BirdLife International and the RSPB (BirdLife in the UK), have launched a new study which reviews the potential effects on biodiversity of the 2007-2013 Rural Development Programmes across the European Union. The study, Could do Better, How is EU Rural Development Policy Delivering for Biodiversity? underlines the need for fundamental agriculture policy reform for the post 2013 period.

The main findings of the report show that, although EU rural development policy has the potential to tackle the decline of biodiversity, only a very small proportion of current rural development spending is benefiting Europe’s nature, while many potentially harmful investments such as irrigation expansion, drainage and extension of road networks, are still funded without appropriate safeguards.

It is argued that, if the rural development policy is to genuinely benefit EU wildlife, then much better implementation is needed by Member States. Funds must be channelled to efficient schemes based on scientific data. There is also a need for detailed and explicit environmental safeguards such as proper impact assessments for all investments in order to prevent the depletion of water resources, increased carbon emissions, increased soil sealing and fragmentation or degradation of habitats.

A range of good and bad practice case studies are presented. Good examples include schemes that pay farmers for conserving biodiversity-rich landscapes such as steppe-lands and dehesas (cork oak grazed woodlands) or to restore wetlands and grasslands. Among the negative examples are ill-designed schemes that pay farmers to plough up hilly slopes causing increased erosion (in Cyprus), use the same amount of fertiliser they would be using anyway (e.g. Finland) or to establish super-intensive olive plantations (in Spain). In some cases, rural development investments are actively subsidising environmental destruction as in the case of Portugal where 200,000 ha of biodiversity rich drylands are earmarked for conversion to irrigated farming with heavy impacts on threatened species and an exacerbation of unsustainable water use.

The report can be read here.

The report has been produced with financial support from the German Marshall Fund of the United States.