disappointing that the EU Biodiversity Strategy no longer includes any concrete targets to support the achievement of this in practice. Representatives from environmental stakeholders (such as BirdLife Europe, Friends of the Earth Europe and WWF) in particular have strongly criticised the outcome, with BirdLife Europe stressing that that ‘biodiversity can’t be held hostage to agricultural interests’.

Reactions to the Leaked CAP Proposals

2011-12-15T11:35:00Z

The leaked CAP proposals have sparked initial reactions by a number of policy stakeholders.

The leaked CAP proposals have sparked initial reactions by a number of policy stakeholders. Those to emerge so far include:

A paper by BirdLife International, ‘Common Agricultural Policy reform: Radical re-think needed to make the CAP really deliver for the environment’, including endorsements and additional comments from International National Trusts Organisation, the Grasslands Trust, and Plantlife International.
Alan Matthews, Professor of European Agricultural Policy at Trinity College, Dublin, has produced a series of articles providing useful summaries on the different legislative texts and his take on the proposals, available on capreform.eu.
The European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism (EFNCP) has recently released their comments on the EC's proposed CAP regulations, focusing in particular on their implications for biodiversity in relation to High Nature Value farming and extensive grazing.
Twenty one European and French environmental and agricultural NGOs have signed an open letter (in French) to the Agricultural Commissioner asking that the CAP integrates environmental policy more effectively than the current display of 'greenwashing' in the leaked documents.

We will add links to further commentary here as and when they become available and welcome your remarks and reactions.

A Short Guide to the Proposals for EU Rural Development after 2013

2011-12-07T14:35:00Z

A new ‘short guide’ to EU rural development after 2013 summarising all the main policy points.

The European Commission and ENRD have published a ‘short guide’ to the European Commission's proposals for EU rural development after 2013 summarising all the main policy points. The guide can be be downloaded here.

Scottish Agricultural College Respond to EFRA Select Committee

2011-12-02T14:39:00Z

The Scottish Agricultural College have issued a response to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee at the UK Parliament which was co-ordinated by the Rural Policy Centre in November 2011. The response explores a number of issues, including the extent to which the proposal to green direct payments is likely to generate significant environmental benefits, the impact of additional greening requirements on food and production and the competitiveness of the agricultural industry and some suggestions for improving the greening proposals.

Full details are available here.

A Tentative Legislative Timeline for the Current CAP Reform

2011-11-02T17:30:00Z

The Commission published its Legal Proposals for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) after 2013 on 12 October 2011. This is the first time that decisions on CAP reform have involved the European Parliament as well as the European Council under the ordinary legislative procedure. As such there is considerable uncertainty as to how long the process of negotiation and reaching agreement will take.

The Commission published its Legal Proposals for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) after 2013 on 12 October 2011. This is the first time that decisions on CAP reform have involved the European Parliament as well as the European Council under the ordinary legislative procedure. As such there is considerable uncertainty as to how long the process of negotiation and reaching agreement will take. See Figure 1 for a tentative timeline.

Both institutions are preparing themselves for the first reading within the formal ordinary legislative procedure. The Parliament has appointed rapporteurs to steer the four key legislative proposals through the European Parliament and the ordinary legislative procedure. Those MEPs selected are Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, Socialists and Democrats (for direct payments and EAFRD), Michel Dantin, EPP (for the Single CMO Regulation), and Giovanni La Via, EPP (for financing, management and monitoring) . On the Council front, Member States were given the opportunity to voice their initial reactions to the legal proposals at the Agriculture Council meeting on 20-21 October. Before the formal first reading in the Parliament in spring 2012, Ministers will meet twice more to discuss Pillar 1 (14-15 November) and rural development (15-16 December) in more detail.

