CAP2020 - Home

Why out-of-the-spotlight Council discussions on the CAP don’t serve the environment, climate or farmers

2019-10-17T16:19:00Z

Recent Council changes to ‘conditionality’ for CAP direct payments severely weaken what the agricultural sector could deliver for the environment and climate in the next 7 years. This is difficult to justify and is a poor foundation for demanding the budget to be maintained.

Efforts to improve the state of the environment and to fight climate change have so far clearly not been enough. Evidence abounds about the scale of biodiversity collapse and the chances we have to achieve climate targets are slim. This has triggered a wake of citizens’ movements across the globe and led to strong results for green parties at the 2019 European elections. It is also highly relevant to the farming sector, whose businesses rely on ecological processes and are affected by climate change. In response, the Commission President-elect Ursula von der Leyen proposes a new European Green Deal as one of the core topics to be tackled by her incoming Commission and wants this to become Europe's hallmark. In different sectors, including the agricultural sector, there is a growing consensus that a significant step up in efforts is now needed if we are to address environmental and climate challenges we're facing today.

Agriculture Ministers at the EU Council are both proclaiming the importance of a stronger environmental and climate ambition and mostly campaigning against cuts in the CAP budget. However, behind the public statements, the detail of the proceedings in the Agriculture and Fisheries Council show that this increased ambition seriously risks not making its way through policy.

Negotiations about the Common Agricultural Policy after 2020 started in June last year (2018) with the publication of EC proposals – the green elements of which IEEP has analysed in detail in different reports (e.g. here and here). One important change being proposed is to replace the current greening payment with a combination of more ambitious ‘conditionality’ requirements and a flexible ‘eco-scheme’, to be tailored as Member States see fit. Conditionality is a set of requirements attached to the granting of the CAP direct payments to farmers and is therefore what defines the environmental baseline of the whole policy across the EU. Weakening its ambition is a big deal.

The draft positions that emerged progressively from the Agriculture and Fisheries Council discussions over the past months, and the most recent leak from early September 2019, show us what changes are being made to the Commission’s proposed conditionality requirements. Here’s an analysis of their repercussions:

One conditionality requirement is asking farmers to monitor and better manage the nutrients going onto their fields. However, there is a majority in Council to remove it altogether (deletion of GAEC 5*). Emissions arising from the application of nitrogen fertilisers are responsible for 37% of agricultural emissions and there are at the moment no basic instrument in the CAP to tackle them. Hence, nutrient monitoring is a good first step towards climate action in arable farming.
Two changes are being made to the requirement to maintain non-productive features on farms (which is one aspect of a wider set of obligations under GAEC 9). The Council wants to allow the growing of catch crops and nitrogen fixing crops as an alternative to non-productive features as well as restricting its scope only to “areas that are most appropriate” – leaving a door open to exemptions. Catch crops and nitrogen fixing crops (even when grown without pesticides, as is being proposed) are not as beneficial to biodiversity as non-productive features such as fallow land or field margins.
Similarly, the Council wants to reduce the scope of the ban on ploughing (or converting) all permanent grassland located in Natura 2000 areas (GAEC 10) and make it applicable only to a subset of that grassland (grassland designated as environmentally sensitive in Natura 2000 areas). However, ploughing permanent grassland depletes carbon stocks in soil and causes great CO2 emissions, so the less wide-ranging a ban on ploughing, the less benefits it would deliver for climate. Ploughing also severely disturbs soil biodiversity.

Some of these requirements are new compared to the current CAP regime (e.g. the Farm Sustainability Tool for Nutrients (GAEC 5)) but others are merely to replace the current greening requirements that are disappearing. They have been proposed by the Commission as a rather incremental and certainly not radical response to the growing climate and environmental agenda. Weakening this proposed baseline does not make sense, either from an environmental, or an economic viewpoint.

Farming businesses directly rely on functioning ecosystems and they are affected by climate change. The long term future of the agriculture sector is dependent on a more sustainable management of natural resources but it is difficult for individual farms, who need to respond to shorter term market signals, to achieve this on their own. Policy measures such as conditionality in the CAP are precisely the right place to help the farming sector achieve this, at a sufficiently large scale and in a fair way across the EU.

Agriculture Ministers at the Council however seem to be mainly preoccupied with “find[ing] a balance between accommodating the specificities in the Member States with regard to the enhanced conditionality proposed by the Commission and the preservation of the broadly accepted higher environmental ambition”, in the words of the Romanian Presidency at the end of its term (June 2019). Individual “specificities in the Member States” must be acknowledged, but accommodating them should not result in lowering the environmental ambition of conditionality.

The Council’s preference for watering down conditions attached to direct payments has not inhibited 17 Member States from demanding the CAP budget to be maintained. They have not appreciated the importance of real environmental ambition in gaining public support for the CAP budget, which is far from secure. Sticking to this perverse course will do no favour either to farmers or the environment.

*GAEC stands for Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions. The addition of an equivalent point under the FAS does not make it an obligation.

[8]: link https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10008-2019-INIT/en/pdf

The status quo is not an option: the CAP’s environmental performance needs to improve

2018-11-30T17:37:00Z

30 actions to transform the Commission’s proposals into a genuine transition tool.

Although the CAP is the key EU funding mechanism to support environmental and climate action in the EU agricultural and forest sectors, efforts so far to green this strategic policy have not been sufficient to outweigh the pressures facing the farmed environment. As the EU just published its long term strategy for a climate neutral economy, emissions of greenhouse gases from agriculture, including the livestock sector, are stubbornly high. Furthermore, farming itself depends heavily on healthy soils and water supplies, on pollinators in sufficient abundance and on well managed natural resources.

Yet, paradoxically, the environment usually has been relegated to a second order issue during the political wheeling and dealing that has preceded a succession of CAP reforms. When more robust environmental measures have been proposed, they are often exactly the elements to be watered down or sacrificed completely in the course of the political deals that underpin each new version of the CAP. During the negotiations on the last version of the CAP, national governments and the European Parliament opened up so many means of avoiding an environmentally demanding version of greening that the core purpose of this proposal was nearly buried.

Given the alarming decline of biodiversity, the worrying state of water bodies in Europe and the poor quality of much of our soils, as well as the shrinking window of opportunity for engaging meaningful climate actions in Europe, it would be a major set-back if the same thing happened again this time. Indeed, the CAP should have one primary focus: supporting the transition towards sustainable farming in Europe.

The Commission’s proposed new delivery model, bringing more of a results based approach to CAP expenditure, is the interesting new idea this time. Delivered well, it could bring us a step closer to sustainable farming and deliver more coherent, creative and innovative approaches to a performance-based CAP. One that could meet the needs of farmers, citizens and the environment with capacity to adapt to local conditions.

However, the discouraging experience with the last reform is now in serious danger of being repeated. Last time, a set of relatively bold new proposals were converted into more of a business as usual approach, often in the name of flexibility for governments and farmers. The result was to undermine much of the environmental ambition and the policy tools to deliver it.

So far, the approach being taken by the co-legislators to the Commission’s current proposals is set for a similar pattern. They seem to be aiming to remove the good parts of the proposals and weaken further the ones that need strengthening.

But the game is certainly not over. As negotiations are still at an early stage it is worth highlighting the main changes that are needed to the proposals in order to create a CAP that delivers enhanced environmental and climate ambition in Member States. Here we pick out some of the main themes of a report that makes a case for 30 actions in all.

First and foremost, the Regulations must make sure that Member States use the flexibility provided to them to rethink the way support is tailored and targeted to their needs, including on the environment and climate. Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 support must be programmed together and work together coherently, avoiding perverse environmental and climate effects. Policy interventions aimed at farm level require support, guidance and capacity building and must effectively and transparently engage stakeholders in the process.

Second, sufficient funding should be allocated to environmental and climate interventions with a minimum percentage of the Pillar 1 envelope ring-fenced for environmental purposes to mirror the 30% requirement in Pillar 2. Alternatively, a minimum percentage could be set for environmental/climate purposes across the CAP as a whole.

Third, the CAP objectives should be articulated in more concrete, quantitative terms, linking them more clearly with those in EU legislation. The indicators identified to measure progress against these should be made more specific to enable the quality of the action taken to be determined more readily as well as the quantity.

Fourth, rigorous approval and review processes at EU level are essential so that Member States are accountable to EU taxpayers for addressing the priorities and needs in their countries. Criteria should be established to demonstrate how the Commission will assess whether Member States have genuinely increased the environmental and climate ambition of their mix of CAP support measures. In addition, the Commission should be sure that environmentally valuable habitats that are used for agricultural purposes (e.g. for grazing) are not excluded from CAP support and that the “genuine farmer” definition does not discriminate against any farmers and land managers who make a measurable contribution to achieving environmental objectives.

At any stage of the negotiations, it is worth remembering that without a strengthening of the Commission’s proposals, there is a risk that the status quo will prevail or worse that we step back from previous environmental achievements – letting down the sector itself as well as the environment.

Faustine Bas-Defossez - IEEP Head of agriculture and land management programme, co-author of the report ; Kaley Hart - IEEP Senior fellow and main author of the report; with the support of David Baldock - IEEP Senior Fellow.

Emerging agricultural policy frameworks in the UK

2018-11-29T18:27:00Z

While the CAP reform debate is in full swing, the UK countries have been consulting on the structure and content of their future agricultural policies as part of the transition away from the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy.

During 2018, each of the four UK countries has been consulting on the structure and content of their future agricultural policies as part of the transition away from the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy.

Moving towards more sustainable agricultural systems which look after natural resources and promote natural capital is a theme in all four countries’ proposals to a greater or lesser extent. All four countries include a reference to the fact that looking after the environment and productivity go hand in hand.

This briefing sets out the emerging agricultural policy frameworks in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, with a focus on their environmental components. It provides an overview of the policy processes currently underway, the timetable for the introduction of the new frameworks and a brief summary of some of the key similarities and differences between the approaches taken.

A healthy environment is fundamental to achieving vibrant rural areas

2018-09-20T13:26:00Z

Just a few days before EU Agriculture Ministers meet for the informal Council in Vienna and on the basis of the preparatory questions sent by the presidency to the delegations, the authors of this blog post identify the key elements for securing vibrant rural areas in the future CAP.

The Austrian Presidency which just kicked off in July this year is unsurprisingly using its Informal Agri Council schedule for Monday next week to focus on the CAP. Taking a step back from the more immediate issues raised by the heatwave that affected the whole of Europe and the dramatic consequences it had on harvests and livestock, it considers the role of the CAP in maintaining vibrant rural areas as the setting for competitive and sustainable agricultural and other rural businesses alongside a healthy environment and climate.

In thinking about which policy instruments are essential for achieving this, it is important to recognise that economic, social and environmental needs of rural areas are interdependent. Agricultural and forest systems can, if appropriately managed, deliver many benefits for soil, water, air, biodiversity and climate and the sustainable management of natural resources is critical to the long term viability of agricultural systems. And both agriculture and forest management requires people – not just the farmers and foresters themselves, but those involved in the whole food or timber supply chains.

However, all too often the delivering of environmental and social priorities is thought about as an ancillary, separate activity to food, fibre or timber (Maréchal A. et al. in Eurochoices, 2018). This needs to change.

The findings of a recent H2020 project, PEGASUS, highlighted that current policy mechanisms, including regulation and various agri-environmental schemes, provide an essential foundation for the enhanced provision of public benefits in rural areas. However, treated in isolation, they can be insufficient to support collaborative engagement of key actors and consideration of the economic and social dimensions that is the hallmark of the success and longevity of many initiatives. In addition, they can be too small-scale, too focussed on individual farms rather than larger groups or territories, and too detached from the market dynamics that have a fundamental influence on motives and longer-term decisions.

This study also stressed the importance of collective action for improving engagement with a wider range of key actors in order to spark initiatives with greater scale, longevity and coherence of action across a territory or along a supply chain (Maréchal A. et al, 2018). Alongside collective action it flagged the importance of getting the governance and institutional settings and dynamics right and investing in capacity building (both at institutional level and amongst those managing the land) to deliver outcomes that are truly sustainable (in an economic, social and environmental sense). Building more collaborative ways of working and trust between different actors is fundamental to changing the mind-sets and behaviour of farmers and other land managers as well as those of policy makers to support the actions required to maintain the provision of benefits (ENRD Contact Point, 2018).

The current CAP proposals offer some opportunities in this direction. The increased flexibility provided to Member States to design and enforce measures in a way that suits their needs under the new delivery mechanism allows countries to innovate in a way that allows for a more flexible and joined up use of the policy mix, better adapted to local needs and promoting cooperation and collaboration between different actors. Change is always difficult and the backlash against these proposals suggests that Member States are nervous about embracing this challenge, instead preferring the comfort of the status quo. The problem being that status quo will continue driving us into an unsustainable direction.

1) Sufficient funding must be made available to rural development interventions and those Pillar 1 measures that can be tailored to support sustainable land management.

Recent budget proposals involve disproportionate cuts in Pillar 2 compared with Pillar 1. To increase the environmental performance of the CAP and help farmers transition to sustainable practices, Member States should be allowed to transfer unlimited amounts from Pillar 1 to Pillar 2 (this transferred money should remain 100% EU funded).

2) The range of instruments available within both Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 must be used creatively and flexibly and Member States should ensure they interact with each other in a positive and synergistic way to maximise outcomes and avoid conflicts between different elements of the CAP, leading to perverse effects.

From an environmental perspective, they should ensure that the eco-scheme and environmental and climate commitments in Pillar 2 are designed in a complementary way, building on enhanced conditionality, which is essential.

3) There must be no going backwards on environmental achievement.

The non regression clause should therefore be made operational and be better linked with tangible elements such as expenditures or measures themselves instead of being left to the discretion of the Commission.

4) The new delivery mechanism must be made to enable Member States to design their interventions flexibly, but there must be accountability to ensure that the Strategic Plans are fit for purpose, based on a factual needs assessment and that they deliver what they propose.

5) Cooperation between environmental and agriculture authorities should be strengthened at all levels (EU, national, regional).

More effective cooperation between relevant authorities at different levels and across policy areas will be essential to ensure the successful drafting and implementation of the strategic plans. The exchange of knowledge and use of existing tools (e.g environmental planning tools) across the departments could help optimise the environmental integration of the future CAP.

6) Effective engagement of Stakeholders (including environmental NGOs and land managers) and transparency are necessary and at all stages of the process, from the drafting to the monitoring of the plans and at all levels, particularly at national and regional level .

This is vital to enable the sharing of ideas and expertise, and to help bring about a shared commitment to achieving the objectives set.

7) The new development mechanism requires commitment by both the Commission and Member States to an ambitious programme of change which in turn requires investment in capacity building and training, as well as networking and sharing of experiences between Member States and investment in data to allow the monitoring of performance to be meaningful.

If we really are to achieve the change we need in moving towards a more sustainable future for rural areas, one which acknowledges and respects the fundamental role that protecting and enhancing the environment and climate plays in underpinning this, then we think that the following points are critical in relation to the current CAP proposals: The Commission has put forward some bold proposals that have potential - if rightly amended by the co legislators - to achieve a step change in the way that funding is made available to rural areas and rural actors. But for this to work, and to ensure that vibrant rural areas are underpinned by a healthy and well-functioning environment, it requires the commitment and dynamism of all those involved, from EU level to those working on the ground.

The latest heatwave that affected the majority of EU countries and farms should be seen as an alarm bell for real change. Opting for the status quo instead of bringing the necessary improvements to set the future CAP on the path towards sustainability would not only be a missed opportunity but also a political failure at a time of a dire need for change.

