Biodiversity and the CAP

Transcription

1 Biodiversity and the CAP From subsidising extinction to funding conservation? Ariel Brunner BirdLife International

2 Why is agriculture important? Farmland covers 45 per cent (180 million hectares) of the EU-25 Farmers are the main land planners and managers! It is estimated that 50 per cent of all species in Europe depend on agricultural habitats Most open habitats currently depend on human activities, natural disturbance factors are often lost forever

3 Farmland biodiversity is collapsing EU common farmland birds (unofficial 2007 data) Old EU (33) New EU (23) % EBCC/RSPB/BirdLife/Statistics Netherlands

4 Farmland birds are the most threatened group of birds in Europe Yellowhammer population fell by 40% between 1980 and 2002 in EU15 EU population of Corn buntings fell by 60% between 1980 and 2002 Little bustard in France: from ~ males in 1976 to ~1.600 in 2004 (84% decline in 18 years) Tree sparrows in the UK declined by 95% in between 1970 and 1998

5 Agriculture intensification

6 Abandonement

7 Farmland biodiversity Intensity of agriculture

8 Looking into the box: what kind of intensification? Area where intensification has already happened (old MS) vs. still extensive areas (NMS)- need to reverse vs. need to maintain Creeping intensification (more fertilizer, bigger fields, more frequent mowing, more drainage, more pesticides, crop simplification) Conversion (grassland to arable, dryland to irrigation, fields to greenhouses, open landscape to perennials) Segregation- regional specialisation brings landscape level intensification without field level one. Consequences: different tools leave different gaps (ex- maintain grassland but lose its value; promote organic or extensification but still have conversion).

9 Looking into the box: abandonment of what? Real abandonment- from valuable habitats to scrub and forest Extensification- sometimes has positive impacts Land use change- loss of habitat Intensification (!)-modern farming replacing traditional one Consequence: preventing abandonment (in social terms) can have many unintended consequences for biodiversity!

10 The CAP: the main driver behind changes in agriculture in the EU The biggest system of farm subsidies in the world Original CAP was based on tariff barriers and guaranteed prices; this lead to overproduction and successive reforms have lowered prices, compensating farmers through direct payments (per ha of crop) The result is that CAP funds mostly go to the most intensive farmers (often the most environmentally harmful!) Reforms in 1992 and 2000 have created a Second Pillar of the CAP: the rural development policy that includes Agri-environment schemes

11 The 2003 reform: an important step forward- Decoupling & Cross compliance Decoupling- direct payments no longer tied to production (but partial and not in all sectors Cross compliance- farmers have to respect certain rules in order to receive subsidies Modulation- shifting money (5%) from pillar I to Pillar II (Rural development)

12 The CAP can make a big difference, both ways Life + (biodiversity); 0,08 Life + (other); 0,12 Rural development; 12,40 Other; 16,30 Structural funds; 54,90 EU budget in b /y ( ) Pillar 1; 42,70

13 Of course the environment is being sacrificed for a good cause 80% of the money goes to 20% of farmers Most of the money ends up with landowners or supplier industries (fertilizer, seed, pesticides)

14 The CAP also damages developing countries EU subsidies cause dumping of products on developing countries market, destroying their local farm sectors and driving poor farmers into worse poverty. A few caricaturised examples (source OXFAM): Each head of cattle in Europe gets a subsidy from the taxpayer worth $2.20 a day when half the world's population (3 billion people) scrapes by on an income of less than that Pre-reform sugar regime: The losses for Mozambique in equivalent to total government spending on agriculture and rural development. Ethiopia s losses where equivalent to total national spending on programmes to combat HIV/AIDS. Malawi s losses exceed the national budget for primary health care. The EU s wheat export prices are 34 per cent below costs of production; The export price of EU skimmed-milk powder is around one-half of the costs of production.

15 The CAP in Italy courtesy of Farmsubsidy.org Top beneficiaries in Veneto (EUR) Italy: Snapshot Statistics (2005) Rank* ASSOCIAZIONE VENETA TABACCHICOLTORI AGRICOLA LUIGI DI ANDRETTA LUIGI E C. S.S AZ. AGR. TESSARIN ADELIO & C. S.S Total CAP spending in EU: 48.5 billion ( 106 per citizen) AZIENDA AGRICOLA GUZZO MARIO MAURIZIO E C. S.S AZ. AGRICOLA MEA S.S RI.BA. S.R.L RI. BA. S.R.L VINICOLA TOMBACCO S.R.L AZ. AGR. AGRIMEDICA S.S. DI CESTARI ANTONIO E C AGRIALLEVA DI ANDRETTA CASIMIRO ROMANO E C. S.S AGRICOLTURA VENETA S.R.L AGRICOLA LE ROSE DI ANDRETTA POMPEO & C. - S.S AGRIPOLESANA S.S CANTINA SOCIALE COOPERATIVA DI SOAVE CANTINA SOCIALE COOPERATIVA DI SOAVE SOCIETA' AGRICOLA COOPERATIVA Italy national budget contribution to CAP: million ( 118 per 3rd (11th) citizen) Total CAP spending in Italy: million ( 95 per citizen) 4th (11th) Net budgetary gain or loss: million (- 22 per citizen) 24th (18th) Total CAP payments to farmers: million 4th Total CAP payments to others: 182 million 9th Average farm payment: th Average farm payment per hectare of farmland: 406 5th AZ. AGR. VISENTINI DI MARIO VISENTINI E C. SS OP APO VENETO FRIULANA SOC. AGR. COOP AGRICOLA CIMA SERA S.S. DI BERTOLLO GIANNI & C SAN GABRIELE S.P.A CONSORZIO DI BONIFICA POLESINE ADIGE CANALBIANCO Average farm payment per farm worker: Proportion of farm payments going to the top ten per cent of recipients: th 69% 6th