The formal ordinary legislative procedure is likely to begin in spring 2012. The length of time that this process will take is a matter of speculation as this is new territory for the CAP. Although the process often takes between 2 and 3 years, statistics from other areas of policy show that it can take as little as 2 months to reach a final agreement . Given the fact that the new CAP legislation needs to be in place by 1 January 2014 for financial support to continue to be made available to farmers, foresters and rural communities, stakeholders are hoping that the Council and Parliament will cooperate and seek agreement as soon as possible in 2012. Failure to come to an agreement at this stage would delay subsequent processes and potentially put into question the feasibility of making the new CAP operational by 1 January 2014. Nonetheless the timetable is ambitious, given that Members of the European Parliament are keen to play a full role in the discussions, as Albert Dess has made clear, stating that ‘the European Parliament would make full use of its co-decision prerogatives’. The Agriculture Committee Chair, Paulo de Castro, also noted, however, the need for a ‘cooperative approach’ which was echoed by other MEPs, such as Mr Capoulas Santos who stressed there should be ‘flexibility’ between the Council and the Parliament.

Assuming that the Council and Parliament are able to reach an agreement in summer 2012, other factors external to the legislative CAP process could hinder final agreement. In particular, it is unlikely that any final agreement will be ratified before agreement is reached on the multi-annual financial framework for 2014-2020. Any delay in final agreement on the EU’s budget (expected to be agreed December 2013) will be likely to lead to a delay in the legislative CAP reform process as the budget plays a decisive role on the design of the CAP beyond 2013.

On adoption of the new CAP legislative framework in a set of regulations, tentatively projected to be spring 2013, the Commission will need to finalise and publish the relevant delegated acts and implementing regulations. It also has three months from this date to publish the Common Strategic Framework, to which the implementation of the rural development regulation will need to adhere, along with other elements of the budget.

Even this somewhat optimistic timeline does not leave Member States with much time to finalise the development of their Partnership Contracts and Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) for 2014-2020 (including the necessary ex-ante evaluation) and get them approved by the Commission in time for January 2014, particularly as the Commission is permitted to take up to six months to approve Rural Development Programmes. Any delays in submission of RDPs to the Commission, therefore, have a knock on impact on the date of their approval, leading to delays with programme implementation on the ground, as has happened often in the past.

Of course, it is not just the RDPs that will take time to develop in the early part of 2013. In addition, the significant changes in Pillar 1 that are proposed mean that Member States will need time to work out the practicalities for implementing the new requirements, which for most countries will not be an insignificant amount of effort. Many countries will be changing the basis of their single farm payment away from the historic record model, as they will be required to do. This is a considerable administrative challenge, with a sensitive political dimension in relation to the redistribution of payments.

Even with a fair wind, it is clear that there are some considerable challenges in terms of the timescales for negotiating and agreeing the CAP proposals at the EU level and subsequently making sure they are ready to be implemented in Member States by 1 January 2014. Good collaboration and communication will be needed between all those involved and the willingness to look for solutions that do not simply result in a weakening of the proposals and agreement based on the lowest common denominator.

The CAP Proposals: Green in more than name?

2011-10-12T16:43:00Z

Today’s proposals from the Commission on the future CAP could have represented a major step towards improved environmental management across the EU, but in practice they leave major doubts over how much really will be delivered. Bold ambitions to green the CAP have become diluted by a focus on increasing the legitimacy of direct payments to farmers - at the expense of measures capable of maximising the delivery of environmental public goods. One of the reasons for this is that the new green payments under Pillar 1 have to be applicable in all parts of the EU and paid annually. This creates real challenges for sustaining substantive environmental improvements over time.

Bold ambitions to green the CAP have become diluted by a focus on increasing the legitimacy of direct payments to farmers - at the expense of measures capable of maximising the delivery of environmental public goods. One of the reasons for this is that the new green payments under Pillar 1 have to be applicable in all parts of the EU and paid annually. This creates real challenges for sustaining substantive environmental improvements over time.

Nonetheless making some forms of environmental management virtually compulsory in most farming systems should lead to some improvements in soil, air and water quality as well as biodiversity, particularly in more intensively farmed regions where uptake of agri-environment schemes remains low. In theory, this could also free up funding for more ambitious agri-environment measures under Pillar 2. Of course, the precise impact of the Pillar 1 proposals will vary considerably within Europe. It will depend partly on the rules about what is required in practice, particularly for the types of management that will make up the seven per cent of land under Ecological Focus Areas, the most striking element of the package.

