Agricultural Reform and Public Goods

Transcription

1 Agricultural Reform and Public Goods Proposals on the draft of the EU Commission February

2 Agricultural Reform and Public Goods From a nature and landscape perspective, the debate about the reform of agricultural policy centres on two issues: 1. Do we need ecological priority areas under Pillar I? 2. Would it be preferable for the ecosystem services provided by agriculture to be covered under Pillar II? 1. Ecological priority areas (EPAs) under Pillar I The mandatory requirement for farmers to designate a percentage of their land as an ecological priority area is the result of growing pressure on the environment caused by rising demand for energy feedstocks and other raw materials produced by the farm sector. A study carried out in Great Britain found that the farmland bird population has decreased by 50 % in the last 10 years. In Germany, sightings of once common avian species such as the lark, peewit and yellowhammer are now a rare occurrence. Besides the conservation of species diversity, an important issue is the contribution made by agriculture to the protection of groundwater resources and fertile topsoil. Farming must also help to protect the climate through targeted carbon storage in soils and energy-saving production techniques. In response to the four new European challenges biodiversity, water, soil and climate change the European Commission has proposed the establishment of an extensive network of ecological priority areas in order to stabilize water quality, reduce erosion and ensure minimum provision of wildlife havens. On ethical grounds alone, we have a responsibility to safeguard the survival of our fellow creatures in our industrialized world. Besides that, however, there are sound reasons, in terms of a sustainable economy, for seeking to safeguard a rich gene pool and healthy natural resource base for the long term. The dispute over the ecological priority areas has been blown up out of all proportion. A study in Germany showed that a substantial proportion of the ecological priority areas demanded by the Commission already exist (an average of 6.6 % nationwide!) Furthermore, according to the Commission s proposal, it is a matter for the individual farmer to decide where to designate the ecological priority areas at farm level. Every farm has shady forest margins, strips along watercourses, ridges, inconveniently shaped plots or gullies which can be utilized for ecological purposes with no loss of overall productivity. Relevant findings of the German study are summarized below: 1. Existing landscape features National average 4.3 % Regional variations between 2.5 % 6.8 % 2

3 2. High nature value farmland in conservation programmes National average 1.5 % Regional variations between % 3. Land left fallow National average 0.8 % Regional variations between % Above-mentioned areas: total (Eligible for classification as ecological priority areas for greening purposes) National average 6.6 % Regional variations between % (Source: PAN GmbH 2011, Research Project: UFOPLAN FKZ ) Some agricultural policy experts have proposed substituting the farm-level obligation to establish ecological priority areas with quasi-official network planning. However, this would remove farmers freedom to decide for themselves where to site the EPAs and change the designation at a later stage if necessary to facilitate farming operations. 2. Would it be preferable for agri-environmental measures to be covered under Pillar II? All Pillar II measures have to be cofinanced from national funds and are voluntary. For that reason, these measures tend to be kept to a minimum in many regions of the EU. Here too, the findings of a relevant German study are shown below. 3

4 In 2009 and 2010, agri-environmental schemes (on arable land and grassland) with a focus on nature conservation/biodiversity were carried out in the German federal states as follows (with area averages): Baden-Württemberg Bavaria Brandenburg and Berlin Hamburg Hesse Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania Lower Saxony and Bremen North Rhine-Westphalia Rhineland-Palatinate Saarland Saxony Saxony-Anhalt Schleswig-Holstein Thuringia Total ha ha ha 1500 ha ha ha ha ha ha 1000 ha ha ha ha ha ha = 3.8 % of a total of 16.7 million ha of farmland (Source: EAFRD Progress Report 2009 and 2010 for the German Länder, Nature and Biodiversity Measures in the EAFRD, Code 214) Assessment: These figures show that Pillar II schemes make a very small contribution to biodiversity conservation on German farmland. This contribution is unlikely to increase if ecological priority areas are supported solely under Pillar II. A network of ecological areas, established with the aim of meeting the European challenges defined above, can only be safeguarded on a comprehensive basis if financed under Pillar I with all premiums fully funded by the EU. As at present, Pillar II should be used to fund regionally specific management measures, but with a higher proportion of European funding for the EU s priority objectives (see proposal from the German Association for Landcare (DVL) for Article 65). 4