Join #Think2030 to discuss this and other key sustainability issues for Europe

What is the fate of environmental ambition in the proposed EU agricultural policy?

2018-06-01T16:00:00Z

New delivery model offers some potential to support a more environmentally ambitious CAP, but IEEP analysis suggests it contains many loopholes which risk maintaining the status quo.

Today the Commission launched its long awaited legislative proposal on the next Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) after 2020. This comes less than a month after the tabling of the EU’s Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027 which could see disproportionate cuts to Pillar 2 compared to Pillar 1.

The legislative proposals reaffirm the Commission’s stated intentions for next CAP to place greater emphasis on the environment and support the transition towards a fully sustainable agricultural sector through a new delivery model focused on results. Key environmental instruments include enhanced conditionality, a mandatory eco-scheme and the continuation of a minimum spend for the environment and climate under Pillar 2. While the new delivery model offers some potential to support a more environmentally ambitious CAP, it contains many loopholes which risk maintaining the status quo and does not set a clear direction of travel for the EU to comprehensively address the pressing sustainability challenges facing the sector and society. As the journey towards the adoption of the legislative texts is only beginning, there are still opportunities for the co-legislators to set the reformed CAP on a more sustainable track. Below we highlight some of the opportunities and risks in the proposal based on an initial assessment of the legislative text.

The proposed new delivery model is potentially a bold move to deliver more coherent, creative and innovative approaches to a performance based CAP that meets the needs of farmers, citizens and the environment. However, for the Member States to deliver a higher level of ambition for the environment and climate, CAP funds must be spent in a very different way. A recent evaluation on the greening of the CAP, conducted by IEEP on behalf of the Commission, shows that Member States tend not be very ambitious of their own accord. Similar findings are echoed by the European Court of Auditors. They also found that weak greening choices under Pillar 1 stifled investment in more advanced environmental interventions under Pillar 2.

In terms of key instruments, the continued focus on direct payments, even with the redistribution proposed, leaves the bulk of CAP spending potentially unaligned to the ambitious delivery of public goods. The emphasis placed on these instruments appears not to fit with the logic of a results-orientated delivery model and continues a system that has been shown to be an inefficient, ineffective and inequitable way of supporting policy goals, including farmers’ incomes. Although the new “enhanced conditionality” decoupled payments introduces some welcomed additional components such as crop rotation and a farm nutrient management tool, it largely maintains the existing requirements and leaves a lot of discretion for the Member States to set the level of ambition. Additionally such a tool does not signal the urgent need to lift the environmental performance of the CAP on a progressive basis as it remains largely based on static requirements.

On the other hand the mandatory proposed eco-scheme has the potential to reward and incentivise those farmers who wish to integrate and make a measurable contribution to meeting EU environmental and climate objectives and national targets as part of their farm enterprise. Unlike conditionality, support can address a wide range of environmental objectives based on continuous development with payments proportional to the level of ambition achieved. This could present a unique opportunity to pay farmers for the achievement of environmental and climate outcomes not fully remunerated by the majority market channels on a truly progressive basis – the more achieved, the more one could receive. However, for such an instrument to be effective it must be clearly targeted and adequately financed – with at least 30% of decoupled support ring-fenced for interventions that will enhance public goods delivery. It is also critical this measure does not turn into a substitute for higher levels of environmental ambition under Pillar 2 – especially at a time when spending on rural development programmes is expected to see sizeable cuts.

In the end for the new delivery model to increase environmental ambitious and not go back on what has already been achieved, a concrete set of results-orientated objectives grounded on meeting EU targets and international commitments and based around a common framework as well as ring-fenced spending for the environmental action in both Pillar 1 and 2 is critical. This must also be backed by strong accountability, the right level of engagement from stakeholders and robust monitoring of Member States’ performance and results’ achievements. These elements are necessary to ensure that the future design and monitoring of CAP Strategic Plans meets the Commission’s stated intentions and is not simply dependent on the political will of individual Member States. For instance, the omission of the CAP from the EU’s partnership agreement set out under the Common Provisions Regulation already raises concerns. All eyes will now on the co-legislators to make these new proposals meet the pressing environmental challenges facing the farming sector and society at large.

This initial assessment draws on a number of IEEP reports including:

• Evaluation study for the European Commission on the payment for agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the environment ("greening" of direct payments) – report of the evaluator (Link)

• Report for WWF on ideas for defining environmental objectives and monitoring systems for a results-oriented CAP post 2020 (Link)

• Report for the European Parliament’s Agriculture and Rural Development Committee assessing the Commission’s plans for CAP reform as set out in November 2017 and the extent to which it address the CAP’s performance against its objectives – (Link)

Update 3 August 2018: A slightly updated IEEP assessment of the CAP legal proposal, submitted to the European Commission during its feedback period, is available to download here.

Why would this be the time to overturn the strategy for CAP reform?

2018-05-16T17:10:00Z

Those of us with long memories of CAP reforms know that there can be many dramas, dead ends and diversions along the way. Nonetheless, there has been a discernible direction of travel for two decades or more. It has been towards clearer and more relevant objectives, efforts to reduce major market distortions and a strategy to link public money more to the supply of public goods. Agricultural support has been at the heart of the policy but wider societal needs and expectations have gained more prominence. It has been a widely understood form of modernisation, compromised though it may be.

Now, however, the leaked versions of the draft legislative proposals for the next CAP and the surrounding rumours suggest that the Commission is ready to more or less abandon the public goods strand of this strategy. Is this a rather perverse by-product of a preoccupation with the New Delivery Model or really the intention? Commissioner Hogan for example has been amongst those underlining that climate and environmental pressures linked to farming in Europe require a much higher level of environmental ambition in the future CAP. The draft texts suggest quite other priorities and a significant step backwards from the machinery of the current CAP. The gap between expressed intentions and mechanisms proposed is so large as to be alarming.

To bring the policy back into alignment with the public goods trajectory and to allow contributions to be made to international commitments – such as the SDGs, Paris Agreement and the Biodiversity Convention – at least four steps could be taken without reopening the fundamental architecture of the proposals.

First, secure sufficient funding for environmental measures in Pillar 1. The principle of linking 30% of Pillar 1 income support to the fulfilment of public goods in the 2013 reform sent an important signal that all farmers in receipt of direct payments should contribute to environmental delivery beyond basic and statutory requirements. Removing that link puts the entire strategy of mainstreaming public good delivery based on results into question. To build on the proposed ‘enhanced conditionality’ and to address the lessons learned in the implementation of “greening”, the proposed eco-scheme must be a mandatory part of all Member State CAP strategic plans and represent a significant part of the EAGF envelope (at least 30%). This is even more necessary in light of the recent budgetary proposals (MFF) and the considerably enhanced risk for environmental delivery within the whole CAP arising from the proposed disproportionate cuts in Pillar 2 and increased national co financing rates.

Second, sharpen the specific objectives that will be used for setting targets and monitoring progress by Member States under the New Delivery Model. The proposed new delivery model is a potentially bold move to ensure that all streams of agricultural support are fully utilised to achieve environmental, economic and social sustainability in a coherent and locally tailored way. However, to be effective in addressing the significant sustainability challenges facing rural areas and society more broadly, CAP “specific objectives” must be sufficiently concrete and measurable for quantified milestones and targets to be established in Member States’ CAP plans. Without this, it will be difficult for the Commission to assess Member States’ performance properly. This is more than a detail – none of the proposed CAP specific objectives in the current proposals are framed in a results-oriented manner. Moreover, it is unclear how key objectives and targets related to air, climate, water, soil and biodiversity (many set out in EU environmental and climate legislation and policies) will be specified separately. Maintaining this stance would be a step backwards in comparison with existing Pillar 2 priorities.

Third, give Member States greater flexibility to transfer funds from Pillar 1 for environmental spending in Pillar 2. Whilst the obligation on Member States to run agri-environment schemes within their Pillar 2 programmes continues, (at the same level as now, i.e. 30%), proposed cuts to the Pillar in real terms risk undermining investments in so called ‘dark green’ measures in many Member States, especially those with limited resources. There is therefore a serious risk that the Commission’s declared intention to increase the CAP’s environment and climate and ambition will not materialise. Unfortunately, suggestions that the hole in Pillar 2 funding will be filled by higher contributions from national expenditure do not seem very realistic in many cases, particularly in central, eastern and southern Europe. Member States must therefore be given the flexibility to transfer as much as they need from the Pillar 1 envelope into Pillar 2 to safeguard and increase investments in more advanced and site specific environmental and climate measures. These transfers should remain 100% EU financed in Pillar 2.

Fourth, funding for Areas facing Natural Constraints should be under Pillar 1, not Pillar 2. Payments to support the continuation of farming in areas of natural constraints (ANCs), remain an important area for public intervention. Given the proposed cuts in Pillar 2 funding and the increased national co financing rates, there is a high risk that many Member States will feel obliged to maintain ANC funding and be forced to reduce expenditure on more targeted agri-environment measures to pay for it. To avoid this, and to improve the sustainability of the future CAP, ANC support should instead be offered under Pillar 1 in the form of a direct payment top-up. Then Pillar 2 funding for the environment can primarily target more environmentally targeted measures.

The full debate on the next CAP still lies ahead. But reversing progress towards public good provision and the spirit of Cork from the very outset would, to say the least, be a regrettable start. It is difficult to see how the Commission could propose this as part of a “budget focused on results”.

Caring for the planet starts from the ground

2017-12-05T11:23:00Z

If caring for the planet starts from the ground, then caring for the planet starts with farmers and foresters and all others who manage and use Europe’s soils.

If caring for the planet starts from the ground, as the FAO states today (World Soils Day, 2017), then caring for the planet starts with farmers, foresters and all others who manage and use the EU’s soils. It follows that the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), as a major driver of the decisions made by Europe’s 12 million farmers, is critical to securing responsible, long term management of our soils and related ecosystem services.

Soil quality, its preservation and management are important for land’s productive capacity. An EU-27 baseline study of biomass production for food, feed, fibre and fuel in Europe concluded that on arable land, local soil quality determines the variability of biomass production potential to a greater extent than climate. Thus, in most regions, well-managed arable land that preserves soil quality can help compensate for climatic handicaps[1]. This is not just true for the production of biomass but also applies to the capacity of arable land to deliver other services such as to sequester and store carbon, to filter and store water and as a buffer for chemicals.

The ability of soil to deliver ecosystem services is under increasing pressure. Observed rates of soil sealing, erosion, contamination and decline in organic matter all reduce soil functionality[2]. Increasingly analysis is looking at how the EU can manage its soil resource better in the short, medium and long term. This includes understanding what land managers can do to improve soil protection and their resource efficiency and how current and future CAP instruments can help support this. It also involves understanding better the drivers of soil management and resource management decisions and the wider policy infrastructure required to understand, monitor, improve and protect Europe’s soils.

Analysis by IEEP for the European Commission identified that the lack of a strategic policy framework both at EU level, and in many Member States, means that the soil challenges, priorities and solutions are often not set out clearly. This hinders the effective integration of soil considerations into sectoral and environmental policies. It also significantly impinges on the EU’s ability to form a clear implementation strategy for international priorities including the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and climate mitigation targets. Clarity and direction in structuring regional and local action, for example under the CAP, is also compromised.

Understanding the quality and functionality of soil across Europe is important for effective policy implementation and determining the ‘results’ achieved through the use of EU funding and policy requirements. The European Environment Agency in its 2015 State of the Environment report highlighted the lack of good-quality and harmonised soil data at pan-European scale and the relatively undeveloped state of research on linking soil data with soil functions. This in turn makes it difficult to assess the prospects for soil functionality and soil-based ecosystem services.

These policy and knowledge gaps are important in the context of ensuring that Europe delivers environmental protection alongside biomass for food, feed, fibre and fuel . Recognising the important role of soil and how it is managed will be important in the wider debate on the future use of land to deliver society’s multiple priorities and needs.

The CAP does provide the means to influence the positive management of the EU’s soils. For example, it provides some protection to soils through cross-compliance requirements and support for active soil management via Pillar 1 greening measures and Rural Development Programmes – see IEEP’s recent briefing on CAP tools for soil protection. However, in the absence of coordinating principles around soil needs, prioritisation of soil actions varies considerably across Member States. Analysis for the European Network for Rural Development (ENRD) found that funding dedicated to soil and resource efficiency priorities within Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) varied substantially. For example, 80 per cent of RDPs analysed (88 out of 112) set targets for fostering carbon conservation and sequestration on agriculture and forestry land. However, the proportion of land under management contracts contributing to carbon sequestration and conservation varied from 15 per cent in Estonia to 0.02 per cent in Slovakia.

The ENRD’s Thematic Group on Resource Efficiency also identified knowledge and communication barriers to adoption of actions on the ground by land managers, even if the opportunities to do so were available. This then compounds the gaps in policy and knowledge identified in the wider context of soil protection. Issues identified as impacting on farmers’ willingness to adopt new approaches include: the degree of fit with existing farm practices; impact on farm income; and fear of penalties if new practices are not correctly implemented. Motivating farmers to change their management even if they cannot see a clear economic advantage in the short term, or do not understand fully the impact this could have on their farm business in the longer term (positive and negative), is a challenge that must be addressed urgently.

For soils there is no static state or fixed end point, their quality and health requires ongoing, long term, coordinated management to protect, improve and retain remaining assets and improve those soils that have been degraded. The goal must be to maximise opportunities and the resilience (economic and environmental) of land for farmers and society now and into the future.

Work is continuing through the ENRD Thematic Group on Resource Efficiency on the role of RDPs in soil protection and on the opportunities under the CAP within the iSQAPER research project.

For more information on IEEP’s work on soils, contact Catherine Bowyer (cbowyer@ieep.eu).

[1]: Tóth, G., Gardi, C., Bódis, K., Ivits, E., Aksoy, E, Jones, A., Jeffrey, S., Petursdottir, T. and Montanarella, L. (2013), 'Continental-scale assessment of provisioning soil functions in Europe', Ecological Processes, (2013, 2) 32.

[2]: EEA – State of the Environment Report – 2015 - https://www.eea.europa.eu/soer-2015/europe/soil

IEEP Reaction: CAP Communication Launch

2017-11-29T13:18:00Z

The European Commission launched its long expected Communication on ‘the Future of Food and Farming’ on 29 November. Here's IEEP's initial reaction.

• Commissioner Hogan’s determination to float proposals now rather than defer the future CAP debate until after 2020 allows for the impetus for reform to be maintained. The 2013 reform made significant changes to the structure of the CAP: for example a proportion of direct payments were allocated for ‘green’ practices. Nonetheless the suite of CAP measures remains insufficiently focussed on addressing the significant economic, environmental and climatic challenges facing society.

• The introductory ‘Context’ section of the Communication does not sufficiently reflect the urgency and seriousness of the need for a substantial further modernisation of the policy. Given the inertia in the political process for CAP reform, a much stronger impetus will be required if the CAP has any hope of securing the necessary resources in the next MFF to help the agricultural sector through a period of transition.

• Far too few of the existing public payments are targeted to justified outcomes. Simpler does not necessarily mean more effective. This demands more than marginal changes. For example, the continuation of direct payments, even with the redistribution proposed, would continue a system that has been shown to be an inefficient, ineffective and inequitable way of supporting policy goals, including farmer incomes. Achieving maximum added value from CAP spending measures is a priority, particularly in light of the likely cut to the CAP budget.

• The proposals do include an acknowledgement of the need to deliver against key long term objectives for the environment and climate – including the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Agreement climate mitigation commitments. This is important to ensure policy coherence. The CAP’s critical role in helping to deliver European biodiversity, water, air and soil related objectives needs to be set out as well.