Climate change is signalled as an important issue for the CAP for the first time in these proposals, which is to be welcomed. Some measures should assist towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Examples are the new cross compliance (Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition) standards on maintaining soil organic matter and protecting wetlands and carbon rich soils and the earmarking of funds in Pillar 2. Perversely, however, the new rules to maintain permanent grassland do not provide protection until 2014, which could lead to significant losses in the interim.

Rural development policy remains the key element of the CAP for delivering public goods. Restructured around a series of six priorities, the majority of current measures have been grouped together in an attempt to make it more streamlined and flexible to implement. It is welcome to see the proposals to earmark 25 per cent of rural development funds for ‘issues related to land management and the fight against climate change’. However, the proposed rural development budget will suffer a decline in real terms for 2014-2020. This could be countered in those countries which take advantage of the option to move 10 per cent of Pillar 1 funds to Pillar 2. Conversely, and particularly disappointing, is the ability for a selection of Member States to be able to transfer funding from Pillar 2 to top up their Pillar 1 funding. This goes counter to political commitments made in June at the time of the Budget announcement to maintain a strong Pillar 2.

On a positive note, there is clear progress on several fronts, in particular the increased emphasis on advice and training in Pillar 1 and Pillar 2, collaborative action to promote environmentally beneficial management at the landscape scale and the extension of monitoring and evaluation requirements from Pillar 2 to cover all elements of CAP support. In addition, the introduction of the new European Innovation Partnership initiative for agricultural productivity and sustainability could prove to be an important catalyst for the development of solutions that promote increased food production but in a way that is compatible with the delivery of the full range of ecosystem services.

The legislative proposals and impact assessment can be found here.

CAP Reform post-2013: An Opportunity to Support High Nature Value Farming Systems in Scotland?

2011-10-11T16:31:00Z

This Scottish Agricultural College Rural Policy Centre Briefing briefing discusses recent work to assess HNV farming systems in Scotland and to explore the use of different payment mechanisms to direct more funding to HNV farming systems in future.

This SAC Rural Policy Centre Briefing briefing discusses recent work to assess HNV farming systems in Scotland and to explore the use of different payment mechanisms to direct more funding to HNV farming systems in future. Approximately 40% of Scotland's Utilised Agricultural Area (2,284,000 ha) was estimated to be under High Nature Value (HNV) farming systems in 2009. This proportion has been in decline in recent years, probably due to the retreat of farming from Scotland's hills. No specific mention of HNV farming systems was made in the European Commission's recent proposals for the CAP after 2013 (October 2011) but the proposals do provide potential opportunities for some additional funding to be directed to HNV farming systems. However, if HNV systems are not highlighted as a priority by the Commission, what will encourage Member States to do this? Full details available here.

Radical Re-think Needed to Make the CAP Really Deliver for the Environment

2011-09-05T17:06:00Z

Debate on the forthcoming draft CAP proposals from the Commission has warmed up rapidly with the end of the summer break. Views on how various leaked proposals would impact on farming and the environment are being put forward with some urgency. The potential environmental benefits to be had from the proposal to allocate 30 per cent of the future Pillar 1 direct payments to support ‘green’ practices has been recognised. However, the degree to which it could deliver successfully for the environment depends on a variety of issues that have been highlighted in a new paper drawn up by BirdLife International. This has been produced to coincide with the Commission’s Inter-Service Consultation on Commissioner Ciolos’ CAP reform proposals, expected to occur in early September.