5 3. The ongoing political debate On 22 December 2011, the German Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMELV) published a discussion paper setting out proposals for the simplification of the CAP post It proposes the inclusion of the following types of area in Article 32(1) of the new Direct Payments Regulation: eligible hectares subject to obligations under specific agri-environmental schemes land under crops grown without the use of nitrogen fertilizers during the cultivation period land located in special areas of conservation (SACs) (Habitats Directive) / special protection areas (SPAs) (Birds Directive) The Ministry also proposes that agricultural holdings with more than 50 % of their area under permanent grassland and less than 15 ha of arable land should be exempt from the obligation to designate ecological priority areas. Assessment: From an environmental policy perspective, these are genuinely progressive proposals, establishing broad social legitimacy for the payment of premiums to farmers. This is the only way to safeguard these premiums for the longer term. 4. Proposed amendments to the Commission s proposal Nonetheless, from a nature and landscape perspective, the Commission s proposal requires various amendments on points of detail. The proposed amendments mainly relate to the form that greening is to take the issue of which types of land will receive support the definition of the term active farmer protection of the EU s rural heritage results-based payments for agri-environmental measures inclusion of existing cooperation arrangements in support schemes higher levels of co-financing for the EU s priority objectives. ************************************************ 5

6 Proposals for sustainable agricultural reform Legend: Draft of the direct payments regulation Proposal of the German Association for Landcare - Deutscher Verband für Landschaftspflege Parts of the existing draft to be replaced Draft of the direct payments regulation 1. Greening Article 30 Crop diversification should be amended as follows: Paragraph 1, sentence 2: None of those three crops shall cover less than 5 % of the arable land and the main one shall not exceed 70% 50% of the arable land. Crop rotation involving three crop species increases the number of species of individual groups of organisms (e.g. birds, insects, segetal flora) by 15-20% compared to crop rotation involving just two crop species. However, monocultures on large parcels of land reduce biodiversity. The maximum area covered by the main crop on arable land should therefore not exceed 50%. Article 31 Permanent grassland should be amended as follows: Paragraph 1: Farmers shall maintain as permanent grassland the areas of their holdings declared as such... for claim year Paragraph 2, sentence 1: Farmers shall be allowed to convert a maximum of 5 % of their reference areas under permanent grassland. In fixing the reference year as 2014, the fear is that the large-scale ploughing up of grassland, right up to the currently permitted limit, can be expected until the application is made in By stipulating 6

7 that farmers may continue to plough up grassland within certain limits (up to 5%) beyond 2014, the Article as it is planned in no way complies with the need to protect grassland. A general ban on the ploughing up of grassland should be imposed on recipients of direct payments. Article 32 Ecological focus area should be amended as follows: Paragraph 1: Farmers shall ensure that at least 7% of their eligible hectares as defined in Article 25(2), excluding areas under permanent grassland, is ecological focus area such as land left fallow, terraces, landscape features, buffer strips and afforested areas as referred to in Article 25(2)(b)(ii). The use of fertilisers and plant protection products on these areas is generally prohibited. Further regulations in connection with ecologically sensitive areas - The areas are not tradable and must be positioned within the same area of unspoiled nature. - The areas can change on an annual basis (e.g. field margins). - For fields measuring more than 10 hectares in size, the ecologically sensitive areas must lie within the field area (e.g. positioning of strips). - Where targeted networking of environmentally-sensitive areas is required as part of specialist nature conservation planning (e.g. biotope networking), a "pooling solution" of ecologically sensitive areas among holdings can be implemented, together with the involvement of the specialist authority. - Ecologically sensitive areas should, by priority, be positioned along the margins of water bodies, hedges and forests and be done so professionally with the aid of holding-based advice on nature conservation in order to achieve maximum impact in terms of nature and the environment. - The areas must be sketched on maps or shown in the integrated administration and control system. It is important that provision is made for a viable procedure for carrying out and monitoring strip measures precisely so as not to hinder in administrative terms these particularly useful measures. - In addition, national/regional agri-environment payments (second pillar) should be offered for management measures, for networking or as results-based premiums. In order to ensure a positive environmental impact, it should be made clear that fertilisation and the use of plant protection products on these areas is generally prohibited. Areas with agri-environment measures which specify this prohibition can then be included in the figure of 7% without any problems. Furthermore, any repositioning of environmental priority areas from prime locations to marginal yield locations far away should be avoided. It should therefore be made clear that the environmental priority areas need to be linked to the core areas of the respective holding. It should be possible to make an exception on nature conservation grounds. 7

