CAP2020 - Home

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.

The Danish EU Presidency Priorities for the CAP Reform

2012-01-11T17:17:00Z

The Danish Presidency of the EU began on 1 January 2012 outlining four principal themes for the forthcoming six months: 'A responsible Europe; a dynamic Europe; a green Europe; and a safe Europe’. In terms of the CAP reform discussions, the Danish EU Presidency and the Danish Minister for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, Mette Gjerskov, have stressed the need for both a green and market-oriented CAP.

The Danish Presidency of the EU began on 1 January 2012 outlining four principal themes for the forthcoming six months: ‘A responsible Europe; a dynamic Europe; a green Europe; and a safe Europe’. The detailed programme was announced on 6 January by the Prime Minister, Helle Thorning-Schmidt, the Minister for Economics and the Interior, Margrethe Vestager, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Villy Soundal and the Minister for European Affairs, Nicolai Wammen.

In terms of the CAP reform discussions, the Danish EU Presidency and the Danish Minister for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, Mette Gjerskov, have stressed the need for both a green and market-oriented CAP. In particular, the Danish work plan outlines the importance of ‘strengthening research, development and innovation in the EU budget (Horizon 2020) as well as greater focus on knowledge transfer… to support the agricultural and food sector’. They support the Commission’s proposals for greening as a key aspect of reorienting the CAP towards the provision of public goods, stating that ‘it should be possible to use the entire CAP for targeted interventions towards environmentally friendly agricultural production for the benefit of the climate and the environment’. A second key priority concerning the reforms is to achieve a simplified CAP for 2014-2020. However, it is unclear how this will be achieved in practice, given that many Member States criticise a number of aspects of the Pillar 1 proposals, including greening and the definition of ‘active farmer’ as complicated additions to an already complex policy.

The first Agriculture Council under the Danish EU Presidency will take place on 23 January and the provisional agenda indicates that the focus will be on the proposals for the reformed Single CMO Regulation. According to the draft agenda, an orientation debate on the simplification of the CAP will take place at the second Council meeting on 23 February. Subsequent Agriculture Council meetings will focus on trying to achieve some initial agreement and conclusions on the technical elements of the proposals on direct payments, horizontal regulations and EAFRD.

Provisional Dates and Focus for the Agriculture Council under the Danish EU Presidency:

23 January 2012 - Single CMO

23 February 2012 - Simplification

19-20 March 2012 - Distribution of Direct Payments and Pillar 2 proposals

26-27 April 2012 - Pillar 1: definitions of active farmer, capping, proposals for support to small farms, young farmers and Areas of Natural Constraint

14-15 May 2012 - Pillar 1: rules underpinning direct payments

18-19 June 2012 - Pillar 2 – rules underpinning Pillar 2 payments

Informal Meeting: 3-5 June, Horsens, Denmark – no fixed agenda to date

Regarding other environmental issues and as a backdrop to these discussions on the CAP, the Danish EU Presidency will be facilitating talks on the future financing for LIFE and the preparation for RIO+20 to ensure a strong common position for the EU on sustainable development. Helle Thorning-Schmidt has also stated their aim to reach a general agreement among 27 Member States for the seventh environment action plan (EAP) by June 2012, given that the sixth EAP will expire at the end of 2012.

The role of the CAP in the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2020

2012-01-11T10:09:00Z

At the Environment Council on 19 December 2011, the EU Environment Ministers decided to omit certain details concerning the third target which outlines the role of European agriculture in meeting the EU 2020 biodiversity targets. This came following strong opposition from several Member States led by the German Environment Minister, Norbert Rӧttgen, who claimed that this drafted text was too closely linked to talks on the future CAP and might falsely pre-empt the ongoing negotiations.

The proposals for a new Biodiversity Strategy, published on 4 May 2011, outline six priority targets needed to meet the biodiversity objectives for 2020. The original text for target three, which specifically relates to agricultural and forestry land use, proposes ‘to maximise the potential of the CAP for delivering biodiversity objectives and introduce Forest Management Plans to ensure the conservation of biodiversity is provided’. Under Article 22, this target was outlined in detail as: ‘Maximising areas under agriculture across grasslands, arable land and permanent crops that are covered by biodiversity-related measures under the CAP so as to ensure the conservation of biodiversity and to bring about a measurable improvement in the conservation status of species and habitats that depend on or are affected by agriculture and in the provision of ecosystem services as compared to the EU 2010 Baseline, thus contributing to enhance sustainable management’ (see CAP2020 article: 11 May 2011). At the Environment Council meeting, Ministers agreed to delete Article 22 from the draft proposals, whilst a more generic Article 21 remains, that ‘notes the Commission proposals of 12 October 2011 for a reform of the CAP; and recognises in particular the importance of an enhanced contribution of the agricultural sector to the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 ’.