Debate on the forthcoming draft CAP proposals from the Commission has warmed up rapidly with the end of the summer break. Views on how various leaked proposals would impact on farming and the environment are being put forward with some urgency. The potential environmental benefits to be had from the proposal to allocate 30 per cent of the future Pillar 1 direct payments to support ‘green’ practices has been recognised. However, the degree to which it could deliver successfully for the environment depends on a variety of issues that have been highlighted in a new paper drawn up by BirdLife International. This has been produced to coincide with the Commission’s Inter-Service Consultation on Commissioner Cioloş’ CAP reform proposals, expected to occur in early September.

The paper, ‘Common Agricultural Policy reform: Radical re-think needed to make the CAP really deliver for the environment’, is a punchy analysis of the of the proposals’ chances of delivering a genuine greening of the CAP. It applies a series of 12 ‘test’ scenarios to current proposals and assesses to what degree such reforms are capable of meeting environmental demands. BirdLife has circulated the document to all EU Commissioners, including Mr Cioloş, and to key decision makers. They would welcome responses from other stakeholders and commentators so please do email with your contributions to this important debate.

Young Food Producers in the EU

2011-09-04T09:18:00Z

The Slow Food International Headquarters in Bra, Italy, are conducting a research project that looks at the issues facing young food producers in European countries.

The Slow Food International Headquarters in Bra, Italy, are conducting a research project that looks at the issues facing young food producers in European countries. This timely research will be used to inform CAP reform proposals. Producers under the age of 35 are being asked to respond to an on-line questionnaire. If you are eligible and interested in participating in this research project, please email Burcu Gezeroglu.

b.gezeroglu@slowfood.it

Greening the CAP: impacts on farmland biodiversity on an EU scale

2011-08-19T09:12:00Z

PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, in collaboration with Wageningen University & Research centre, released a report which shows regional impacts of greening the CAP in line with ‘Option 2’ of the EC proposal of November 2011. A new tool for calculation of species richness in farming areas has been used, showing substantial biodiversity gains; however with large variations between regions. This suggests more regional differentiation is needed, also for greening of Pillar 1.

‘Greening’ the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), as proposed by the EC, will substantially slow down the decline in farmland biodiversity, most notably in intensive farming areas. Extensively farmed areas are better served by policies preserving their rich biodiversity. Regional variation in policies tailored to reflect local conditions could, therefore, result in a better outcome. These are the main conclusions drawn by PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, in collaboration with Wageningen University & Research centre, in their report Greening the Common Agricultural Policy: impacts on farmland biodiversity on an EU scale, as released today.

In ‘The CAP towards 2020’ (November, 2010) and the ‘EU biodiversity strategy to 2020’ (May, 2011) the European Commission has proposed a generic greening of the EU farm income support. To predict the impacts of these proposals, PBL researchers have used model calculations which assumed extra budget for agri-environmental measures and greening payments for permanent grassland and ecological set-aside of an assumed 5% of the arable land. The results show 3% more farmland species richness in 2020, compared with a baseline scenario. Impacts would be most pronounced in areas of intensive farming, which are presently poor in biodiversity. This 3% is substantial, compared with predicted decline of, for example, the farmland bird index over the 2014-2020 period. However, it will not fully halt the loss of farmland biodiversity.

As a trade-off, biodiversity gains would involve a loss in agricultural production, ranging from 2% for grass to 4% for cereal production. This can decrease EU self-sufficiency for food supply. Policy design could alleviate this trade-off by allowing farmers to use the least-producing fields and field edges for greening measures. Effectiveness for biodiversity could be improved by stimulating farmers to design ecological set-aside areas in such a way that a regional ‘green infrastructure’ would be created, facilitating the spread of source populations in farmed areas.

The average farm income for the EU as a whole would not suffer from yield losses, as these losses are more than counteracted by producer price increases. However, there are considerable income shifts from intensively to extensively farmed regions. In the current CAP, income support is linked to historical production, which favours intensively farmed regions, whereas greening the CAP will link payments more with extensive farming practices. The variety in farm structures, income, farming intensity and species richness, as well as the divergent impacts of policy changes between EU regions, suggest that regionally differentiated policies may be more efficient than a one-size-fits-all approach.