8 2. Integration into the support scheme of areas used for agriculture with the objective of nature conservation (cf. ECJ judgment C-61/09 of 14 October 2010) The definition for "agricultural activity" and "eligible areas" should be amended as follows Article 4 (1)(c): Agricultural activity Paragraph 1(c), first indent on "agricultural activity" should be expanded as follows: "rearing or growing of agricultural products including harvesting, milking, breeding animals and keeping animals for farming purposes; using areas for mowing or grazing due primarily or solely to environmental reasons is an agricultural activity. Many of the valuable nature conservation areas in Europe are agricultural landscapes. Many of these biotopes are specially protected FFH habitats, such as lots of pasture forests with extensive grazing or litter meadows, for instance. In these areas, the focus is not on agricultural production but instead on other EU aims (e.g. protection of biodiversity). In a judgment of 14 October 2010 (C-61/09), the ECJ confirmed that it is not illegal to support agricultural use where the primary objectives are nature conservation. "Agricultural activity" should therefore also cover those activities which are carried out mainly to meet the aims of nature conservation and landscape management (including preserving open spaces), and where aspects focusing on production are of lesser importance. Article 4(1)(h): Permanent grassland; (1)(i) Grasses or other herbaceous forage "permanent grassland" means land used to grow grasses or other herbaceous forage naturally (selfseeded) or through cultivation (sown), through mowing and/or grazing and that has not been included in the crop rotation of the holding for five years or longer; it may include other species suitable for grazing provided that the grasses and other herbaceous forage remain predominant; landscape elements to be defined by the Member States may in this regard be integrated under permanent grassland provided that the area which is used for grazing and/or mowing covers more than 50 % of the land" (i) "grasses or other herbaceous forage" means all herbaceous plants traditionally found in natural pastures or normally included in mixtures of seeds for pastures or meadows in the Member State (whether or not used for grazing animals); also included are dwarf shrubs and other plants that may not be used as fodder (e.g. weeds on pasture land)". 8

9 Often, environmentally important agricultural areas cannot be used as permanent grassland. This problem affects Natura 2000 landscapes in particular, such as areas dominated by dwarf shrubs (Calluna heathland etc.) or oligotrophic grasslands sparsely vegetated with green fodder crops. Based on the aforementioned definitions, these types of biotope would not be included in the premium scheme of the first pillar as they would not meet the criteria of an "agricultural area". However, under the EU nature protection law (Natura 2000), conservation of these habitats is a binding requirement. Only costly management by farmers can ensure conservation. Only by including these areas in the premium scheme of the first pillar can farmers be offered security and prospects. It also makes sense to expand the definition of "permanent grassland" with regard to a blanket inclusion of landscape elements. On extensive areas of pasture land in particular, shrubs and trees are part of the agricultural area and are desired to a certain degree for nature conservation reasons. A blanket inclusion means that the landscape elements do not need to be defined on an individual basis. The cost to the farmers concerned in terms of bureaucracy can be massively reduced. Article 9 Active farmer The Article should be amended as follows: No direct payments shall be granted to natural or legal persons, or to groups of natural or legal persons, where one of the following applies: (a) the annual amount of direct payments is less than 5% of the total receipts they obtained from non-agricultural activities in the most recent fiscal year; or (b) their agricultural areas are mainly areas naturally kept in a state suitable for grazing or cultivation and they do not carry out on those areas the minimum activity established by Member States in accordance with Article 4(1)(c). Non-profit organisations or holdings which carry out landscape management or nature conservation measures shall be regarded as "active farmers". Many nature conservation areas are managed by non-profit organisations or holdings which are set up in a similar manner. In these areas, the focus is not on agricultural production, as a general rule. As a result, it is difficult to place these areas under the care of farms engaged in production. The Article is regarded as highly problematic from a nature conservation perspective since it would exclude from support many of the nature conservation organisations, foundations, part-time farmers and other associations active in landscape management and preserving open spaces. This cannot be in the spirit of the EU, since it is these precisely these organisations and farmers that manage many of the Natura 2000 areas and are thus key partners of nature conservation authorities. 9

