How is Rural Development Tackling the Biodiversity Challenge?
Only a few crumbs of rural development funds are likely to deliver for nature conservation. This is especially critical in most of the ‘new’ Member States, in the Mediterranean countries, in Belgium, some German Länder and the French overseas territories. In these regions, the bulk of support is being spent on actions leading to intensification of farming systems, over-exploitation of forests and fragmentation of habitats. However, in Austria, Finland and Ireland, even high levels of expenditure on Axis 2 and agri-environment do not imply a real focus on environmental issues, as funds are mainly diverted towards the less-demanding schemes, paying for commitments that cannot be verified on the spot (e.g. fertiliser reduction), reflect the common practice and fail to target environmental needs.
The RSPB and the BirdLife EU Secretariat are conducting an evaluation of the 2007-2013 Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) across the European Union, to assess their potential for biodiversity. The report will be launched in Brussels on 7th May. The study is based on an analysis of approved RDPs, carried out by BirdLife Partners in their respective countries. The study fully covers 13 Member States, including key European biodiversity hotspots such as Bulgaria, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Spain.
Despite highlighting many areas of poor practice, it is not all bad news.
Despite highlighting many areas of poor practice, it is not all bad news. Thanks to BirdLife’s efforts, in most of Spanish regions investments in irrigation can be supported only on land being already under irrigation (thus potentially achieving real water savings), while in many ‘new’ Member States the agri-environment measure includes options for endangered species and habitats.
Pillar 2 is the only forward-looking part of the CAP and contains, at least on paper, the key elements to build a fully accountable policy: programming, monitoring, stakeholder consultation, payments made on a contractual basis and iterative design. The implementation of the ‘Health Check’ represents the last chance to substantially improve the RDPs. The focus on the ‘new challenges’, although watered down by the Council compromise, should drive additional funding towards environmentally meaningful actions. The modification of RDPs offers a unique opportunity to support new operations, improve existing schemes, detail environmental safeguards for potentially harmful measures, and to review the current financial breakdown by measure. Finally, RDPs can be improved at any time, also in Member States not touched by the ‘Health Check’ provisions (the New Member States and the two countries applying voluntary modulation – the UK and Portugal).
9 comments posted
Post a comment
PUBLICATION DATE
12 Mar 2009
AUTHOR
Luigi Boccaccio, RSPB
FURTHER INFORMATION
Luigi Boccaccio is Agriculture Policy Officer for RSPB. He is also a PhD candidate in landscape ecology and entomology at the Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna of Pisa (Italy).
There is a common inference drawn by environmental groups that intensive agricultural production and protection of the environment to enhance biodiversity levels are mutually exclusive. This is incorrect. Conservation Agriculture(CA) systems, used for intensive crop production, have been proven to enhance soil biodiversity and benefit bird life on farms where adopted. Global adoption of CA is lowest in Europe(<1>25%) and South America(>70%), Australia and New Zealand. There are few if any support systems at Member State level to encourage farmers adopt these systems with a view to ensuring economic and environmental sustainability at farm level throughout the Union. Modulated funds arising from crop production areas should be rediverted back to growers who adopt conservation practices such as minimum tillage and no-tillage. It is these areas that need targetted intervention. Based on international experience and research findings biodiversity levels and farm bird life are guaranteed to benefit from such initiatives.
To comment 1: Plese, Dr. Geraghty, could you provide references to studies on CA an impacts on biodiversity. Such “organic” intensification may in deed have different outcome than intensification in the sense used in this article.
For European studies review work conducted by Heidi Cunningham from Harper Adams University in the UK. Work conducted by Dr Freidrich Tebrugge, University of Giessen in Germany also reports on beneficial effects on soil properties and biodiversity in long term no-tillage trials. References from these papers will direct you to other work that has been conducted internationally. I will forward specific references seperately.
Many thanks to Dr. Geraghty for the references concerning conservation agriculture. The studíes deal with environmental impacts of, especially, no-till farming. In general, environmental consequencies of intensification cannot be discussed without defining “intensification”.