• Public goods are recognised as central to the long term sustainability of EU agriculture, mirroring the response to the recent public consultation. However, there is a need to articulate a clear direction of travel for the whole CAP – a roadmap towards sustainability. This should be combined with a clear set of objectives and targets for environmental and climate achievements and robust indicators to measure progress. This is currently absent from the proposals.

• Maintaining a focus and expenditure on the delivery of public goods is critical for the long term sustainability and resilience of agricultural and forest areas. However some of the ideas about a revised structure of mechanisms to enable this are decidedly vague and open to interpretation. Greater clarity on how the new combined pillar structure might work is required to ensure it is fit for purpose.

• The new delivery model proposed (appearing to mean more subsidiarity to Member States, the combined programming of both Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 measures, with funding based on performance) is potentially bold and could free up more creative and innovative approaches to delivery and controls. Pursued in the right way, it could also help ensure greater coherence between the use of the suite of CAP measures to achieve economic, environmental and social sustainability in a joined up way. However, with greater programming it does not seem sensible to ignore the possibility of co-financing all CAP measures.

• But to be effective, this new approach must be well embedded in appropriate cultures and institutions within the Member States and underpinned by effective accountability and monitoring frameworks. Historic precedents on this are not encouraging. To make this work will require Member States to articulate far clearer objectives and targets than currently, put in place new monitoring and reporting regimes and a change in the control culture to become much more proportionate. This may require significant capacity building and knowledge exchange at the EU and national /regional levels

• Cultural change and a new approach to delivery at the farm or territorial level are essential to achieve sustained environmental and climate action at the scale required to meet EU priorities and commitments and to ensure that this is sustainable in the longer term, as identified in recent pan European research co-ordinated by IEEP. It necessitates greater cooperation, including active and positive engagement with farmers, stakeholders and the private sector, as well as Member States committing to spend money on facilitation, cooperation, capacity building and knowledge exchange. The paper half recognises this which is encouraging, but it needs to go much further if the CAP is to be genuinely seen as a policy that is capable of meeting the challenges facing rural areas in the coming decades.

For further information, the CAP Communication can be found here.

Key contacts in IEEP: David Baldock (dbaldock@ieep.eu) and Kaley Hart (khart@ieep.eu).

For more information or direct quotes, please contact our Communications Manager, Harvey Jones (hjones@ieep.eu).

Environment and climate issues should remain high on the agenda for the CAP post 2020

2017-09-01T19:39:00Z

The results of the Commission’s recent public consultation on the future of the CAP have reinforced the message that the CAP must do more to deliver for the environment and climate.

The results of the Commission’s recent public consultation on the future of the CAP have reinforced the message that the CAP must do more to deliver for the environment and climate. This was one of the top three challenges highlighted as most important for the EU and rural areas (41% of all responses), with the CAP's rural development policy identified as the policy approach most suited to addressing this.

From February to May 2017, the European Commission held a public consultation on modernising and simplifying the common agricultural policy (CAP). Open to all interested EU organisations and citizens, it asked a series of questions about principles and priorities for the future CAP to inform a Commission Communication on the CAP post 2020, due in spring 2018.

The summary findings were presented at the ‘CAP: Have Your Say’ conference in Brussels on 7 July. The consultation received almost 323,000 responses in total, of which 80% were part of the environmental NGO led ‘Living Land’ campaign. These campaign responses were analysed separately. Once duplicates, including results from other campaigns, had been removed, 58,520 replies remained, of which around 55% were from Germany.

What is interesting to see is that, even with the Living Land campaign responses removed from the analysis, environmental and climate issues still feature strongly as important objectives for any future CAP. Overall, ‘protecting the environment and landscapes’ came out as the second most important contribution of farmers to society (22% of respondents), after ‘supplying healthy, safe and diversified products’ (27%).

In terms of the most important environmental challenges faced by agriculture, the protection of biodiversity was the one most frequently selected by all categories of respondents (21% of responses). Reduction of soil degradation and more sustainable use of pesticides and fertilisers were ranked in second and third place (19% and 18% respectively). Other key challenges identified by over 10% of respondents were the preservation of genetic diversity (16%), reduction of water pollution (12%) and rationalised use of water (10%). The balance of priorities between different types of respondents was fairly similar. However, when asked whether the CAP was doing enough to address these challenges, the overwhelming response (over 58%) from all categories of respondents was ‘no’ (farming and non-farming alike). In terms of the barriers identified to achieving environmental objectives, the lack of attention placed on sustainability was highlighted frequently as were the use of pesticides, herbicides and fertilisers, a perceived lack of support for organic farming and difficulties faced by small farms.

In terms of which objective should be most important for the CAP in the future, ‘contributing to a high level of environmental protection across the EU’ and ‘mitigating and adapting to the impact of climate change’ both came through strongly (13% and 9% of all responses), after ‘ensuring a fair standard of living for farmers and ‘encouraging the supply of healthy and quality products’ (both 18%). In particular, organic farming as well as soil, water and climate change issues were highlighted as meriting further attention under a future CAP, with a reasonably even distribution of responses between different stakeholders.

When faced with a list of environmental objectives and asked on which of these the CAP should do more, the options most frequently selected differed, according to the type of respondents. However, overall the responses were ranked as follows: prevention of biodiversity loss (24%), prevention and reduction of water pollution (23%), avoiding soil salinization, compaction and desertification (15%), prevention and reduction of soil erosion and the sustainable use of water (both 14%). The prevention of environmental risks such as floods and contribution to air quality plans both received less than 10% of responses.

A similar set of objectives were provided in relation to climate change. Again the rankings differed by type of respondents, but overall the breakdown between the various objectives was fairly similar, with the top four objectives being: providing sustainable renewable energy resources (17%), promoting afforestation and sustainable forest management (16%), reducing GHG emissions in the agricultural sector (15%) and improving climate change adaptation and enhancing the resilience of agriculture production systems (14%).

Overall, 77% of respondents agreed with the statement that ‘agricultural policy should deliver more benefits for environment and climate change’ (55% largely agreed and 22% partially agreed). This compares with 66% agreeing that ‘farmers need direct income support’ (37% largely agreed, 29% partially agreed). However, 96% of respondents agreed that ‘improving farmers’ position in value chains’ was important and 81% agreed that ‘targeted investments to foster restructuring and innovation should be supported).

These results of the public consultation clearly demonstrate the important role the CAP is seen as playing and must continue to play with regard to maintaining and enhancing the environment in rural areas generally and on agricultural land specifically. Biodiversity, soils and water are particularly highlighted. Importantly this is a view held by stakeholders and citizens across the spectrum of interests, including many farmers themselves. Climate issues are also flagged as an area where the CAP should do more in the future, although views differ on where the focus of policy intervention should lie.

The challenge now for the Commission is to develop proposals for a modernised and, in some sense, simplified CAP for the post 2020 era that champions these environmental and climate objectives as part of a package of measures for promoting an economically robust and sustainable agricultural sector for the future. In principle, a communication is due from the Commission in the coming months and the consultation results provide a natural starting point.

Further information: Outcome of the public consultation “Modernising and simplifying the CAP” Summary of the results of the public consultation "Modernising and Simplifying the Common Agricultural Policy" (document – 320pp) Highlights from the public consultation "Modernising and Simplifying the Common Agricultural Policy" Preliminary factual results of the consultation

Climate mitigation in agriculture is necessary, achievable and can benefit the sector in the process

2017-08-21T11:04:00Z

The agriculture sector has great potential to reduce its GHG emissions in a cost-effective way, with limited or no production impacts, as well as gain efficiency and deliver environmental benefits in the process. However, to play and enhanced role in delivering the EU’s climate objectives requires commitment from both Member States and the agricultural sector.

Agriculture, alongside the forest sector, has a unique role to play as part of the EU’s efforts on climate change. In addition to its potential to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through changes in land management, it can also contribute to the removal of atmospheric CO2 by sequestering carbon in soils, trees and other vegetation. This gives the sector the potential to reduce its own emissions, assist other sectors in meeting their targets and thus the economy as a whole.

The sector is far from reaching this potential and evidence from studies produced by European Commission shows that very few GHG reductions are to be expected as a result of current policy action. Policy makers and the sector are concerned that actions required are too expensive and would reduce the sector’s competitiveness at the global level. Some also argue that the agricultural sector has a lower mitigation potential than other sectors because some approaches to mitigate climate change can impact agricultural production.

These are valid concerns, yet our research sheds light on the untapped potential both to the sector, to the climate and to the environment of taking action in the agriculture sector in the short, medium and longer term. A report by IEEP found that there is ample scientific and economic evidence showing that no- and low-cost mitigation actions exist but their potential is not being realised. Many actions beneficial to the climate can actually lead to efficiency gains, help farmers reduce their cost expenditure, while having little or no impact on production. Beyond its productive function, agriculture plays a number of other roles in society, including managing natural resources and supporting rural communities and employment. When climate action is implemented with the right supporting conditions in place (e.g. making sure that afforestation does not occur on environmentally important grassland), it can deliver wider environmental benefits. For example, using catch and cover crops after harvest can help reduce nitrous oxide emissions, reduce the need for fertilisers in the next crop while improving water quality by reducing leaching of nutrients into water courses as well as improving soil structure and function. Many other such ‘triple win’ actions exist and are straightforward to implement, e.g. planting or maintaining existing farmland trees, optimising feeding strategies for livestock or properly implementing soil and nutrient management plans.

Today, however, climate action in the farming sector lags behind. Over time, as other sectors continue to reduce emissions, the agriculture sector will face increasing pressure to reduce emissions and fulfil its mitigation potential in the economy as a whole to meet increasingly demanding emission reduction targets put in place to meet the Paris Agreement commitments.

Perhaps the largest challenge when it comes to implementing climate action in agriculture is the fact that action is required from the many millions of farmers across the EU. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), particularly rural development policy, provides the tools needed to help achieve this in terms of advice, training, investments, agri-environment and climate payments, etc. should Member States choose to do so. However, IEEP’s report on the consequences of climate change for EU agriculture for the European Parliament has shown that to date, the majority of Member States have not made the most of the climate opportunities provided by the CAP. The budget allocated to climate objectives and their associated targets by Member States is generally very low, a conclusion echoed in a recent European Court of Auditors report.

The absence of any explicit GHG emission reduction targets for the agriculture sector creates little incentive to focus attention in this area. Therefore a long-term low emission strategy for the agricultural sector, which sets out the levels of emission reductions and removals to be achieved and by when, would help give clarity to farmers and Member States about the effort needed and set a clear ambition.

However, moving towards climate-smart production is only one part of the solution. To enable real transformative change to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 also requires consumption to become more sustainable, through tackling issues like food waste and moving towards more sustainable diets.

Out of the box thinking on the CAP

2017-01-16T12:30:00Z

RISE Foundation project outlines new thinking on the further modernisation of the CAP

A Task Force brought together by the RISE Foundation presented preliminary ideas for the next round of modernisation of the CAP at an Intergroup meeting in the Europe Parliament on Tuesday 10th January 2017. The RISE Foundation was set up by Franz Fischler and is currently chaired by ex EU Commissioner for the Environment Janez Potocnik. The meeting was entitled "CAP - Out of the box thinking" and was hosted by Karl Heinz Florence who is President of the Intergroup on Biodiversity, Hunting and the Countryside.

Janez Potocnik introduced the meeting by providing the context for this new thinking. This is the need for all economic sectors, which must of course include food and agriculture, to adjust to incorporate the Sustainable Development Goals including, not least, those on halting climate change and its damaging effects. The message is that further tinkering with agricultural support systems is insufficient; more fundamental change in attitudes, behaviour and policy are required.

This message was hammered home for the specific case of the Common Agricultural Policy in a presentation by Prof Alan Matthews. He focussed particularly on the Pillar 1 direct payments which account for over 70% of CAP payments (and nearly 30% of the EU budget), and concluded they are ineffective, inefficient and inequitable. They do not serve well the purpose of income support of those most needy, food security, efficiency of resource use, nor the delivery of rural environmental services or moving to more sustainable agriculture. The conclusion was they should be replaced by targeted assistance to help farmers face specific challenges or provide specific public goods. This should be done by replacing the concept of entitlements with contracts for services.

The Task Force identified that the two principal aspects of the CAP requiring attention are land management and risk management. These were the subject of specific presentations by David Baldock (IEEP) and Prof Erik Mathijs (University of Leuven) respectively. Implicitly, the other main aspects of the CAP for Rural Development, including skills, knowledge exchange, farm product marketing, rural economic diversification, and rural infrastructure were less in need of radical over-haul.

Baldock’s presentation on land management showed that current environmental standards are not being met, and unless agriculture’s GHG emissions can be further cut it will be exposed as contributing steadily more of total EU emissions. Key points to remedy this situation included: the need to set clear strategic targets for farming so that farmers can better appreciate the task that confronts them; to clarify the trade-off in reaching a low carbon strategy whilst also paying attention to soils, water quality and biodiversity conservation targets. It was stressed that this cannot be achieved by the CAP alone, but general regulation, plus advice, training R&D and institutional development are needed, and a significant part of the action must be contributed by the private sector. The CAP itself should be transformed to achieve this. Baldock argued that increased targeting of the right measures, in a programmed, multi-annual approach is required. But he put great emphasis on the need to develop a new culture with more attuned modes of delivery emphasising engagement of the parties rather than heavy controls, inspections and sanctions. This suggested a quite different, more integrated, tiered structure of supports for base-level performance, for the marginal areas such as areas of natural constraints, for specific farming systems, and at the highest level where specific management is required. He closed by emphasising that this work cannot be achieved by the CAP alone and that the right long-term objective should be to internalise the environmental costs of farming into food prices so that it better signals socially aware consumption patterns too. This will not be achieved without the active engagement of the private food processing and retailing sectors.

Erik Mathijs’s presentation on risk management started by arguing that the goal must be to replace the present system in the CAP of partial market orientation supplemented by direct payments with full market orientation (for market goods) plus a much more holistically conceived safety net system. The present system has too many distorting elements which are inhibiting farmers from better mitigating the risks they face. Mathijs explained that risks will be far better managed if the full range of options available to farmers are brought to bear: using spot and futures markets, better specified contracts with buyers, improving relations with buyers, taking equity downstream, towards fuller vertical integration. He demonstrated that different instruments are appropriate for catastrophic risk versus market risk versus normal business risk, and these in turn are best approached (respectively) at policy, market and farm level. A key consideration is that other policy instruments should not inhibit or ‘crowd-out’ the deployment of this range of measures, and at present the existence of substantial direct payments is doing just this and therefore restricting the use of the full canvas of risk mitigation measures. The prescriptions which emerge from Mathijs’s analysis are that risk prevention demands appropriate technology, information systems and training; risk mitigation requires private risk management measures some of which would benefit from administrative support; and risk coping might justify a suitably structured and financed income stabilisation tool.

This was as far as the analysis has reached. The proceedings were drawn together by some ideas presented by Prof. Allan Buckwell who wondered if the kind of reforms being discussed were achievable within the current EU decision structures and procedures. In particular, one of the ideas he floated was that more radical proposals might be more discussable if they were initiated by the joint inputs of several DGs within the Commission and then negotiated by joint agri and environmental Parliament Committees and Councils. This would enable each DG, Committee and Council to defend their natural constituency but within an integrated procedure better allowing trade-offs to be explored and settled.

There were lively reactions and comments from several MEPs to these ideas and the audience. Farmers’ organisations are highly nervous of the implications of this analysis; much more should be done to explain and balance these proposals. Perhaps not many of these ideas were entirely new, but they certainly aimed to stretch the box of possible trajectories for the CAP a bit wider! The final report of this project will be presented on 27 March 2017.

