Recent findings on greening of the Common Agricultural Policy

Transcription

1 Recent findings on greening of the Common Agricultural Policy Presentation by BirdLife Europe and the European Environmental Bureau CGBN meeting, 17 March 2016

2 Outline of presentation What is the state of biodiversity in arable land across Europe? The state of greening implementation by Member States The delivery of Pillar 2 for the environment and links between both pillars Conclusions

3 State of biodiversity Institut für Agrarökologie und Biodiversität (IFAB) Nature value of different agricultural landscapes

4 State of biodiversity

5 State of biodiversity Methodology: Pan European method- 39 regions ranging from 500 to 1000 km2 in size 22 surveyors investigating about 800 plots

6 State of biodiversity 95% of all landscapes low level biodiversity Only 0.9 key species found in all arable regions. Severe lack of plant diversity in nearly all arable fields Pollination potential of arable fields is extremely low A number of bad land-use practices and examples which should not occur any more (e.g. spraying in ditches and hedges, soil erosion, etc.) was found

7 Greening implementation Dire state of biodiversity Science Magazine EU agricultural reform fails for biodiversity Unless MS make the right choices!

8 Greening implementation Institute for European Environmental Policy 9 MS

9 Greening implementation

10 Greening implementation Scope and method -Three greening measures -Impacts on Pillar 2 and cross compliance (to a less detailed extend) -Questionnaires to MS experts

11 Greening implementation Outcomes? The options NOT USED for an increase in environmental ambition. Offer farmers maximum flexibility of the options they can use to meet their greening obligations. Crop production systematically allowed and the use of chemical inputs on EFA land is permitted (e.g. permitting N fertiliser and pesticide spraying on N-fixing crops and catch crops, permitting production on strips along forest edges etc.) Only UK Wales designated ESPG outside of N2000 Budget for agri-environment and climate measure has decreased significantly in a number of Member States....

12 Rural Development Many facts being produced but feedback from the ground is different => what is behind biodiversity numbers? Member States in the study EU Finland Spain (Andalucia) Romania Austria Ireland Slovakia France (Rhône-Alpes, PACA) Estonia Latvia slovenia UK (England) Spain (CYL) IT (E.R., Trento, Lombardy, Veneto, F.V.G., Piedmont) Expert analysis by EEB and BL partners Based on first final version of the RDPs Yellow: only short factsheet, blue: short factsheet and longer analysis, grey: only longer analysis

13 Main conclusions of analysis: EU RD budget for ecosystems: 1/3 of EU budget for ecosystems = ANC measures without environmental conditions attached + MS without ANC: EE, UK - MS with ANC payments > 50% of priority 4: SK, FR-PACA, FR-Rhone Alpes, FI -Perverse envi effects: PL, LV, SL, FI

14 Main conclusions of analysis (2): Past vs Present: EU AEM - recital 22: Minus 1 billion EUROS for AEM in the EU! 73% (14/19) of countries & regions have decreased spending for envi measures IE, FI, England and Veneto have increased spending for targeted (dark green) measures CyL (ES): from 85% dark green measures in to 35% in Natura 2000: From the countries analysed: 0% had adequately considered N2K needs

15 Quality versus Quantity Official sources: 17% of EU UAA will be under biodiversity contracts target 3 of the EU biodiversity strategy: [ ] maximise areas [ ] that are covered by BD-related measures [ ] and to bring about a measurable improvement in the conservation status of species and habitats that depend on or are affected by agriculture Measurable improvement = targeted schemes In 79% of the cases, the quality of the measures was overstated. How much of the 17% will be under genuine contracts for biodiversity? % UAA in BD CNT - EC % UAA in BD CNT BL/EEB , IT - ER IT - TR RO IE AU EE SI LV FI SK FR- PACA FR- RA UK- EN ES- And ES- CYL IT- Ven IT- LO IT - FVG IT - P , n/a 3.2 n/a ,

16 Member States need to: 1. Put only ecological elements in EFAs 2. The rule is no longer the exception 3. A firm baseline for P2 no more money for nothing 4. The CAP to be better designed for BD 5. Genuine system for tracking ENVI spending (no more ANC in ENVI objective) 6. Proper monitoring of RD schemes delivery NABU

17 Conclusion Greening seems to become a real greenwash exercise flexibility is used for the bad of the environment Awaiting full greening analysis of COM but first signs are negative (see German analysis) RDPs do still have positive examples BUT full potential is still not fully realized CAP reform will not make us reach Target 3 of biodiversity strategy MS need to make adjustments to get real improvements Analysis of CAP and ENVI delivery is urgent Is the title of the Science article becoming reality?

18 Thank you for your attention Sources: EU agricultural reform fails on biodiversity Pe er et al., June 2014, Science magazine EEB and BirdLife factsheets: The truth behind the new CAP in: the EU, FRANCE, SPAIN, ITALY, LATVIA, GERMANY,LITHUANIA, UK, ROMANIA (2013) IEEP analysis on the state of implementation of the CAP in 9 different Member States LISA study done by IFAB (Institute for biodiversity and agriculture) Analysis on farmers greening choices in Germany by Sebastian Lakner blog article 1 and blog article 2 EEB and BirdLife analysis of 19 rural development programmes and their delivery for biodiversity Or contact: Faustine.Bas-Defossez@eeb.org or Trees.Robijns@birdlife.org