Seeds of Success: How Agri-environment can Yield Results for Nature and Farming

2011-08-17T09:56:00Z

RSPB and BirdLife International have collected examples from across Europe to show how agri-environment schemes are successfully delivering biodiversity and environmental objectives. The purpose of this paper is to celebrate environmental successes under the Common Agricultural Policy and demonstrate how competitive food production can be supported alongside environmental targets.

This paper can be accessed here.

UK House of Lords Inquiry into Innovation in EU Agriculture

2011-08-04T08:22:00Z

The UK House of Lords select committee inquiry into Innovation in EU Agriculture was published on 7 July 2011. The aim of the inquiry was to establish how innovation in EU agriculture can be encouraged in relation to the EU’s new Strategy for Growth and Jobs, Europe 2020, and in the context of new challenges such as climate change, water scarcity and the need to encourage increased production and competitiveness in a sustainable way.

“…the European Governments must see as the prime focus of agricultural policy the need to raise productivity, while supporting environmental sustainability. Innovation must be at the heart of this effort.”

Building on the findings of an earlier inquiry into Adapting to climate change: EU agriculture and forestry that highlighted innovation as a key step in meeting these challenges, the current inquiry draws on both written and oral evidence collated from 55 different institutions and individuals across the EU including the European Commission (EU Agriculture Commissioner Dacian Ciolo?), MEPs (COMAGRI Chair Paolo De Castro), NGOs, industry representatives and individuals. Responses were not limited to UK and EU institutions and included evidence received from the US Department of Agriculture.

The report provides a series of recommendations and conclusions that range from the need for a more strategic approach to food production, an increased focus on research and knowledge transfer, to revisions to EU policy and regulation .Of particular interest in relation to the on-going debate on the future Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the report calls for a number of developments. Under the heading of EU policy and regulation the report calls for:

Payments under Pillar 1 to be made in return for the delivery of public goods but in a way that does not lead to further bureaucratic complexity. This needs to include better knowledge transfer systems and more advice to farmers.
Support for innovation-related projects to be central to support provided under Pillar 2 with flexibility in approach to encourage innovation in relation to all forms of agricultural material, whether food or not, and a higher rate of co-financing to support innovation. The report suggests that ‘such an increase in financing can be supported, at least in part, by reducing the level of direct payments under Pillar 1’.
Better policy coherence between Directorate Generals within the Commission
Continued adherence to the precautionary principle to underpin food safety and security.
A streamlining of the EU decision-making procedures on appropriate technologies for productivity, sustainability, and competitiveness.
The promotion of high animal welfare standards that are mutually supporting to business efficiency.

The context to these recommendations and conclusions and the challenges facing EU agriculture are clearly set out in the report. These include the need to feed an increasing global population (in which improving the productivity of EU agriculture is an important factor), climate change and other environmental pressures as well as the rising demand for public goods from agricultural ecosystems, such as carbon sequestration and the protection of biodiversity. The report concludes that the key challenge is how to achieve ‘sustainable intensification’, a phrase coined from earlier reports for example the Royal Society report, Reaping the benefits, which defines ‘sustainable intensification’ broadly as the production of more food that does not rely on non-renewable inputs or additional land, can consistently deliver desired outputs, and does not cause adverse and irreversible environmental impacts which threaten critical ecological functions.

Although the challenges and the role of innovation are made clear, the report does not go so far as to suggest what should be the focus of such innovation. Instead highlighting wider underlying principles of agricultural research and innovation, including the need for collaboration between Member States, a strategic and flexible approach in order to meet wider challenges, and that this be complemented with suitable knowledge transfer systems, from increasing education at the school level through to farm advice.

In terms of finance the report highlights the discrepancy between the agricultural research funding at the EU level which is less than one per cent of the overall agriculture policy budget, and calls for an increase in financing for research by reducing the proportion devoted to supporting the CAP.