Where are we now and where next?

2016-12-15T11:07:00Z

Key messages from the DG AGRI Outlook conference 2016.

A clearly intentioned introduction kicked off the 2016 DG AGRI Outlook conference in Brussels on 6-7 December with Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker giving the first speech. Juncker pledged support and commitment to stand by the agricultural sector in difficult times as illustrated in 2016 with economic crises in the dairy, pigmeat and cereals sectors in a number of Member States. Nonetheless, considering the pressure of the demands on the EU budget from the crises of the Eurozone, refugees and Brexit, it seemed surprising that the President was so effusive in his defence of the CAP and farmers. This might have been the occasion to suggest to farmers that they might have to do more to justify their apparently generous treatment in the EU budget. Speaking after his President, Agriculture Commissioner Hogan outlined the priorities the next CAP will seek to address, under the overarching objective of “modernisation and simplification”:

Ensuring resilient farm businesses through a set of market measures designed notably to provide a more rapid and sectoral response during economically challenging times, to improve the effectiveness of risk management tools and safety nets, and to strengthen farmers’ position in the food chain;
Achieving a more sustainable system of agricultural production, with climate change moving up the agenda as a top environmental priority and technology and investment presented as key tools to address this;
Encouraging generational renewal, for example through increased support to young farmers.

Hogan said the next CAP has to take into account the Sustainable Development Goals and the climate commitments of the Paris Agreement, recently ratified. Interestingly the Cork 2.0 declaration was not mentioned. A public consultation will be launched on the topic in early 2017 and the results will be used to help shape a Commission Communication on the future CAP “before the end of 2017”.

In addition to Juncker’s introductory speech, Karmenu Vella and Miguel Arias Cañete, respectively Commissioners for Environment and for Climate Action and Energy, had also been invited to speak. The presence of the Commission President and three Commissioners certainly gave weight to the proceedings and sent a clear message that this Commission is joined-up and that climate and environmental commitments must be a more prominent part of future EU agricultural policy. This message was reinforced by the expansion of environmental indicators in the 2016 Agriculture Outlook report to cover projections on greenhouse gas emissions, ammonia emissions, nitrogen balance as well as soil erosion and biodiversity.

In this context, there was particular interest on the two dedicated sessions on climate change and sustainable agriculture. In particular, the session on “sustainable agriculture in a resource-constrained world” sent a powerful message about the urgency and scale of the environmental challenges lying ahead for the agricultural sector. Panellists and speakers from different sectors, representing the JRC, FAO, OECD, the academic world with INRA (the French agronomic research institute) and Allan Buckwell from the IEEP, reached a clear consensus on some specific points. All agreed that the scientific evidence was cumulating to indicate that agricultural ecosystems may be approaching tipping points. There are already established causal links and significant economic implications for society – for example the costs of nitrate pollution in Britany in France – as well as directly for farmers, who, for certain vegetable crops or rapeseed have to compensate for declining productivity resulting from lack of pollinators by using other inputs. Against this backdrop, panelists wondered why this message is not getting across as strongly in policy.

Speakers suggested that the next reform of the CAP should promote a rebalancing of economic, environmental and social priorities. The aim will be to incentivise farmers to seek on their farm the best possible balance between the protection of natural resources, climate change objectives (which sometimes conflicts with other environmental outcomes), and the pursuit of a fair level of income. Social benefits should naturally emerge from this better balanced outcome, such as enhanced dynamism in rural areas and importantly, making agriculture more attractive to future generations.

An interesting further session compared structural change in farming in the United States and in the EU. Notwithstanding the much smaller number of, on average much larger, farms in the USA there were surprising similarities in the overall lessons of structural change in farming on both sides of the Atlantic. Family farming dominated both, even amongst the largest farms. All sizes of farms can be profitable, although there is great variability in profitability within all size classes. There is a marked shift to larger and more complex business structures as farmers discover the many ways of dealing with the low-margins in agricultural production. These include: combining into multi-farm firms; diversifying income sources to the farming family; hiring services out or in; and adding more value on-farm, i.e. vertically integrating in the food chain.

Some legislation and some mechanisms under the current CAP already are offering incentives which reward those farmers and land users seeking to deliver a more balanced set of public and private goods. The greening of direct payments, a number of rural development measures, the Nitrates Directive and the Directive on the Sustainable use of pesticides all – to a greater or lesser degree – should lead farmers to think about the best way to achieve economic viability while mitigating damage, protecting and/or enhancing the environment.

But the situation presented at the Outlook conference showed that so far the joining up of economic and environmental thinking has not been coherent or forceful enough. The setting of the conference itself revealed some dichotomy in the discussions held between two days. Climate, the environment and sustainability were high on the agenda on Day 1 in strong contrast with the second day focused on sectoral outlooks and farm income, where environmental or climate commitments often felt somewhat distant considerations. More than ever the next CAP reform needs to treat those themes jointly rather than in isolation.

Are Ecological Focus Areas delivering for biodiversity?

2016-12-08T18:17:00Z

Ecological Focus Areas are intended to safeguard and improve biodiversity on arable farms in the EU. What evidence is there that they are actually delivering biodiversity on farmland?

Ecological Focus Areas (EFAs), part of greening in the Common Agricultural Policy, are intended to safeguard and improve biodiversity on arable farms in the EU. IEEP’s study for EEB and BirdLife looked at how EFAs are being implemented in the EU and what evidence there is in the published literature on the potential biodiversity impacts on farmland, taking into account how the areas are being managed. The study aims to contribute to the evidence base for the forthcoming revision of CAP greening regulation and implementation, building on a previous IEEP study on Member States greening choices.

Implementation data published by the European Commission show that, in 2015, two-thirds of the EFA area comprised nitrogen-fixing crops, catch crops or cover crops, with land lying fallow on a fifth of the area. The literature shows that under current EFA rules and conventional farming practices it is unlikely that most nitrogen-fixing crops and catch and cover crops grown on EFAs provide much benefit for farmland biodiversity. In contrast, the EFA options of land lying fallow, hedges, and field margins generally have the potential under typical management to provide much greater, more diverse and more reliable biodiversity benefits.

Extensively managed nitrogen-fixing forage and green manure crops, could provide benefits for some wildlife groups (including some threatened farmland species), if the crop is kept in the ground for a year to several years, cutting is avoided during the summer and pesticides are not applied. However, nitrogen-fixing crop EFAs probably rarely produce such biodiversity benefits because: a) the rules governing EFA implementation do not require extensive management; b) grain legume crops tend to be cultivated fairly intensively, including use of fertilisers and pesticides, and forage or green manure crops can be frequently cut or grazed; and c) only one Member State has banned pesticide use on N-fixing crops in EFAs (with the exception of the ban on their use on forage and green manure crops in The Netherlands).

Catch and cover crops are only likely to provide biodiversity benefits if they comprise plant mixes designed to benefit pollinators or seed-eating birds that are allowed to flower and set seed. However, on the EFAs of most of the case study countries and regions, there is no incentive to grow biodiversity beneficial plant mixes, and even were this to be the case, they are unlikely to flower and set seed as the obligatory cropping period is too short and/or crops may be cut to control weeds. In fact, they could have a negative impact on some farmland birds if cover crops replace winter stubbles, which are important feeding habitat for seed-eating birds.

The biodiversity benefits of EFA crops and fallow could be considerably increased through changes in the incentives and implementation rules. Firstly, the uptake of EFA options that provide the greatest biodiversity benefits could be increased. Secondly, farmers could be encouraged to sow species mixes that benefit wildlife on fallow, field margins and buffer strips and grow them long enough to flower and set seed without agro-chemical use. Finally, three key changes to implementation rules would greatly increase the ability of EFAs to meet their biodiversity policy objectives: 1) avoiding the use of fertilisers and pesticides; 2) ensuring the periods over which they are established and removed are suited to biodiversity as well as production cycles; and 3) ensuring that key farming operations (such as cutting of vegetation) are carried out at appropriate times.

Evelyn Underwood presented the results of the study to a group of Member State representatives on agriculture and members of the DG AGRI greening unit in Brussels on 29 November. IEEP will continue working on the evaluation of greening in the next year under a contract to DG AGRI, which will look at the effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance and EU added value of the greening measure.

Rural Development back on the agenda at Cork

2016-09-13T09:06:00Z

David Baldock sets out his view on the Cork 2 conference which he and others at IEEP attended and about what this might mean for the future of rural development policy.

Rural development has not enjoyed much of the European limelight in recent years. Other preoccupations, such as migration, sluggish economic progress, and now Brexit have occupied the centre stage. Within the rural policy world it has been Pillar 1 of the CAP, crisis in the dairy markets, safety nets, greening, simplification and concern about the budget that have absorbed the air time and the attention of ministers.

So there were risks in gathering 300 people in Cork twenty years after a celebrated conference that galvanised the principle that rural development (including the environment) was a Pillar of the CAP (formalised as the rural development regulation in 2000) rather than a complicated accompaniment to the agricultural support regime. Commissioner Hogan was not in a position to make any announcements about imminent policy developments and the President of Com Agri in the Parliament didn’t choose to reveal any new insights. This meant that the ideas and the impetus had to come mainly from the participants and a well organised facilitation team. The action took place in four parallel workshops, all feeding in to final conclusions and the ten point Declaration.

This unusually bottom up approach was appreciated by most of the delegates, especially as there was a concerted effort to come up with positive ways forward. Lying behind the Declaration was a shared sense that rural policy needed new vigour and a refreshed sense of direction. Otherwise there was a danger of it being relegated to a lower tier of EU priorities and the budget could decline with it, either in the course of the MFF review or subsequently. As Franz Fischler concluded in his response to the declaration, the logic of Cork 1 was ready to be taken further, moving on from a two pillar approach, where ‘rural’ rather than ‘agriculture’ should be the main driver going forward towards an integrated, single and more strategic policy framework for rural areas.

The Declaration itself asserts the case for adopting the second Pillar approach in the whole of the CAP, stating that “The architecture of the CAP must be based on a common strategic and programming framework that provides for targeting all interventions to well-defined economic, social and environmental objectives” (point 8 - Governance).

There was a confident tone in language about improved performance, smart administration – not just simplification – addressing the climate agenda, digitisation and the need for policies to be accountable, more results-focussed and fit for purpose. Rural societies are not inherently backward and provide much more for society than is generally recognised. While there were certainly calls for more and better focussed support this was accompanied by demands for rural identity to be celebrated with greater pride and stakeholders to work together more effectively to secure their place in any reconsideration of European priorities.

At the same time it is clear that the potential of rural policies is not always realised and more value could be added; for example through the wider application of performance related schemes. In several workshops it was clear that trust had been lost in parts of the policy and funding chains. Administrations have become increasingly concerned about the risk of penalties and disallowance where relatively minor infringements have occurred and farmers fear that the details of control cramp their options in unnecessary ways and expose them to penalties as well. Risk averse policies can take over in these conditions, conflicting directly with attempts to harness innovation and creative solutions to the issues faced, which often need risks to be taken. Reversing this trend will not be straightforward but the stage is set for more effort to do so. The same is true of work towards a greener rural economy, the better integration of migrants and wider social inclusion, shorter supply chains.

Solutions proposed were diverse. Hogan explicitly backed the call for the rural proofing of all EU policies. More information, training, engagement and facilitation, alongside greater awareness amongst consumers and others in value chains and recognition of the economic and health values of the environment were approaches that cropped up in nearly every workshop. Administrations are often reluctant to give these softer measures much priority, not least because the challenge of measuring results. However, the Cork discussions indicate that this culture needs to change. Land managers and small businesses are facing a transition to a different world with limited resources to appreciate all the consequences and need support and direction, irrespective of financial assistance.

How far this burst of energy and call for new directions is followed through in practice remains to be seen. It is certainly relevant to the current thinking on the future of the CAP as the Commissioner acknowledged in closing the Conference. It provides a basis from which new approaches and ideas can flow in what promises to be an interesting year ahead.

Learning the lessons from CAP greening

2016-04-20T10:01:00Z

What is the most cost-effective way to encourage basic environmental management across the farmed countryside in the EU-28? Learning from experience to date in greening Pillar 1 of the CAP, this report considers a range of options to increase the environmental added value from greening.

Given the possibility that the final design of the CAP greening measures and the implementation choices made by Member States may not bring about significant additional environmental benefits, this raises questions about how to increase the environmental added value from greening. Could more be delivered with a revised set of greening measures under Pillar 1? Could more be achieved for the environment if greening measures were implemented under Pillar 2, under a multi-annual, programmed system? Or is it time for a change in the overall architecture of the CAP and what does this mean for future CAP reform?

This report by IEEP for the UK Land Use Policy Group, considers some of the lessons that can be learned from the introduction of green payments into Pillar 1 of the CAP in the 2013 reform. It reviews the original rationale for greening Pillar 1 and the fate of the proposals in the course of the negotiation process. Based on Member States’ implementation choices for greening, it provides an overview of the potential environmental impacts of these measures and highlights some of the challenges of determining their environmental additionality. Finally, it offers some preliminary thoughts on alternative options for greening, with a focus on alternative means of delivering basic environmental management across the farmed countryside in the EU-28. The report looks at ways in which the content of the measures might be revised as well as how and where they are incorporated within the CAP, considering the environmental, administrative and political pros and cons of each option.

The options proposed are intended as initial ideas to stimulate debate. They do not attempt to answer all the detailed questions relating to design and delivery. Rather they signal possible routes for discussion about how to improve the environmental additionality from the current Pillar 1 greening measures, in view of forthcoming discussions on the Multi-Annual Financial Framework and the future of the CAP post 2020.

Scoping the environmental implications of Pillar 1 reform 2014-2020

2016-03-15T11:11:00Z

The Land Use Policy Group (LUPG) of the UK conservation agencies have published a report, written by IEEP, setting out the way in which a range of Member States have chosen to implement certain aspects of Pillar 1, including key elements of greening and the treatment of ineligible features and minimum activity requirements for farmers. It highlights the potential environmental implications of some of these choices and suggests a number of ways in which the environmental performance of greening could be improved.

• The designation of additional areas of Environmentally Sensitive Permanent Grassland (ESPG) outside Natura 2000 areas that are currently unprotected and whose protection from cultivation would benefit the conservation of soil carbon, the retention of biodiversity, the protection of the historic environment or other environmental benefits.

• Restricting the options available to fulfil the EFA requirement to those which have been shown to have environmental benefits, including the restriction of the use of nitrogen fixing crops to those that have proven environmental benefits (such as pasture legumes) and/or the application of other conditions to mitigate the potential for post-harvest or post-cultivation leaching of nitrogen.

• Greater use of equivalent practices that are specifically designed to address environmental issues in the territory to which they are applied. To encourage the adoption of equivalent practices by farmers it is suggested that they could be made a prerequisite to the receipt of certain AECM funding, as in Austria. The possibility of Member States designing equivalent practices to be the sole route to meeting the greening requirements would also be worth exploring. The report also highlights the fact that the current control requirements, particularly for EFAs, are proving extremely challenging, both technically and logistically and that the scale of this challenge appears out of proportion to the likely environmental benefits. This has been recognised by the Commission and solutions are being considered. It is suggested that where this releases resources, a proportion of these could be redirected to developing more effective systems for monitoring and evaluating the environmental effectiveness of environmental instruments within the CAP.

Rules surrounding the eligibility for Pillar 1 direct payments continue to cause problems for certain types of land in some countries, particularly those with trees and scrub and/or with very low stocking densities, much of which is of High Nature Value. This can lead to perverse situations in which the optimal environmental management of significant areas of marginal land can render them ineligible for Pillar 1 payments. The consequences are often either inappropriate intensification of the management to render them eligible, or increased costs in Pillar 2, as payments to manage these areas, for example under the agri-environment-climate measure, include compensation for the income foregone as a result of ineligibility for the Basic Payment.