16 The current system Dark green Light green Agri - environment (Pillar II) Respect legislation & keep land in Good agronomic and environmental conditions Cross compliance (PillarI)

17 Basic environmental conditions for all farmers receiving the decoupled payments

18 Environmenatal cross compliance: Statutory management requirements BIRDS DIRECTIVE- Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, Articles 3, 4(1), (2), (4), 5, 7 and 8 HABITAT DIRECTIVE - Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna, Articles 6, 13, 15, and Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances, Articles 4 and 5 Council Directive 86/278/EEC of 12 June 1986 on the protection of the environment, and in particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture, Article 3 Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, Articles 4 and 5

19 Issue Environmenatal cross compliance: Good agricultural and environmental condition Standard Soil erosion: Protect soil through appropriate measures Soil organic matter: Maintain soil organic matter levels through appropriate practices Soil structure: Maintain soil structure through appropriate measures Minimum level of maintenance: Ensure a minimum level of maintenance and avoid the deterioration of habitats Minimum soil cover Minimum land management reflecting site-specific conditions Retain terraces Standards for crop rotations where applicable Arable stubble management Appropriate machinery use Minimum livestock stocking rates or/and appropriate regimes Protection of permanent pasture Retention of landscape features Avoiding the encroachment of unwanted vegetation on agricultural land

20 The current system Rural development Dark green Light green Agri - environment (Pillar II) Respect legislation & keep land in Good agronomic and environmental conditions Cross compliance (PillarI)

21 RD in the next programming period ( ) Rural development Axis I Competitiveness Axis II Environment and land management Axis III Diversification and quality of life

22 Axis II Objectives: Biodiversity and Natura 2000 Water framework directive Climate change Measures: AGRIENVIRONMENT Forest-environment N2K payments Non productive investments etc

23 Basic agri-environment measures

24 Advanced management

25 Specialist management / habitat recreation

26 Agri-environment schemes can deliver for conservation: Ciril bunting in the UK 500 No. breeding pairs

27 Great Bustard in Portugal Zonal agri-environment scheme implemented on the ha Castro Verde SPA National population increase from 760 to over 1400 since 1996 Meanwhile, 8 local populations went extinct and most others declined National population concentrated in Castro Verde from 50 to 80%

28 A green CAP finally?

29 Very little funding goes toward sustainability Very little funding targeted at biodiversity conservation Very little money reaches HNV farmers Most funds concentrate on the most intensive farming systems Most spending has no clear policy objectives B 300,0 250,0 200,0 150,0 CAP funds distribution ( ) An example: in the French department of la Vienne 8m /an go to support irrigation (90% to corn). The LIFE project trying to save the Little bustard population in the same area has for 5 years; Agri-environment schemes targeting the species have an overall budget of 1.6m 100,0 50,0 0,0 Pillar I Pillar II

30 Cross compliance- a shaky baseline? Implementation depends on Member States, and is extremely variable Derogations and loopholes Grasslands protected in quantity but not quality Only covers farmers receiving direct payments

31 Rural development: not necessarily green Axis I is often used to finance irrigation, drainage, intensification Axis II includes aforestation measuresusually highly destructive Even agri environment can be ineffective... Or fake!

32 Set aside: an unintended boon for biodiversity

33 Labels Organic farming Based on an EU Regulation (homogeneus standards) Proven benefits for biodiversity But benefits are indirect and in some case can be marginal or even negative impact Protected origin denominations Other labels (commercial, local authorities, protected areas NGOs) Do not include environmental rules Can have indirect positive impacts Huge variety: some good, some bad No EU legal basis Vitally dependant on certifying body and contact with consumers

34 Outside agriculture policy National protected areas and legislation Natura 2000 Birds and Habitats Directives National land management policies Rural tourism and nature tourism

35 Agriculture policy make a difference on the ground and it can be seen from space! Production subsidies

36 Agriculture policy make a difference on the ground and it can be seen from space! Production subsidies Production subsidies + Irrigation funding

37 Agriculture policy make a difference on the ground and it can be seen from space! Production subsidies Bad Rural development Production subsidies + Irrigation funding

38 Agriculture policy make a difference on the ground and it can be seen from space! Production subsidies Free market (with subsidised water!) Bad Rural development Production subsidies + Irrigation funding

39 Thank you for your attention!