Support for innovation related projects must be central to Pillar 2 and a balance must be ensured between purely agri-environmental projects and funding to support innovation (whilst accepting that the two are often compatible). However, despite the CAP being recognised as needing to play its part in achieving the objectives set out in the Europe 2020 strategy, the report is clear that the current CAP debate is not the main focus of the inquiry.

Support is given in the report to the Commission’s proposal that a higher rate of co-financing could be made available to support innovation-related projects under Pillar 2 with the report going on to suggest that such an increase in financing could be supported by reducing payments made under Pillar 1 and increasing the modulation of funds towards Pillar 2.

Redesigning the CAP to Deliver Public Goods

2011-08-01T12:55:00Z

It is widely recognised that agriculture has an important role in the provision of a wide range of public goods in Europe and this forms a core element of the Commission’s current proposals for the future of the CAP post 2013, supported by Commissioners Ciolos (agriculture), Potocnik (environment) and Hedegaard (climate). However, there is still considerable lack of clarity on whether the proposals in their current form will deliver real improvements in practice, particularly for the environment. At the request of the Policy Unit of the European Parliament, this report considers some of the options for redesigning the CAP to deliver improved public goods outcomes, considering the pros and cons of different options financially, politically and in terms of their potential impacts.

It is widely recognised that agriculture has an important role in the provision of a wide range of public goods in Europe and this forms a core element of the Commission’s current proposals for the future of the CAP post 2013, supported by Commissioners Ciolos (agriculture), Potocnik (environment) and Hedegaard (climate). However, there is still considerable lack of clarity on whether the proposals in their current form will deliver real improvements in practice, particularly for the environment. At the request of the Policy Unit of the European Parliament, this report, 'What tools for the European agricultural policy to encourage the provision of public goods?' considers some of the options for redesigning the CAP to deliver improved public goods outcomes, considering the pros and cons of different options financially, politically and in terms of their potential impacts.

Greening the CAP

2011-07-29T15:31:00Z

As a contribution to the debate on the design of the future CAP, IEEP has produced a paper that sets out a series of conditions that the European Commission’s proposals for ‘greening’ Pillar 1 need to meet if a substantive ‘greening’ is to be achieved in practice in order to deliver their objective of improving environmental outcomes across most of the EU farmed landscape.

The paper argues that if these conditions are not met, the Commission’s claim that the delivery of environmental public goods is to become an increasingly central purpose of CAP support will be brought into question and that ultimately this could undermine the overall legitimacy of the CAP. It concludes that, with the CAP budget set to decline in real terms to 2020, if a strong ‘green’ component was not achieved within Pillar 1 and there were to be no additional funds for environmental delivery within Pillar 2 this would represent a serious backwards step in the progress that has been achieved in making European agriculture more environmentally sustainable over the past 20 years.

The paper can be downloaded here: Greening the CAP: Delivering environmental outcomes through PIllar 1.

‘Green Growth’ Through Environmentally Sustainable Rural Development

2011-07-20T09:02:00Z

A new publication from the European Network for Rural Development (ENRD) presents a sample of interesting projects promoting ‘Green Growth’ through environmentally sustainable rural development actions in Europe’s countryside. All of the featured projects have received co-finance from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and the Green Growth brochure is part of a series of publications that highlight how the EAFRD is being used in Member States. Find out more on the ENRD website.

Developing a Territorial Approach for the CAP

2011-07-19T08:09:00Z

A timely discussion paper explaining how a territorial approach can be developed within rural development policy and other aspects of the CAP.

Promoting territorial cohesion is one of the objectives of EU policy under the Lisbon Treaty (Article 174). What does this mean in practice? This timely paper, by Francesco Mantino of INEA, a leading European expert on rural development, explores the concept and how it might be applied in practice. He argues that the wide range of socio-economic and environmental challenges that exist in rural areas could be addressed better in a more territorially focused CAP, particularly but not exclusively in “Pillar 2”, covering rural development policy and other aspects of the CAP.

Providing a number of examples from Italy and elsewhere, this paper demonstrates the relevance of a more territorially based approach in the CAP to the current reform discussions.

The full paper can be downloaded here.