The report concludes that the next reform process, on which debates are already starting, provides an opportunity to resolve these tensions and find a rationale for the CAP that enables a coherent and consistent approach to the management of land for environmental, social and economic purposes.

For further information, please contact:

Kaley Hart, IEEP: khart@ieep.eu

Maria de la Torre, Scottish Natural Heritage: Maria.delaTorre@snh.gov.uk

CAP greening: what are its environmental prospects?

2016-01-21T14:49:00Z

A significant injection of money was agreed for ‘green’ farming practices under the recent CAP reform. This report examines the environmental impact these measures are likely to have on the ground and concludes that Member States’ implementation choices appear to have much diminished the chances of the greening measures delivering significant additional environmental benefits.

This report examines the choices made by nine Member States for implementing the new CAP greening measures – Ecological Focus Areas, the maintenance of permanent grassland and crop diversification and assesses their potential environmental implications. In the majority of cases the evidence suggests that Member States have used the flexibility available to them in the regulations to increase the overall environmental ambition on farmland. Rather they have maximised opportunities for farmers to meet their obligations without having to make significant changes, for example by allowing continued crop production, using species that are not necessarily beneficial to biodiversity and permitting the use of fertilisers and pesticides.

The report suggests that the designation of environmentally sensitive permanent grassland, which may not be ploughed, may bring about some benefits for biodiversity, carbon, soil and water. But even here most Member States have only designated land within areas that are already protected under the Birds and Habitats Directives and only four countries have designated land outside these areas. Disappointingly, the report also shows that the greening measures do not appear to have led to an increase in the environmental ambition of the Rural Development Programmes under Pillar 2, as had been hoped – in a number of countries, there are significant decreases in the agri-environment budget for 2015 onwards compared with previously.

It concludes that the actual environmental impact will only become evident once it is clear what choices farmers have made on the ground, however it is already clear that the chances of achieving any significant additional environmental benefits from the €12.5 billion/year allocated to the greening measures are much diminished as a result of the frameworks put in place in the Member States.

Keep chewing this bone: a trickle of ideas on a future CAP

2015-06-10T10:31:00Z

For European farmers, the principal activities prompted by the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in the first half of 2015 have centered of course on the task of understanding their government’s decisions on the detailed arrangements for the implementation of direct payments and getting their application forms completed to secure and activate their payment entitlements. The 2013 reform of direct payments offered a great deal of flexibility for Member States to adjust the implementation details to suit their own national circumstances. These covered issues ranging from the minimum size of claim, the definition of “active farmer”, the nature and extent of first hectare payments, or payment limits, the use of the provisions for coupled payments, the small farmer scheme, top-ups for farms in areas of natural constraints, and the provisions for new entrants. Last but not least, the details of the three greening actions (maintenance of permanent grass, crop diversification and the 5% ecological focus areas), where governments have a wide range of choices. There are now available compilations of the decisions made by the Member States on these matters. However, it will take many more months to discover the uptake on the ground of all these provisions put in place by governments and even longer to detect any impacts on agricultural production and on the environment.

For European farmers, the principal activities prompted by the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in the first half of 2015 have centered of course on the task of understanding their government’s decisions on the detailed arrangements for the implementation of direct payments and getting their application forms completed to secure and activate their payment entitlements. The 2013 reform of direct payments offered a great deal of flexibility for Member States to adjust the implementation details to suit their own national circumstances. These covered issues ranging from the minimum size of claim, the definition of “active farmer”, the nature and extent of first hectare payments, or payment limits, the use of the provisions for coupled payments, the small farmer scheme, top-ups for farms in areas of natural constraints, and the provisions for new entrants. Last but not least, the details of the three greening actions (maintenance of permanent grass, crop diversification and the 5% ecological focus areas), where governments have a wide range of choices. There are now available compilations of the decisions made by the Member States on these matters.[1] However, it will take many more months to discover the uptake on the ground of all these provisions put in place by governments and even longer to detect any impacts on agricultural production and on the environment.

Meanwhile administrations have submitted their rural development programmes to the Commission and by early June just under half have been approved and are now back in the hands of national administrations to launch and invite participation. It will take well into 2016 before all these programmes are operational.

In parallel, political attention in Brussels has focused, inter alia, on CAP simplification. The Commission, Council and Parliament all appreciate that the outcome of the last reform process, driven heavily by farmer and certain national interests, has considerably complicated the direct payments regime. A swing back to simplification might have been expected even without the high-level drive led by Commission President Juncker to relieve business from unnecessary regulation, allowing them to focus on jobs and growth. However, Commissioner Hogan has insisted that CAP simplification, which mostly refers to direct payments, cannot change the basic regulations and is focusing hard on the initial establishment of the new system, particularly trying to ensure that controls are more flexible and proportionate to the task as the new payments regime is bedded in.

Despite this intense activity generated by the present policy, there is a widespread, though not universal, acceptance that the CAP regulations, which will run until the end of 2020, are not optimal. Further reform will be necessary and that this will take many years to formulate and then negotiate. Consequently, discussions have been taking place amongst many of the stakeholder groups about the potential directions of travel. What follows is an impressionistic account of some of these discussions which have come to the attention of the author. It makes no claim to be comprehensive, and is offered in the hope it might stimulate others to share the reflections they have had or come across.

It certainly seems to be a shared perception that the CAP which has evolved to this point is not supremely well adapted to any of its prime functions. Starting with some farming interests, many seem to feel the CAP has become too burdened with trying to solve wider social functions which are not the sole or main responsibility of farming (e.g. climate change) and not enough focused on the task for which it has the principal responsibility (food production). This line of thinking suggests that the CAP should revert to being ‘a policy for agriculture’. When pushed to explain what this means, one line of response is to refer to such actions as: R&D, improving productivity, stimulating innovation and thus competitiveness and seeing agriculture ‘as the Brazilians do’ i.e. as a vital part of the economy providing jobs, output and exports. Asked what this would mean for direct payments, it is not uncommon to hear it acknowledged that large parts of European agriculture could do without them. Usually, however, such assertions are quickly qualified by mentioning that managing without direct payments would only be possible if the European regulatory burden were not so much higher than competitors face e.g. in the Americas.

Another response uses the model of North, rather than South, American policy towards agriculture. This argument suggests that the CAP must do more to help agriculture cope with the volatility in production and in markets. This quickly turns to discussion of the dominant focus on risk management in US farm policy. For some, such enthusiasm is dampened when it is pointed out that this subject has been investigated repeatedly over the last two decades since the MacSharry reform. The result has been a relatively clear arrangement. In addition to the substantial buffer provided by direct payments, risk management is devolved to the Member States to deploy from a toolkit situated in the rural development regulation in the second pillar. A major consideration in addressing this issue is that the benefits of such measures fall very unevenly across the Member States; more help and expenditure almost certainly accrues to southern Europe where yield variability is greater. Partly for this reason, others suggest that the financing of risk management should be dealt with by establishing a third pillar of the CAP which could be structured to cope with the fluctuating annual budgetary demands, which are not easily accommodated within the annual budget of Pillar 1, or multi-annual programmed budgets of Pillar 2. It has to be pointed out, however, that this last approach still does not avoid the problem that the only feasible source of funds to support a third, risk management, Pillar would be from drawing down the Pillar 1 budget for all MSs in the next financial perspective. So this does not overcome the hurdle of uneven sums and rates of support from which Member States draw on the volatility pillar.

More fundamentally, the wish for an agricultural policy which can somehow ditch the ‘social and environmental baggage’ reflects a serious misconception. It also overlooks the point that for a significant part of European agriculture the social and environmental services provided may amount to at least as much, if not greater, social value than the agricultural output. One suspects this wish particularly reflects the views of the commercial core of farming.

The misconception is the false opposition posed between food security and measures to improve the sustainability of farming. This notion has been promoted vigorously by farmers’ organisations since the series of commodity price spikes which emerged in 2007/8. This was especially apparent over the issue of the proposed 7% Ecological Focus Area (EFA) as part of the greening of direct payments. The cry that was taken up and echoed throughout the debate on the size and management of EFAs was that they must not impair agricultural production at all. Indeed this was even reflected in the views of the European Council when they settled the financial perspective for this period.

This is a serious denial of the fundamental purpose of greening measures which is to improve the (environmental) sustainability of European food production. The need for this is motivated by the overwhelming scientific evidence of undesirable impacts of many current production practices. These are leading to excessive soil erosion and depletion of soil fertility, especially organic matter; they have degraded biodiversity and thus vital ecosystem services such as flood protection and pollination; and they are emitting greenhouse gases which contribute significantly to harmful climate change (and thereby some of the volatility of which farmers complain). There is clearly more to be done to convince farming interests that these really do threaten the long run future of the sector. The right test of the effectiveness of greening measures is their impacts on these undesirable aspects of farming and thus on long-term productivity, and thereby food security, and not short-term production.

The resistance to the environmental and social aspects of the last CAP reform in the past reflects a certain absence of solidarity between sectors of agriculture. Of course farming does not neatly partition into commercial and productive versus marginal farming. However, there is a considerable proportion of EU agriculture, about half the total area which is less favoured in farming terms, a sizeable proportion of which operates in remoter areas with difficult natural constraints (thin, steep, stony, wet or dry soils), producing predominantly products from grazing animals. Much of this farming is economically marginal and highly dependent on CAP payments. To the outsider it might seem strange that more of the support is not channeled to precisely this sector – especially if a case can be made to manage these areas with greater emphasis on carbon sequestration, water filtration and storage, biodiversity restoration and maintenance and cultural landscape management. However to the commercial agricultural sector such supports are all too often deplored as ‘subsidising inefficiency’.

The apparent willingness of production agriculturalists to downgrade concerns about the environmental impacts of farming in the teeth of the ‘challenge of the nine billion population’ has not been lost on those whose dominant concern is the environment, both governmental and non-governmental. The perception is that over a long period, perhaps from the mid-1990s, there had been a gradual process of greater reconciliation between farming and environmental interests. Each recognized they needed each other. There was an acceptance of cross compliance, i.e. receiving payments in return for respecting environmental regulations. There was acceptance too that CAP resources were gradually migrating to Pillar 2 where significant parts are devoted to environmental management, remoter areas and wider rural, as opposed to solely agricultural, development. This all seemed to go in reverse during the latest reform process. Farming and green organisations pulled together to make a joint case to retain much of the CAP budget – and not least because it was acknowledged that a large portion of Pillar 1 expenditure should be deployed to help improve the (environmental) sustainability of agriculture. Having won this budget argument together, environmental interests then felt cheated as they saw the greening elements of the policy systematically diluted, and the transfer of resources to pillar 2 slowed, and, for some, reversed.

How to respond to this betrayal has been a starting point of debates amongst many environmental interests. Some conclude that the power of the farming lobby, especially waving the ‘food security’ flag, is unbeatable. This leads to the suggestion that the best course of action is to campaign vigorously for a new and separate environmental fund to be financed by redeploying (at least) the 30% of the CAP budget (both pillars) which is supposedly devoted to environmental management of agricultural areas. Others perceive that this might be infeasible politically in the economic climate, with the current focus on jobs and growth and re-examination of the fitness of environmental regulation. Some of this second group then conclude that environmental management efforts should focus on delivery – for example, through charitable and public ownership and management of sites, and by seeking private sector funding to offset the costs of environmental management.

On a different plane, another debate which could have profound relevance for the debate on the longer run future of the CAP is the broader discussion on global food and nutrition security. These issues are getting a thorough airing during the six months World Expo taking place in Milan this year under the banner: Feeding the Planet: energy for life. This is bolstered by the recasting of the Millennium Development Goals later this year with a new set of, highly ambitious, sustainable development goals, the first two of which are the elimination of poverty and hunger. A highly important strand of this global thinking is the recognition that the prime concern should indeed refer to both food and nutrition security. This serves to emphasise that the challenge is not simply about producing more food, but ensuring people can access it and that what they eat provides for a healthy life. With approximately equal numbers of people worldwide under-nourished, and extremely badly nourished, leading to chronic non-communicable disease (e.g. diabetes and coronary heart disease), it is argued that all aspect of policy relating to the food chain should be integrated to ensure a more coherent approach to these challenges. The implications of steering the CAP in this direction have yet to be explored.

Drawing these threads together, it is intriguing to see that in some ways both farming and environmental interests may be converging from opposite starting points to conclude that the CAP is not the right policy framework within which to improve the environmental management of agricultural land. If this is their direction of travel, this author thinks they are both wrong. Any lack of sustainability of core, commercial agriculture is essentially its questionable environmental sustainability. The potential non-sustainability of many agriculturally marginal areas in Europe may well be less to do with the environmental dimension as the economic and social dimensions. These issues will only be rectified by addressing them together. It will not help to create an agricultural policy which downplays environmental impacts and production of public goods, or an environmental policy which ignores the need to feed the growing population. The task is still to integrate these objectives in the one land management policy. The balance between the objectives is tough enough. Achieving the balance between actions at Brussels and Member State levels adds to the difficulty. This is why we have to keep chewing this bone.

[1] See DG Agriculture’s most recent Information Note: Direct payments post 2014 - Decisions taken by Member States by 1 August 2014: State of play on 07/05/2015. IEEP expects to publish some work on the implementation of greening in selected Member States later in the summer.

Expo 2015 Milan: Feeding the Planet, energy for life

2015-05-20T08:05:00Z

Universal Expositions, or Expo, are international fairs held generally at five year intervals nowadays featuring a chosen theme. The earliest national Expo was the French industrial expo of 1844, and the first World Expo was The Great Exhibition of Crystal Palace in Hyde Park, London, in 1851. The theme of the 2010 Expo in Shanghai was Better City – Better Life.

Given the revival in the last several years of global concerns about food security, and perhaps natural in Italy with its strong food culture, the theme for the current Expo which runs from 1 May to 31 October is “Feeding the Planet – energy for life”. The expo involves 147 countries, it occupies 200 hectares of the north of Milan, and is hoping to welcome 20 million visitors, who will find spectacular architecture, stunning food from all over the world, and great fun!

Naturally, because it is located in Europe, the European Union has given full support to Expo. The EU’s contribution is being coordinated through DG JRC – the Joint Research Centre – this reflects the decision to focus the major EU contribution on research relating to the theme of the Expo. To this end the EU set up a Scientific Committee chaired by ex-Commissioner Franz Fischler to coordinate this input. The research theme is being pursued through three main activities: a discussion paper produced by the Scientific committee, a series of forty workshops and conferences at Expo on a full range of issues concerning the production and consumption, sustainability, safety and nutritional quality of food, and a public consultation on the priorities for European research in these areas. The hope is that the outcome of these activities will be a strong consensus on the most constructive and enduring contribution Europe can make to feeding the growing population of our planet and thus providing energy for life.

The discussion paper “The Role of Research in Global Food and Nutrition Security” was published by Commissioner Navracsics on 13 April in Brussels, and its first discussion with scientists was in Milan on 8 May. Meanwhile an online public consultation was launched and this can be found at: http://europa.eu/expo2015/online-consultation.

The seven themes identified by the discussion paper illustrate the complex range of issues involved. They are:

Improve public health through nutrition – healthy and sustainable consumption;
Increase food safety and quality;
Reduce losses and waste – more efficient food chain;
Manage the land for all ecosystem services – sustainable rural development;
Increase agricultural outputs sustainably – sustainable intensification;
Understand food markets in an increasingly globalised food system;
Increase equity in the food system.