10 Organisations which primarily perform non-profit tasks in the area of environmental protection and nature conservation should therefore be regarded as active farmers with regards to support under the first pillar. Article 25 Activation of payment entitlements In Article 25(2)(b), an addition should be made in the form of point "(iv)": (iv) that is used for grazing and/or mowing primarily for other environmental reasons." An addition should be made to paragraph 2(a) stating that an area that is used for grazing and/or mowing primarily for reasons of nature conservation and landscape management (including preserving open spaces), and where production-oriented aspects are of lesser importance, is also an agricultural area. This would help to activate key payment entitlements, for instance on areas used extensively for grazing where animals do not, for the most part, gain weight. Proposal for the EAFRD Regulation EU priorities for rural development Article 5(4) restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems interlinked with dependent on agriculture and forestry with a focus on the following areas: (a) restoring and preserving biodiversity, including in Natura 2000 areas and high natural value farming ecosystems, and the state of European landscapes; (b) and (c) remain unchanged Restricting support to agriculture and forestry makes it impossible to implement Natura 2000 or the Water framework directive successfully. Key measures regarding the protection of species or the renaturation of streams, and bogs and mires are not directly related to agriculture and forestry. They do, however, help in meeting the new European challenges. 10

11 Many of the most important nature conservation areas are looked after either by public authorities or associations and would not be eligible for support. Of primary importance for the effective implementation of European aims are not the owners or operators but instead the value of the area. The judgment on a question of principle of the ECJ of 14 October 2010 (C-61/09), under which agricultural support can also be extended to include nature conservation areas, supports this demand. Conservation and upgrading of the rural heritage The current Article 57 of the EAFRD Regulation, "Conservation and upgrading of the rural heritage", which is of enormous importance for the implementation of Natura 2000 in Germany, is not included in the draft regulation. As a result, hitherto key content in terms of support cannot be covered in the draft regulation in its current form. It is therefore proposed to amend Article 18: Article 18 Investments in physical assets and safeguarding the natural heritage Support under this measure shall cover tangible and/or intangible investments which: (a) to (c) remain unchanged (d) are non productive investments relating to the implementation of the EU biodiversity strategy and Natura 2000 as well as the Water framework directive. These also include investments and services for protection and management plans, expert opinions, species support measures, renaturation of water bodies and river meadows implementation of the Water framework directive, creation and conservation of biotopes including necessary recording and monitoring measures and actions designed to create awareness of nature conservation and environmental protection. linked to the achievement of agri- and forest-environment commitments, biodiversity conservation status of species and habitat as well as enhancing the public amenity value of a Natura 2000 area or other high nature value area to be defined in the programme. Amend paragraph 4: Paragraph 3 shall not apply to non productive investments referred to in paragraph 1(d). New paragraph 5: For measures under paragraph 1(b) to (d), payments may also be made to other beneficiaries besides agricultural and forest holdings. Measures outside "rural areas" are also eligible for support. Article 57 as it currently stands is of key importance for the implementation of Natura 2000, the Water framework directive and climate protection goals. Compared to Article 57 of the current EAFRD 11

12 Regulation as well as of the previous regulation (Article 33 of the EAGGF Regulation of 1999), there are depending on how the Articles are interpreted support gaps in the present draft which thereby seriously restrict the options for supporting nature conservation. The proposed amendments are designed to define what is included under support more clearly in future and to gear this to the requirements specified by the EU in terms of nature protection and water management. In detail: The following measures, for example, would be excluded in future depending on interpretation: renaturation of bogs and mires and water bodies (not mentioned under paragraph 1(d)); awareness raising campaigns and visitor management concepts in environmentally sensitive areas with target groups outside of agriculture and forestry (e.g. tourists, recreationists); management services of organisations which would not be covered by Article 36 (see below). As an alternative to the amendments proposed here in Article 18, Article 21 could also be amended using the listed text. Article 29 Agri-environment measures Paragraph 2 Agri-environment-climate payments shall be granted to farmers, groups of farmers or groups of farmers and other land-managers who undertake, on a voluntary basis, to carry out operations consisting of one or more agri-environment-climate commitments on agricultural land. Where duly justified to achieve environmental objectives, agri-environment-climate payments may be granted to other land-managers or groups of other land-managers. Paragraph 6 Payments shall be granted annually and shall compensate beneficiaries for all or part of the additional costs and income foregone resulting from the commitments made. Where necessary they may also cover transaction costs to a value of up to 20% of the premium paid for the agri-environment-climate commitments. Where commitments are undertaken by groups of farmers, the maximum level shall be 30%. By way of derogation from sentences 1 to 3, the amount of the premium may also be measured in terms of certain clearly defined environmental and climate goals which can be achieved using the premium (results-based rewards). Annex I in relation to Article 29 Increase in the maximum eligible rates for arable land and grassland to 1,200 / hectare while retaining the exemption option (*increase possible in justified exceptional cases). 12