In many least developed countries, where poor farmer’s plant production has been intensified in doubling yields by organic composts as fertilizers, we would not see same impacts to environment as in cases in which intensification referes to (un-efficient) (over-)use of fertilizers and pesticides, or homogenization of entire landscapes for monocultures. In European context, “intensification” refers to increase in input use per unit area, and irrespective of tilling method, this no doubt has many negative environmental impacts (for more, see e.g. OECD 2008. Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD countries since 1990., and references there).
Hence, reducing input intensity (i.e. chemicals, fossil energy expenditure, arable farmland, animal units, etc., per unit land area) from levels (now mostly) exceeding environmental capacity results in multiple environmental benefits.
Juha Helenius
Intensive agriculture and wildlife should not be mutually exclusive. However, there must be clarity about objectives and rationale for public payments. There is no public benefit from promoting intensive systems and practices through public support.
For example, no-tillage and minimum tillage techniques are economically competitive with ploughing, and therefore there is no scope to support them by area-based payments (e.g. agri-environment measure). Considerations about tillage techniques need to be framed within the context of a strategic approach to soil and weed management in farming systems, including other tools such as crop rotation, weed-competitive cultivars and landscape diversification (e.g. agro-forestry).
Training activities and advisory services, rather than area-based payments, can play a role in building capacity on input optimisation in intensive agriculture, and raise awareness of the related environmental problems.
There is no public benefit in reducing CO2 emissions and increasing Carbon sequestration? There is no public benefit in improving and enhancing soil and farm biodiversity? There is no public benefit in improving soil water relations to enhance infiltration and reduce flooding during extreme weather events? There is no public benefit in reducing input levels, fertilisers, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides and other plant protection inputs over time while maintaining yields? There is no public benefit in reducing subsidy dependency through reducing costs and increasing profits at farm level – thereby securing incomes and encouraging rural development? All the above would result from direct support for conservation agriculture but sure ….where’s the public benefit. It is clear that few people in authority know what CA actually is and what is involved.
Dr Boccacio is correct when he emphasises the importance of training and advice to farmers and land managers; we would agree. Yet here in England the Rural Development Plan money for this remains “stuck in the pipe” in most regions. Goverment Agency attempts to provide advice to farmers is met with mistrust since they are also the regulator. The independant organisations, such as SMI, remain impotant and starved of cash, yet it these very organisations which farmers turn to for independant advice. Those of you who’d be interested in learning more about CA which Mr Geraghty is eloquently championing might find www.sowap.org an interesting visit.
Mr Geraghty is right, there is public benefit in almost all the things he mentions (although no-till usually leads to substantial increase in herbicide use and selection of herbicide-resistance traits in weeds).
However, as he says, no-tillage, if properly done, does not reduce yields and can often reduce costs. This means that it is in the farmer’s own economic interest. It also means that it does not imply an income foregone, which is the legal basis (EC regulation 1598/2005) for agri-environment payments.
It could be possible to support no-tillage via training, advisory services and modernisation (e.g. to buy new machinery).
As I have been away I have missed a few of the comments made. The reference to a ‘substantial increase in herbicide use’ with no-tillage is again testament to the lack of thorough knowledge and understanding endemic at institutional level about CA. Increased herbicide use does occur in the initial years after changing from plough based agriculture. After a period of years(normally 3-5) weed species and populations change leading to an overall reduction in herbicide use in the medium to longer term. This should be desirable i n light of proposed reductions in pesticide use under the Pesticide Strategy. The reference to herbicide-resistance traits is independent of cultivation system used. It is symptomatic of monoculture and blanket use of the same herbicide on an annual basis. The latter is not supported by proponents of CA where diversified rotations, indirectly leading to overall pesticide reductions, are an inherent part of the system. While adoption of CA leads to fixed and variable cost reductions there are initial implementation costs and a steep learning curve for new entrants who have to change on-farm practices. This may often lead to yield reductions for a few years post adoption due to non-implementation of best practice, climate, soil compaction etc. which may or may not lead to loss of income in the early years. This is the period when farmer support and training is of paramount importance and needs be supported at EU and Member State level in order to improve adoption rates. Everyone can gain from CA adoption on cropland in Europe – better cleaner environment, climate change adaptation and mitigation, greater biodiversity and sustainable crop production.