The paper stresses the complex interrelations between these issues, the fact that none is pre-eminent, all have to be tackled, and that this requires a multi-disciplinary approach. It was a conscious decision to head the list with the challenges of improving nutrition and health, both the challenges of severe under-nutrition as well as the problems arising from obesity. This serves to emphasise that food security is not only, or even mostly, about producing more food. Access to food, consumption patterns, trade, and the way the food is produced are equally important.

It is intended that the results of the consultation, together with reports which are being compiled on all the scientific events taking place at Expo will shape a set of recommendations coming from this activity to be written up in a final report of the Scientific Committee. This should be a lasting European contribution to assist global food and nutrition security. Readers are urged to participate in this consultation to help shape the European response to the global food challenge.

Food Security – a motivating force for useful policy change?

2014-12-01T13:58:00Z

Some reflections on how the post 2007/8 commodity price spikes raised food security up the political agenda and some of the consequential impacts.

These are personal reflections on how the post 2007/8 commodity price spikes raised food security up the political agenda and some of the consequential impacts. They have been gleaned from the authors’ recent research and participation in a number of meetings and other events on food security during this year. The three most important have been as a member of the Commission’s Scientific Advisory Committee for the Milan 2015 Expo whose theme is “Feeding the planet, energy for life”, a Rustat Conference on 11 September 2014, and a Workshop at the Centre for Science and Policy Cambridge.

“Food security is a bigger challenge than ever, with a global population expected to reach 9.6 billion people by 2050.” Agriculture and Rural Development Commissioner Phil Hogan to the 6th Knowledge and Innovation Summit at the European Parliament on 17 November 2014.

This quote is an absolutely standard phrase repeated at almost every event looking at future challenges facing agriculture in Europe. Global population growth is immediately linked to food security and there is an implicit suggestion that this demands a response by increasing EU agricultural productivity and perhaps EU agricultural output. Such statements are not accompanied by serious analysis of the real threats to European food security, nor of the most appropriate EU assistance to the 805 million worldwide who really are suffering food insecurity and undernourishment. All too frequently references to the growth in global population have become a convenient shorthand which is taken implicitly to justify the protection of EU agriculture.

The spikes in international prices of major food crops between 2007 and 2013 had short-run real impacts on food security in many parts of the world, and on food price inflation everywhere. The charts discussed below offer two perspectives.

The first chart, from the Commission’s price dashboard for the period January 2000 to September 2014, shows nominal wheat price indices peaking at over four times, and maize prices at three times, the 2000 level in spring 2008. They peaked again in spring 2011, 2013 and 2014, but are currently falling. The second chart, from World Bank data, shows these developments in a longer context since 1960 (2010=100) and in real as opposed to nominal prices and juxtaposing the prices of energy and fertilisers in the picture. This clearly shows that the deeply-established 20th Century downward trend in real agricultural commodity prices has halted. Prices have risen substantially above their lowest levels seen from 1985 to 2000. It is too early to say whether there is a new upward trend.

In the literature on the causes of these developments, most economists and statisticians conclude that most of the upward shift in agricultural commodity prices is due to the systematic rise in energy prices (followed swiftly by fertiliser prices) plus the impacts of supply shocks, and commodity stock and exchange rate changes. In contrast to popular belief, the effects of biofuel policies and commodity speculation were found to be much less important. None of the analyses suggest the price rises resulted from population- or economic growth- driven surges in demand. Indeed, on population, until the very recent report by Raftery et al (2014), the consensus based on the UN ‘medium fertility’ projections suggests that population growth, which has been slowing for many years now, will be stabilising towards the end of this century. In Europe, population is already falling in 10 Member States, and is expected to peak and decline in nine more by mid-century. This leaves nine other Member States whose population is expected (on medium assumptions) to continue to grow throughout this century (Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Sweden and the UK). It is an interesting observation on the state of public perception, that despite food, agriculture, environment and trade being zones of EU competence within the EU single market, national food security is still a preoccupation. The EU28 population is projected to peak at about 520 million around 2030 and then slowly decline. European economic growth has certainly declined, with few suggesting high rates of growth can return. Three other drivers of food consumption patterns in Europe also suggest less growth, if not actual falls, in future consumption. There are now strong and repeated messages being given on the need to reduce sugar consumption to combat health problems, and to reduce meat consumption mostly for environmental (GHG emission) reasons. Third, there are concerted efforts to reduce the high incidence of waste in the food chain. Combined, these can have noticeable effects in the decades to come.

On the production side, whilst it is certainly the case that crop yields have plateaued in Europe and many other parts of the world (Ray et al, 2012), detailed analysis by Fuglie and his colleagues show that, mostly due to labour outflow, total factor productivity growth has, in general, not slowed (Fuglie et al, 2012). It is also clear from this analysis that productivity growth in agriculture is closely related to expenditure on research and development. Therefore the claims in the Commissioner’s speech that R&D on food and agriculture is being doubled in the current financial period compared to the last should be accompanied by a future upturn in productivity. Of critical concern for global food security is whether the political capital and concern expressed in the many Food Security summits and discussions under the G8 and G20 result in a similar real increase in resources devoted to agricultural development and in agricultural R&D more widely.

The point of all this is that there are utterly different considerations affecting food security in the more developed compared to the less developed parts of the world. In the latter, population pressure, economic growth and its associated dietary changes are certainly up against the challenge of pressures on land and water, amidst climate change. Furthermore for those in the poorest countries, described vividly by Collier as the ‘Bottom Billion’, these food security challenges are enmeshed in the four traps of: conflict, the natural resource trap, landlocked with bad neighbours and with bad governance (Collier, 2007). It was in the context of the challenge especially facing the developing countries that the term sustainable intensification emerged to describe the necessary development path of agriculture (UK Foresight report on Global food security). The phrase, correctly suggests that it will be far less damaging to climate and biodiversity loss if the food output required for the expected growth in global consumption during the rest of this century is produced by intensifying production on existing agricultural land rather than bringing new land into cultivation.

What then should this phrase mean when applied to developed country agriculture such as in the EU? This was the question posed by the recent RISE study.

The facts that: most demand growth will occur outside Europe; European agriculture is already highly intense; the EU agricultural area is declining not expanding, and that EU agriculture has damaging environmental impacts, led to the conclusion that the main emphasis for Europe under the phrase sustainable intensification must be on the first word and not the second. It was suggested that this especially means exploring and communicating where the local environmental limits are for farming systems, and assisting farmers to measure and react to their local environmental performance. Learning how to do this, and equally important, finding the right mix of information, training, incentives and regulation to bring this about are the main challenges for Europe. Discovering, and then sharing, how to maintain, and grow, high productivity agriculture whilst significantly diminishing the negative environmental impacts is Europe’s biggest potential contribution to global security.

This is all the more the case because the most common definition of food security cited is the FAO definition which makes no explicit reference to the sustainability of production systems. The FAO emphasis on availability, fairness and access to food are completely understandable given the dominant immediate concerns of confronting undernourishment. However if the future follows the past, then the more successful we are at raising productivity of agricultural output to improve availability, the more pressure will bear on the environment, degrading natural capital. How to avoid these ‘mistakes’ of the developed countries must be a prime objective.

A particularly complex aspect of the food security debate and one often raised in European discussions is the role of trade. There are many layers to this, some ideological, and some just plain difficult. The benefits of freer trade both for market stability, by sharing the burden of adjustment to supply and demand shocks, and for efficient allocation of resources is one of the least contested propositions amongst economists. For basic foodstuffs like grain, the benefits of having well-established infrastructure enabling trade seem obvious when harvests fail in one region. Certainly the obverse, the dramatic price-raising effects of export restrictions when markets go short were well illustrated by the rice market in the 2007-13 period. Such price shocks are then usually most felt by the poorest importing countries.

However there are many who instinctively distrust trade, traders (especially commodity speculators), the WTO (despite its founding principles of non-discrimination and most favoured nation), and a presumed association with over-powerful multinational corporations. From this view point, food security often slides into food self-sufficiency encouraged by the predisposition against freer trade. There is little understanding, and certainly no belief, in the income loss to which such mercantilism leads.

There is no doubt that multilateral, and indeed regional and bilateral trade agreements are all struggling with non-trade concerns especially environmental externalities and non-competitive behaviour. The main examples concern the environment and animal welfare, but also others where there are strong and different national preferences concerning technologies, food production processes, and products. A relatively recent further twist in the story has been the fashion to make calculations of the ‘external footprint’ of EU food (and other) consumption. These footprints are usually calibrated as the number of hectares of land, volume of water, or Green House Gas emissions associated with EU imports. An example of this literature for water is Hoekstra et al (2011). Such calculations seem to carry an implicit indication that it is in some way wrong or undesirable to be using another nation’s resources. Economic benefit from such trade does not enter the calculations. What to do about these footprints is also unclear. The ultimate aim of course is sustainable production and consumption everywhere. The challenge is to find how to get there from where we are. This is far from simple.

To return to the question posed at the start of this essay, has the heightened political attention given to food security led to useful policy change? One can only hope so for the sake of the 805 million undernourished. The actions agreed at Aquila and subsequent G20 meetings is hopefully leading to stronger focus on agricultural development, more agricultural R&D, and for example, on better international coordination of market information (e.g. through the Agricultural Market Information System (AMIS) initiative). These issues are certainly by far the most important. Within the EU, the recent reform of the CAP has been conducted throughout the period when food security was high on the agenda. Did this motivate a strong rational reform to enable the EU to play its most constructive role in global food security? Unfortunately not. The food security slogan was used by farming interest groups to simply hang on to as much EU public financial support for agriculture as possible. The strategic direction of the proposals to strengthen the environmental sustainability of European farming was stoutly resisted. The precise reasons for this are still being analysed. The challenge of incentivising more sustainable EU agriculture remains and, one hopes, will be the subject of future reforms.

Some thoughts on the CAP post 2020

2014-11-10T16:51:00Z

Conversations about the future of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) have started in different parts of Europe as a new Commissioner takes up his post and the implications of the final version of the 2013 reform become more apparent. This short paper draws on some exploratory dialogues in which IEEP’s agriculture team has been involved over the last few months. It combines the thoughts of others with some of our own reflections, both on what to expect and what might be most welcome in any future CAP; if there will be another CAP, some might speculate. We suspect there will be.

Why it isn’t too early to start thinking about the next reform

It might seem premature to be raising questions now about the future of Europe’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) beyond 2020. After all, the full implementation of the most recent reform, which runs until the end of 2020, only commences in January 2015. Three reasons are offered for starting to think about the next reform now:

With full co-decision it now takes three years to conduct a serious reform from a first communication, such as a Green Paper, to full implementation readiness.
Experience suggests that genuine reform requires a broad, shared understanding of the purpose and direction of a new policy. It takes several years to prepare the ground and assemble the EU-wide evidence to back sound reform proposals.
In any case, the mid-term review of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) during 2016 and the mandated reviews of ecological focus areas, the fruit and vegetable regime and geographical indications will be raising questions potentially central to a new CAP in the next few years. Well worked up proposals from the Commission should be on the table in 2018.

It also seems plain that the Cioloș reform has opened, but by no means completed, several adjustment paths within the policy. Redistribution and better targeting of support payments and further transformation of the policy to confront the pervasive market failures surrounding agricultural land management, especially the delivery of environmental public goods, are launched in the current reform but none is taken more than a third of the way. In the process, the policy has become considerably more complex and there are strong political pressures – notably in the mandate that new Commission President Juncker has given his Agriculture and Rural Development Commissioner Hogan – to simplify the policy.

What challenges will the next reform have to address?

Policy really should emerge from the challenges it tries to address. The prime challenges facing EU agriculture post 2020 will still be to improve productivity to help ensure food security for citizens at a lower resource cost; to respond to growing environmental and sustainability requirements; and to contribute to reasonable living standards for primary producers who will have to cope with volatility in markets, including that arising from the effects of climate change. Yet these challenges themselves partly arise because agriculture continues to undermine its own sustainability by degrading natural capital – pollinators, soil fertility, biodiversity, water and air quality. Making food production more efficient in its use of resources and more viable for the future whilst at the same time restoring and maintaining natural capital, should be core functions of agriculture beyond 2020 and reflected in the objectives of the CAP.

Simplistic claims about the EU needing to increase production to feed the world should be avoided but Europe’s contribution to overall supplies may have to grow in the coming decades and this is an additional reason to build production systems and accompanying skills that are robust and in tune with environmental and social demands in Europe.

There will continue to be difficult questions. A structure based on family farms rather than larger and corporate entities continues to have real political appeal but there is little consensus about how much restructuring, rationalisation and consequent decline in smaller farm employment is acceptable. The CAP’s role in slowing the outflow of labour from agriculture should surely be balanced by a more vigorous role in creating viable new jobs in the food system and rural environmental management.

In addition to its prime function of food production, mainstream agriculture will continue to have a wider role in contributing to the EU bioeconomy and the circular economy. This includes renewable energy production, reducing waste, and recovering and recycling biomass and crop nutrients. Getting the right balance between agriculture, forestry and other land uses will be increasingly important, as will be the management of soil and soil carbon. If these are not already a complex enough set of considerations, the policy must also contribute to high standards of food safety and authenticity, improved animal welfare and of course towards healthy and nutritious diets which in turn could change quite significantly. Accompanying these objectives could be a continuation of the current strong emphasis on “jobs and growth” which has been underlined by the incoming Commission President in his letters to new commissioners – including both Hogan (agriculture) and Georgieva (budget).

Perceptions of which are the most important challenges vary but in nearly every case there are strong public interests to pursue which seem unlikely to be met by the market alone. If agriculture and rural development alongside sustainable land management are to be guided through the use of appropriate incentives then a revised version of the CAP and / or a new rural fund will be required to meet this strategic need. This assumes of course that the current drift towards re-nationalisation of agricultural policy measures, if not budgets, does not become a torrent.

However radical, the next CAP reform will have to build upon the existing policy, so its shortcomings and strengths in the eyes of different actors will be a crucial starting point for the debate. Many will point to the continued lack of justification for the current level and distribution of the basic support payments. Others will emphasise the lack of progress in delivering the protection of biodiversity, water, soil, climate and cultural landscapes. Another view point will be that the policy does not do enough to help the industry restructure and innovate or to survive without dependency on public subsidy and without degrading the natural environment.

The proposition which perhaps commands widest agreement on the surface is that levels of complexity in the CAP have become excessive both for farmers and administrations in the Member States. That said, simplicity per se can never be a prime purpose of public policy. The structural heterogeneity in EU farming plus the intrinsic jointness of the production of market goods (food) and non-market services (good environmental land management) create a certain unavoidable complexity. Highly targeted policies have their place and will be needed. Monitoring and evaluation are not a luxury. Many might agree however that the way in which the CAP caters to so many special interests, and often incorporates measures to smooth the sometimes uncomfortable impacts of previous reforms, is itself a driver of complexity.

One lesson is that these issues demand collaborative thinking across organisations, public and private, spanning the full range of issues that should be feeding into the CAP. This list is long and includes food, soil, water, biodiversity, climate, energy, health and safety, forestry, economic growth, competition, and trade.

Lessons learned from past reforms

These are numerous and everyone has their favourites. One is that there must be substantive drivers to create impetus for reform in a domain where the status quo is strongly entrenched. This does not mean that national governments need to be enthusiastic. Few were ready to support Fischler at the time of the Mid-Term Review in 2003, especially at the beginning. In 2010-2013, by contrast, the Commission seemed less confident in its exchanges with the European Parliament and apparently more ready to cede ground, including on points where COMAGRI had advanced proposals that didn’t stand much technical scrutiny.