13 Restricting agri-environment programmes to agricultural land (paragraph 2) may hinder the implementation of the EU s nature conservation targets. There is the risk that important areas in terms of nature conservation which do not meet the EU requirements for agricultural areas (within the meaning of the first pillar), as well as pond areas, bogs and mires and riparian zones will not be included in the agri-environment programmes. Safeguarding important FFH habitats (e.g. Calluna heathland) would then no longer be possible. There is also a lack of clear formulations allowing countries greater scope in terms of the range of results-based measures or regional orientation of measures (e.g. focus on phenology) (Article 29, paragraph 6). These measures have been developed and tested in many Member States for a number of years, and with great success. The guideline values for the maximum rates of support are now frozen at the current low level. Many countries therefore lack key flexibility when structuring the premiums for measures. In practice, this means that agri-environment measures are becoming less attractive for our farmers and the level of acceptance of such measures is also falling. Standard practices carried out by landscape management associations show that an increase in the maximum eligible rates on arable land and grassland to 1,200 / hectare, while retaining the exemption option (increase possible in justified exceptional cases), is necessary (e.g. for protection of the common hamster on prime arable land or scything in extreme Alpine locations). Article 36 Co-operation Paragraph 3. Support under paragraph 1(b) shall be granted to organisations which meet certain quality criteria for achieving European objectives. These criteria may be laid down in detail by the Member States. shall be granted only to newly formed clusters and networks and those commencing an activity that is new to them. Support for co-operation measures is only to be granted to networks which do not yet exist and which are in the process of being established. In Member States such as Germany and the Netherlands, farmers networks have been working together in the area of nature conservation for a number of years (landscape management associations, Veelzijdig Boerenland), thereby meeting the criteria set out under this Article. These successful examples of "co-operative nature conservation" certainly serve as a model on which to base this Article. It is all the more incomprehensible that under the Commission s plans, it only wants to support new networks. This would result in existing, well-functioning co-operations losing their vital financial basis under the current EAFRD. To date, funding for co-operative nature conservation services has for the most part been covered by Article 57 "Natural heritage". This Article has been deleted from the current EAFRD draft. Due to the aforementioned passage, funding under Article 36 is not possible. 13

14 Member States setting up new structures in parallel, due to the attractive funding options. This is bad news for those actors in regions which have been extremely successful to date in implementing the EU s targets in terms of nature conservation. parallel structures creating huge inefficiencies due to the changes in the support basis. These inefficiencies will hinder rather than help the achievement of the intended nature conservation targets (e.g. biodiversity target 2020, Natura 2000). Decisions as to whether to support co-operations must be made on the basis of quality criteria which the Member States should define in detail. Article 65: Higher co-financing rates for priority EU targets Extend paragraph 4 (a) so that: By way of derogation from paragraph 3, the maximum EU co-financing rate for the implementation of defined EU targets (e.g. measures for the implementation of Natura 2000, the Water framework directive and EU biodiversity strategy) shall be 90 %. This applies in equal measure to area related, investment and other support measures. The maximum EAFRD contribution shall continue to be (a) 80% for the measures referred to in Articles 15, 28 and 36, for the LEADER local development referred to in Article 28 of Regulation (EU) No [CSF/2012] and for operations under Article 20(1)(a)(i). It may be increased to 90% for the programmes of less developed, the outermost regions and the smaller Aegean islands within the meaning of Regulation (EEC) No 2019/93; The EU Commission wants to keep the co-financing rate for agri-environment programmes at 50%. Empty budgets in federal states and in many EU Member States mean that the long-term financing of agri-environment programmes is becoming more difficult and more uncertain. There is therefore less certainty in terms of planning which in turn is leading to a massive loss of acceptance of such programmes among farmers. Long-term approaches for safeguarding public goods as well as cooperation between nature conservation and agriculture are not possible unless there is a reliable source of financing. A substantial replenishment of EU resources and an increase in the EU cofinancing rate up to 90% are required for specifically defined measures. These include, most notably, the implementation of the EU s priority targets such as the financing of Natura 2000 and the Water framework directive. Contact: German Association for Landcare Deutscher Verband für Landschaftspflege e.v. (DVL) Feuchtwanger Straße Ansbach info@lpv.de; url: 14