Steering CAP reform needs strong leadership. This is likely to require a determined push from a set of interested Commissioners embracing agricultural, regional, environmental, energy / climate and budget policy. A solo agricultural Commissioner, however brilliant, will struggle to break any moulds. This is even more the case since other DGs will be looking for a slice of the CAP budget and could be pressing their case with some force in a tighter economic climate when a new MFF is sketched out in 2016.

Distributional issues always are critical in CAP debates and it is easier to formulate and negotiate proposals that don’t disturb the status quo too much. However, this can be a stifling constraint on new approaches and the capacity to pursue changing objectives. Distributional adjustments can be managed outside the CAP, not only within it.

The context in which the reform debate takes place and in which the next policy will operate

Apart from proximate geopolitical threats (e.g. Ukraine, ISIS), the EU itself is going through a difficult period both economically, with the continuing Eurozone debt and low growth crises, and also politically in holding together the current membership and maintaining the defining principles of the single market. None of these issues will disappear quickly, in particular the current focus on jobs and growth is likely to remain critical in the background to the MFF review. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the share of the CAP beyond the current financial perspective is bound to be under scrutiny – not least because it is not clear how direct payments contribute to EU “jobs and growth”. This could be the defining pressure for future reform. Adjustments to accommodate trade agreements will also figure, although these will not produce the kind of reform pressure that was seen in the late 1980s. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), if it is agreed, could put the focus both on vulnerable sectors such as beef producers, and on food and agricultural standards that Europeans broadly support. This would be an argument for focussing the CAP more on the livestock sector but arable producers will look for ways of harnessing any public sympathy flowing forwards farming.

The likely market context in which the post-2020 CAP will be operating will be heightened pressure on land and other critical resources to feed and contribute to renewable energy production for a still growing population. It is difficult to foresee the precise balance (and volatility) of product prices and key costs, (especially energy, and hence fertilisers and feeds).

This pressure seems likely to be most acute in arable areas, especially if more food crops are directed into bioenergy supply despite the Commissions signals that this is not appropriate post 2020. Indeed livestock numbers may well fall further and land continue to be abandoned. This would point to further focus on raising arable yields and converting permanent grassland to crop production, accentuating environmental pressures. Gathering evidence on these potential dynamics and their implications will be an important element of the preparations for new policy formation.

What could be the broad elements of the next reform debate?

The following might be some of the key issues of the next reform debate:

A significantly lower CAP budget.
Sustainable land management in a European and global context is more clearly defined and becomes more explicitly the principal public good to be pursued through the CAP.
The politics and mechanics of focussing the support that is available on those who need it, mainly outside the core productive areas, and those genuinely delivering and incurring costs for sustainable land management. The current compensation rationale for Pillar One payments is obsolete in this respect.
A market safety net apparatus, involving intervention in extremis and also encouragement of farm level insurance, will continue with a small share of budget; but with risks of more volatile expenditure commitments and pressures for a more common approach than the current one driven by Member States.
Cost effective and administratively feasible environmental land management will be a core issue. This requires much discussion on how to incentivise famers to manage the environment better, avoiding perverse results and obsessive bureaucracy. This may involve more: collective/cooperative delivery, payments by results, landscape/catchment scale approaches, with greening absorbed into voluntary, programmed, multi-annual schemes.
It should also involve more creative thinking about how to maintain accountability and rigorous auditing of real results on the ground without micro measurement or driving farmers and governments into risk adverse behaviour with easy to measure but not very useful commitments.
Further emphasis on innovation and modernisation of mainstream agriculture so it becomes a sector which can operate within legislative environmental standards without annual subsidy, with the potential for greater emphasis on improving farm uptake of the fruits of research solutions for sustainable gains in productivity and yields.
At the same time there could well be countervailing pressure for addressing more issues by reverting to market regulation (with a less direct cost on the EU budget) rather than through CAP payments. This would be a reversal of the most important reforms of the last 25 years.
The solutions to these challenges may not all be “common” in the sense that producers are treated in the same way. For example, quite different actions may be needed in the prime agricultural producing areas relative to the more economically marginal but environmentally sensitive areas, especially those associated with high nature value farming. The current distribution of funding between farms should not be treated as a sacred cow.
The architecture of the CAP will be under scrutiny with more pressing questions about the value of maintaining two pillars and the associated funding rules for each pillar which have served to constrain the growth of the rural development strand.
If the environmental movement is sufficiently disillusioned with the CAP, as could well occur, they could argue for a large slice of the funding to be transferred to a new environmental fund with different rules and administered by different authorities. The interests of those who support the focus of a significant component of funding on rural areas could diverge.

Achieving a more satisfactory post 2020 CAP will also require different ways of working by the European institutions. The new groupings of Commissioners could mesh in different ways. On a positive reading it could provide a stronger basis for the Commission to work more effectively for reform with more inputs to CAP redesign coming from DGs Agriculture, Environment, Energy, Sanco, Regio and Climate. How to get a parallel broadening of the inputs into the detailed policy formation in the Parliament (where a COMAGRI, with a high level of farming interest representation has dominated the debate) and the Agriculture Council is less clear. Current studies on the political economy of the latest reform could help further innovation in future rural policy formulation.

Another vital ingredient will be the assembly of a stronger evidence base on the workings of the current policy – in particular how “greening” delivers on its stated objectives - and the challenges the policy faces in the future. At present there is little recent evidence on the full impacts of many different policy measures, including Article 68 measures, and cross compliance and a lack of certainty about key issues – for example the weight to be given to stronger more focused farm advice and technical support as opposed to subsidies. Preparations for a new reform can’t begin too soon.

Download this article in PDF here.

Sustainable Intensification of European Agriculture

2014-07-28T13:18:00Z

Sustainable Intensification of existing agricultural land to avoid further degradation of natural forest, grassland and wild areas is a logical and generally accepted concept. This article looks at a recently published report which examines in some detail what sustainable intensification should mean in the context of the already intensive agriculture of the European Union which has been associated with environmental damage. The conclusion is that the emphasis must be on sustainability, but that this concept is not well served by the lack of evidence on what are truly unsustainable practices, the multiplicity of approaches to sustainability indicators, and the lack of farm-level measures and benchmarks.

IEEP recently completed a project on Sustainable Intensification of European Agriculture with researchers from the University of Natural Resources and life Sciences Vienna, and the Technical University Munich. The project was sponsored by the RISE Foundation founded by former Agricultural Commissioner Franz Fischler.

The initial purpose of the project was to explore the meaning of the concept of sustainable intensification specifically in the context of EU agriculture. It was explained how the most recent upsurge in the use of the phrase emerged from the active discussions about global food security since the agricultural commodity price spikes from 2007-12. The essential idea of sustainable intensification is that it will be less environmentally damaging if the increase in agricultural production worldwide, stimulated by continued population and income growth and accompanying dietary change, comes from intensified use of the existing land under cultivation than if further forests, natural grasslands or wetlands were brought into agriculture. However, in view of the considerable environmental damage already brought about by the agricultural intensification of the 20th Century, it is essential that ways are found to reduce significantly reduce the negative impacts of any further intensification.

The definition adopted was that Sustainable Intensification means simultaneously improving the productivity and environmental management of agricultural land. It was overtly acknowledged that measures to deal with global food security cannot focus on production alone. They must focus also on containing the growth of consumption of agricultural products – for food, feed and energy, particularly by reducing waste and avoiding the public health costs of over-consumption, and dealing with problems of uneven access to food. However this study chose to concentrate on agricultural production, and the geographical focus was the EU.

The report examines five considerations which led to the conclusion that sustainable intensification of EU agriculture must place most emphasis on the first word of the couplet - sustainability. This means finding ways to continue the process of technical change in food production to radically improve the resource efficiency of European agriculture and at the same time showing land managers how to meet European citizens’ ambitions for high standards of biodiversity, climate, soil, water and cultural landscape protection. Much space is devoted to deconstructing and clarifying the component words of sustainable intensification. This partly amounts to destigmatising intensification and showing the wide range of interpretations of the word sustainable. In the context of agriculture, intensity is well defined as a ratio of inputs or output per hectare. It is relatively easily measured but it is generally denigrated! In contrast, sustainability is not at all well defined, or measured; yet it is universally supported!

The key conclusions drawn from the review of the concepts behind sustainable intensification are:

Input intensification per se is not the goal, but may well be a consequence of achieving these goals. An input which should be intensified everywhere is knowledge per hectare.
The prime goals of sustainable intensification are a resource efficient agriculture with significantly higher environmental performance. Ecosystem degradation is itself reducing agricultural productivity.
Sustainable intensification means improving productivity of crops and animals whilst reducing: the leakages of nutrients, crop protection chemicals and greenhouse gases; soil erosion and biodiversity, habitat and species loss; and expanding conservation outputs of agriculture.
Because intensity and sustainability of agricultural systems vary enormously and from site to site, sustainable intensification development paths will differ widely between locations, farming systems and individual farms.
Sustainable intensification will mean increasing agricultural outputs in some cases and conservation outputs in others, and in some situations both.
It would be helpful if academic and commercial attempts to measure sustainability in agricultural systems were to build on the basis of the official indicator sets.
More effort should be expended to examine the evidence on environmental thresholds relevant to EU agriculture, particularly those related to climate.
In the absence of evidence on thresholds, then it would be more scientifically defensible to talk about environmental, economic and social performance rather than sustainability. This would better match the use of legislative standards as proxies for thresholds, as performance below such standards is unacceptable.
Sustainable intensification can be seen as the latest phrase to convey the idea that farmers have the twin roles of producing food and environmental services.

The report examines the wide array of public policies and land manager and agribusiness actions that could lead to development paths fitting the description of sustainable intensification. It concludes with the following final remarks.

The collective actions required to define and measure the environmental performance of EU agriculture are well advanced, although not complete. Equally, the suite of policies to protect the farmed environment through environmental legislation and agricultural policy instruments is well developed. In short, in Europe, broadly we know what the problems are and where they are, and we have policy measures which could contribute to dealing with them, so why is progress to reduce these problems insufficient?

One answer is a misguided concern of the contribution of European agricultural production to global food security. The worry is that by taking measures to improve environmental performance in Europe this will reduce production potential in a world of still growing population and food demand. These fears may be overstated. Europe is a relatively high cost production area and its agricultural exports are of more processed high quality foods and highly developed plant and animal genetics. It is therefore not generally a source of low cost calories for poorest countries. Second, there is a continuing long-term trend in underlying productivity growth which also responds positively to R&D effort. In this context the potential output loss from the further withdrawal of a few percentage points of land to provide biodiversity and water protection could be replaced by a relatively few year’s productivity growth. Third, such is the size of food waste in the EU, that the private and public efforts to reduce this could also ‘replace’ output forgone from some production areas where actions are taken to reduce negative environmental effects of intensive production.

Another answer lies perhaps with the perceptions and motivations of farmers. It is not at all clear that they appreciate the extent of the environmental degradation that has accumulated over the last century, or the potential threat this poses for continued future production. This underlines the importance of continuing the efforts to provide the evidence of this damage, and to put more effort to investigate the extent of environmental change and to improve our understanding of the timescale in which environmental thresholds may be reached.

The two most important lessons of applying the idea of sustainable intensification to European agriculture are that farmers and the public should learn to take a more holistic view of the agricultural and environmental outputs from agricultural land management, and that the key input to be intensified is knowledge.

CAP@50 – ‘A Partnership between Europe and Farmers’

2012-01-31T12:44:00Z

At an inter-institutional event on 23 January 2012 in Brussels, the Commission marked the beginning of a year long communication campaign, CAP@50, to celebrate 50 years of CAP in EU agriculture. The CAP@50 campaign aims to bring together all actors in EU agriculture, with past and current stakeholders invited to participate in this ‘partnership between Europe and farmers’. At the inauguration event, Agriculture Commissioner, Dacian Cioloş, noted in particular how the CAP has evolved since 1962 to accommodate new concerns as they have emerged, such as climate change and the sustainable use of natural resources.

At an inter-institutional event on 23 January 2012 in Brussels, the Commission marked the beginning of a year long communication campaign, CAP@50, to celebrate 50 years of CAP in EU agriculture. The CAP@50 campaign aims to bring together all actors in EU agriculture, with past and current stakeholders invited to participate in this ‘partnership between Europe and farmers’. At the inauguration event, Agriculture Commissioner, Dacian Cioloş, stressed that this campaign must ‘not only remember the past 50 years of history, but…look ahead towards a new reform of the CAP’ He noted in particular how the CAP has evolved since 1962 to accommodate new concerns as they have emerged, such as climate change and the sustainable use of natural resources.

In addition to the inter-institutional event that took place on 23 January in Brussels, there will be events in different Member States throughout the year. A second inter-institutional event is planned for early April in Benelux and an itinerant exhibition is to be launched in March in several Member States (still to be confirmed) on ‘the CAP, Past, Present and Future’.

More details about all the events can be viewed online. The campaign also invites the public to participate, providing a toolkit and a networking system on the website to help those planning events to promote them.

UN Report on Agro-ecology

2011-03-23T16:24:00Z

Agriculture which mimics natural processes rather than industry has a role in ensuring global food security, according to a report presented in Geneva to the UN Human Rights Council on 8 March 2011 by the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food.

The UN report defines agro-ecology as the ‘application of ecological science to the study, design and management of sustainable agro-ecosystems’. Based on a review of scientific literature published in the last five years, it emphasises that agro-ecology aims to provide the most favourable soil conditions and to introduce soil management practices that safeguard soil organic matter and raise the level of biotic activity. The core principles underlying agro-ecological practice are the recycling of nutrients and energy on the farm rather than using external inputs; integrating crops and livestock; and diversifying both species and genetic resources within agro-ecosystems. These can be complementary to better-known conventional approaches such as breeding high-yielding varieties.

The core principles underlying agro-ecological practice are the recycling of nutrients and energy on the farm rather than using external inputs; integrating crops and livestock; and diversifying both species and genetic resources within agro-ecosystems.

The report stresses that agro-ecology will deliver optimal responses to three goals of the global agriculture today – to produce enough food for everyone, to increase the income of small farmers, and to develop management options which neither undermine biodiversity, water and soils nor compromise the natural resource base of agriculture in the long run.

The recently published Foresight study by the UK government underlined the imperative of speeding up ‘sustainable intensification’ through industrial agriculture. In contrast, this UN report on agro-ecology states that it is often labour demanding practices such as agro-forestry, leguminous cover crops and mixed cropping that have proven potential to reduce the use of inorganic fertilizers whilst substantially improving yields. The UN report does make explicit reference to the concept of ‘sustainable intensification’, citing with a nod of approval the findings of the UK Foresight study on projects in Africa involving crop breeding improvements, integrated pest management, soil conservation and agro-forestry. However, the overall message of the UN report points in a quite different direction from advanced agro-industrial techniques.

It notes experiences from Nicaragua where simple agro-ecological methods were a major factor in preventing loss of soil in landslides after a hurricane. These techniques included using green manure, mulch, legumes, zero-tillage, no-burn and crop rotations; ploughing parallel to the slope, and incorporating stubble; and protecting soil with ditches, terraces, barriers, trees and hedges. This is just one example from the evidence base for the argument that agro-ecology improves resilience to climate change by cushioning the impacts of extreme weather events. Furthermore, by maintaining and enhancing carbon sinks in soils and thus contributing to climate change mitigation, agro-ecology can decouple food production from reliance on fossil fuels.

Scaling up these experiences of agro-ecology is the main challenge, according to the report. Public support is needed for investment in agricultural research and extension services, and in forms of social organization that encourage partnerships, including farmer field schools and innovation networks for famers. Appropriate public polices can empower women and create a more favourable macro-economic environment, enabling links between sustainable farms and fair markets.

Understanding Greenhouse Gas Impacts of the European Livestock Sector

2011-03-23T16:16:00Z

The European Commission has released the final report of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) study Evaluation of the Livestock Sector's Contribution to the EU Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GGELS). One of the main goals of the study was to provide an estimate of the net emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) associated with EU animal production, based on a life-cycle assessment. While the 2006 FAO report Livestock's Long Shadow estimated that livestock emissions account for about 18 per cent of global GHG emissions, the JRC report gives an estimate of only 9.1 per cent of total EU emissions, or 12.8 per cent if land use and land use change emissions are included.

In absolute values, the total GHG fluxes of the EU livestock sector, including land use and land use change, is estimated as 661 mio tons of CO2-equivalent. This total covers the full net carbon emissions of a range of livestock production systems, including all the on-farm emissions related to livestock husbandry, emissions associated with animal feed (including imported feed), emissions generated by mineral fertilizers, pesticides, energy and the land used for feed production. Of this total, 323 mio tons (49 per cent) is from the agricultural sector, 136 mio tons (21 per cent) from the energy sector, 11 mio tons (2 per cent) from the industrial sector and 191 mio tons (29 per cent) from land use and land use change mainly in countries outside the EU. The proportion of emissions from land use and land use change can vary between 153 mio tons and 382 mio tons depending on the assumptions made. Looking at the footprint of different meat products, the study shows that the highest average net emissions are associated with ruminant meat (22.2 CO2-equivalent/kg for beef and 20.3 CO2-equivalent/kg for sheep and goat meat). Because of the absence of enteric fermentation in pork and poultry, as well as their more efficient digestion processes, the emissions associated with pork and poultry meat are significantly lower (7.5 and 4.9 CO2-equivalent/kg respectively).

Another major goal of the study was to estimate the technically available mitigation potential in the EU livestock sector. It found that this potential could reduce GHG emissions by about 55 -70 mio tons CO2-equivalent/year, or 15-19 per cent of the current total of the emissions of the sector. But there are large uncertainties to be taken into account, some of them linked to differences in soils as a result of different climatic, bio-physical and agronomic conditions, others related to a lack of published research on the subject. The measures assessed and included in the above figures are: improvements in animal housing; improvements in outdoor manure storage; low ammonia application of manure; urea substitution by ammonium nitrate for mineral fertilizer application; no grazing of animals; and bio-gasification of manure from animal herds of more than 100 livestock units.

Of interest is the proportion of the total emissions that are N2O and CH4 emissions, which together comprise the IPCC category ‘agriculture’ and are frequently confused in public debates on climate policy and agriculture with the EU agriculture emissions as a whole. The study estimates that these account for only 57 per cent of the total GHG livestock emissions associated with the EU livestock production, including land use and land use change emissions.

Last but not least, the impacts of the livestock production on biodiversity have also been analysed. Pollution and habitat fragmentation caused by livestock systems are cited as major factors linked with biodiversity loss, and of these an excess of reactive nitrogen is the factor that deserves most attention, according to the study. At the same time the study stresses the importance of low-input grazing systems for maintaining biodiversity and landscapes and supporting rural communities across Europe.

Belgian Presidency Outlines Agriculture Work Programme

2010-07-06T11:11:00Z

The first few days of the Belgian Presidency are now underway and priorities for its six month tenure were presented at yesterday’s meeting of the Special Committee on Agriculture.

The first few days of the Belgian Presidency are now underway and priorities for its six month tenure have now been set out amidst speculation over the country’s current caretaker government. The work programme for Agriculture and the CAP, which runs until the end of December, was presented at yesterday’s meeting of the Special Committee on Agriculture.

Priorities for the Presidency with regards to the CAP were outlined together with items under the headings of phytosanitary, veterinary and food safety issues which include among other things a review of recent work done by the Council on genetically-modified organisms (GMOs). Points earmarked for the attention of the Presidency relating to the CAP include of course a continuation of the consultation process on the future of the policy post-2013, initiated under the Spanish Presidency, as well as further work on simplification, an issue highlighted as a key priority for future reform by Member States at the most recent Agriculture Council. Other key areas of work were identified as:

Reaching conclusions for the Council on the Commission’s communication on the CAP post-2013, expected by the end of the year;
Dealing with the recommendations from the report produced by the High Level Group on Dairy. This is to be examined by the Council, together with the Commission’s interim report on changes within the milk market and management of milk quotas until 2015;
Initiating a debate on European policy regarding the quality of agricultural produce which is now under review. Legislative proposals from the Commission are expected by the end of the year.

The full programme of the Belgium Presidency can be found here.

Proposals for Greater flexibility for GM Crop Approval System

2010-06-24T09:55:00Z

Proposals have been developed by the Commission that seek to introduce increased flexibility into the genetically modified crop approval system, giving Member States greater powers to ‘opt-out’ of genetically modified crop cultivation once EU authorisation has been given.

Background

Discussions in the EU surrounding the authorisation of genetically modified (GM) crops have generally been protracted with a string of ‘no opinion’ decisions being taken with regards to the approval of GM crops. Only two GM crop varieties (MON 810, and Amflora potatoes) have been approved for cultivation in the EU in the past 12 years, in comparison with the 150 that have met with approval globally.

There remains considerable public resistance to GM crop cultivation in many Member States. One of the barriers to gaining authorisation for the cultivation of GM crop varieties at present is that, once an authorisation licence has been granted, it applies to all the EU-27 Member States, with individual governments only being able to restrict their cultivation under strict conditions. In order to unblock the impasse in GM crop approvals, Commission President Barroso pledged to consider introducing greater subsidiarity to Member States on this issue at the start of his second term in office earlier this year.

New proposals drawn up by DG Sanco are understood to be in interservice consultation. It is estimated that the proposals could be published as early as 13 July. They involve the immediate relaxation and re-interpretation of co-existence rules as well as amendments to the core GM cultivation legislation to extend the criteria under which Member States can argue for non cultivation of GM crops in their territory beyond those relating to human health and the environment to include socio-economic considerations.

Member States to be given greater powers to ban GM crop cultivation

As a short term solution, under the proposals, Member States would be given greater flexibility to ban the cultivation of GM crops on their territory, through a relaxation of the way in which coexistence rules are interpreted. Currently these allow Member States to define so called ‘exclusion areas’ around conventional and organic crops where GM crops may not be grown. In practice this would allow Member States to extend these areas to the extent that GM cultivation would not be possible across their territory.

Legislative changes

A second proposal provided a longer term solution to GM opt-outs, which would allow Member States to implement more permanent measures protecting themselves against the cultivation of specific crop varieties. This involves amendments to Commission Directive 2001/18 which would extend the current ‘safeguard clause’ to allow Member States to adopt measures, prohibiting, restricting or impeding the cultivation of all or particular genetically modified organisms (GMOs) including GM varieties placed on the market.

the new proposal would give Member States the power to ban the cultivation of GM crops on socio-economic grounds.

Currently the safeguard clause can be invoked by Member States to override EU authorisation on human health or environmental grounds, backed up by scientific evidence. For the first time, the new proposal would give Member States the power to ban the cultivation of GM crops on other grounds too, including for socio-economic reasons.

Member State and Stakeholder Reactions

The proposed changes have had a mixed reception. The proposals seem to have been welcomed by most Member States, although Spain has expressed concerns about the precedent that this could set for the re-nationalisation of policy. Reactions from environmental and industry stakeholders have been somewhat less enthusiastic. Friends of the Earth Europe, for example, have welcomed the opportunity the proposals give for Member States to ban GM crops, but are concerned that they also give the green light to large scale GM cultivation in those Member States who do want to cultivate GM crops. Industry representatives on the other hand bemoaned the fact that the changing regulatory environment made the business of GMO cultivation unpredictable, claiming that the proposals are not in keeping with the single market, could spark disputes between Member States and may even be open to challenge by the World Trade Organisation.

Which member states pay for farm income support?

2010-06-23T09:24:00Z

A new paper has been published focusing on member states’ receipts of direct income support under the first pillar, which total €42 billion. These are compared with member states’ contributions to financing the direct income support.

The closer that CAP reform negotiations come to the finish line, the more will member states look at their financial bottom line. ‘How much do we pay, how much do we get?’ That question will concern finance ministers and heads of states at least as much as the objectives and instruments the CAP funds are spent on.

So, is examination of member states’ financial net contributions a shameful exercise: hiking up national egoism and ignoring the larger benefits of European integration? Not at all. If CAP funds were spent exclusively on European public goods, such as climate change mitigation or the protection of endangered species, national bottom lines would indeed not matter. The money should be allocated where ever greenhouse gas reductions can be achieved most cheaply or where the need for wildlife protection is the greatest.

But as things stand, CAP subsidies are mostly free handouts to member states and their farming communities – they do not create commensurate value for European citizens. This applies in particular to the Single Farm Payment which farmers receive as long as they keep their land in ‘good agricultural and environmental condition’. These minimum conditions largely correspond to the legal baseline – that is, all farmers need to do is to respect the law.

Making those who pay for this waste aware of their unfavorable position actually serves European integration. The CAP absorbs more than 40% of the EU budget, depriving the EU of the renewed momentum it could gain if it became more relevant for attaining the priorities of the future. Citizens are ready to support an EU that creates real value added – by tackling climate change, promoting European infrastructure, or enhancing internal and external security. They are never going to endorse an EU that lavishes money on one politically powerful sector to the detriment of the entire economy.

The distributional issue behind CAP reform will become ever more critical over the next years. Public debts will continue to rise and painful spending cuts will make the population more sensitive to wasteful expenditures. Also, the strain on financial solidarity in the EU provoked by the debt/Euro crisis will spur interest in the transfer mechanisms hidden in the EU budget.

So who is cutting the best deal in the CAP? And who has pulled the short straw? A short paper by Valentin Zahrnt, Research Associate at the European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE) and Editor of www.reformthecap.eu, can be downloaded here. The paper focuses on member states’ receipts of direct income support under the first pillar, which total €42 billion. These are compared with member states’ contributions to financing the direct income support. The national contributions are comprised of the contributions based on value added taxes (VAT) and gross national income (GNI), corrected for the UK rebate and other exceptions.

The most important net contributor to direct income support in 2010 is Germany with €2.44 billion, followed by Italy with a negative net balance of €1.6 billion. Other important net contributors are the Netherlands, Belgium and the United Kingdom.

The biggest beneficiaries, each gaining more than €1 billion, are Greece, Poland and Spain, followed by France, Ireland and Hungary. All these countries defend a large CAP budget and a strong first pillar. Irrespective of their public justification, the money their farmers receive from other member states’ taxpayers certainly plays a role in their love for the old-style CAP.

The net balance for all major net payers will further deteriorate in the coming years. In 2013, Germany will make a net contribution of roughly €3 billion, followed by Italy with €1.9 billion, the Netherlands with €900 million and Belgium with €800 million. The strongest deterioration's in the net balance affect Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Italy and Belgium. France sees its net gains shrink from €868 million in 2010 to less than half in 2013.

Is it advisable for the EU-12 to push for a strong first pillar with much direct income support? Clearly, the EU-12 will be much better off by shifting the money from the CAP to the EU’s cohesion funds. EU-12 member states receive a share of every € spent that is three times higher for cohesion funds than for direct income support under the CAP. The ratio for Estonia is 5, for the Czech Republic, Latvia and Romania 4 or higher, and for Poland and Slovenia above 3.

You can download the entire paper here.

“Visions and Design”: Securing a CAP for the Future

2010-06-01T13:32:00Z

IEEP hosted a conference on the 9 March 2010 at Scotland House, Brussels with the aim to present the most up-to-date thinking on a future CAP to an audience of stakeholders, officials from the EU Institutions and the Member States, NGOs and academics. Overall there were approximately 120 participants in attendance. Presentations from the event are now available to download.

There has been much debate on the extent to which "payments for environmental goods and services provide a robust rationale for a future CAP". In the context of a post 2013 CAP, the conference managed to address the following questions:

What are the land use challenges in relation to food, climate and environment in Europe?
What does the public goods agenda mean?
How could it be implemented?
How far is it relevant to the future of direct payments?
Does it contribute to income stability?
Is it an agenda around which a wide coalition could be built?
What are the implications for the size of a future CAP budget?

Along with an intervention from Mr Anastassios Haniotis (whose presentation can be found here), representing DG Agriculture, the Conference included five key presentations:

IDEAS AND PRINCIPLES

ntroduction: The CAP Old and NewI - David Baldock, IEEP

Europe’s Future Land Use Challenge: Food, Climate and Environment – Dr. Tamsin Cooper, IEEP

The Future of Direct Payments under a New CAP - Professor Jean?Christophe Bureau, INRA

Public Goods from Private Land – Dr. Corrado Pirzio-Biroli (RISE Foundation)

VISIONS AND DESIGN

Proposal for a New CAP - Meeting the Environmental and Food Challenges of the Future (A common Vision of 5 NGOS, Birdlife International, EEB, WWF, IFOAM, EFNCP) - Ariel Brunner, BirdLife International

OUTPUTS

Invited respondents commented on the presentations, with an opportunity for conference participants to contribute to the debate.

Report to COMAGRI Meeting Emphasises the Need for Sustainable Production and a Fair Income for Farmers

2010-04-08T13:36:00Z

At an expert hearing held by the Agricultural Committee of the European Parliament on 17 March, Liberal Democrat MEP George Lyon emphasised that a future CAP should ensure sustainable production, environmental protection and a fair income for farmers. Presenting a ‘Working Document on the Future of the CAP after 2013’, Mr Lyon proposed a pyramid approach to agricultural policy embracing both Pillars One and Two of the CAP. The document proposes a Pillar One to be founded on an area based Single Farm Payment and basic cross compliance, strengthened by market measures to address price volatility and contractual top-ups to provide flexibility for further greening of the CAP, and topped with an additional payment for areas with natural handicaps. Pillar Two would remain the principal foundation for Rural Development focused on ‘green growth’ (as specified in the Europe 2020 Strategy) and strengthened by targeted approaches on the environment and climate change.

An alternative view presented by the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, suggested that the CAP should comprise three schemes:

A ‘three-level’ integrated contractual payment scheme consisting of i) a decoupled and conditional basic per hectare payment for cultivated land, ii) a top up for LFA and iii) a ‘quality payment’ for the provision of certain environmental services such as extensive grazing, organic farming, maintenance of biodiversity rich areas, PDO and PGI production methods etc;
A system for the management of risks and crises to provide a safety net for farmers; and
An aid scheme for measures such as vocational training, early retirement and investments to promote economic diversification in the rural economy.

The need for a strong agricultural sector

Intervening at the hearing COPA Vice-President Gerd Sonnleiter emphasised the importance of maintaining the EU’s production potential, a point reiterated by Rafael Hernandez (European Coordination Via Campesina). Peter Kendall (President, National Farmers Union) also called for the EU to put in place ‘measures to strengthen the position of farmers in the market place’. DG Agriculture’s Director of Economic Analysis, Tassos Haniotis, commented that constraints on food supply rather than the growth in global demand might be seen as a particular challenge for future food security.

Speaking at the 3rd Forum for the Future of Agriculture on 16 March 2010, organised by Syngenta and the European Landowners’ Organisation, Environment Commissioner Janez Poto?nik, called for a significant strengthening of support for the provision of environmental goods and services in the CAP. He suggested that the historical reference model of support should be replaced by criteria such as the occurrence of permanent grassland, that reflected the ability of different regions to provide environmental goods and services, and hence providing a more appropriate basis for establishing differential payments between them.