The EU Environment Commissioner, Janez Potočnik, has expressed regret that ‘all concrete indications on the required way forward to strengthen the contribution of the CAP to biodiversity objectives’ have been eliminated from the proposals. He has maintained however, that the Commission priorities to maintain permanent grasslands, introduce Ecological Focus Areas, and ensure crop diversification, as outlined in the CAP proposals which were published on 12 October 2011, would ‘continue to guide the Commission’s position in inter-institutional discussions on the reform of the CAP’.

Although the conclusions of the Environment Council note that Ministers agree on the important role of agriculture in maintaining and restoring biodiversity, it is disappointing that the EU Biodiversity Strategy no longer includes any concrete targets to support the achievement of this in practice. Representatives from environmental stakeholders (such as BirdLife Europe, Friends of the Earth Europe and WWF) in particular have strongly criticised the outcome, with BirdLife Europe stressing that that ‘biodiversity can’t be held hostage to agricultural interests’.

Reactions to the Leaked CAP Proposals

2011-12-15T11:35:00Z

The leaked CAP proposals have sparked initial reactions by a number of policy stakeholders.

The leaked CAP proposals have sparked initial reactions by a number of policy stakeholders. Those to emerge so far include:

A paper by BirdLife International, ‘Common Agricultural Policy reform: Radical re-think needed to make the CAP really deliver for the environment’, including endorsements and additional comments from International National Trusts Organisation, the Grasslands Trust, and Plantlife International.
Alan Matthews, Professor of European Agricultural Policy at Trinity College, Dublin, has produced a series of articles providing useful summaries on the different legislative texts and his take on the proposals, available on capreform.eu.
The European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism (EFNCP) has recently released their comments on the EC's proposed CAP regulations, focusing in particular on their implications for biodiversity in relation to High Nature Value farming and extensive grazing.
Twenty one European and French environmental and agricultural NGOs have signed an open letter (in French) to the Agricultural Commissioner asking that the CAP integrates environmental policy more effectively than the current display of 'greenwashing' in the leaked documents.

We will add links to further commentary here as and when they become available and welcome your remarks and reactions.

A Short Guide to the Proposals for EU Rural Development after 2013

2011-12-07T14:35:00Z

A new ‘short guide’ to EU rural development after 2013 summarising all the main policy points.

The European Commission and ENRD have published a ‘short guide’ to the European Commission's proposals for EU rural development after 2013 summarising all the main policy points. The guide can be be downloaded here.

Scottish Agricultural College Respond to EFRA Select Committee

2011-12-02T14:39:00Z

The Scottish Agricultural College have issued a response to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee at the UK Parliament which was co-ordinated by the Rural Policy Centre in November 2011. The response explores a number of issues, including the extent to which the proposal to green direct payments is likely to generate significant environmental benefits, the impact of additional greening requirements on food and production and the competitiveness of the agricultural industry and some suggestions for improving the greening proposals.

Full details are available here.

A Tentative Legislative Timeline for the Current CAP Reform

2011-11-02T17:30:00Z

The Commission published its Legal Proposals for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) after 2013 on 12 October 2011. This is the first time that decisions on CAP reform have involved the European Parliament as well as the European Council under the ordinary legislative procedure. As such there is considerable uncertainty as to how long the process of negotiation and reaching agreement will take.

The Commission published its Legal Proposals for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) after 2013 on 12 October 2011. This is the first time that decisions on CAP reform have involved the European Parliament as well as the European Council under the ordinary legislative procedure. As such there is considerable uncertainty as to how long the process of negotiation and reaching agreement will take. See Figure 1 for a tentative timeline.

Both institutions are preparing themselves for the first reading within the formal ordinary legislative procedure. The Parliament has appointed rapporteurs to steer the four key legislative proposals through the European Parliament and the ordinary legislative procedure. Those MEPs selected are Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, Socialists and Democrats (for direct payments and EAFRD), Michel Dantin, EPP (for the Single CMO Regulation), and Giovanni La Via, EPP (for financing, management and monitoring) . On the Council front, Member States were given the opportunity to voice their initial reactions to the legal proposals at the Agriculture Council meeting on 20-21 October. Before the formal first reading in the Parliament in spring 2012, Ministers will meet twice more to discuss Pillar 1 (14-15 November) and rural development (15-16 December) in more detail.

The formal ordinary legislative procedure is likely to begin in spring 2012. The length of time that this process will take is a matter of speculation as this is new territory for the CAP. Although the process often takes between 2 and 3 years, statistics from other areas of policy show that it can take as little as 2 months to reach a final agreement . Given the fact that the new CAP legislation needs to be in place by 1 January 2014 for financial support to continue to be made available to farmers, foresters and rural communities, stakeholders are hoping that the Council and Parliament will cooperate and seek agreement as soon as possible in 2012. Failure to come to an agreement at this stage would delay subsequent processes and potentially put into question the feasibility of making the new CAP operational by 1 January 2014. Nonetheless the timetable is ambitious, given that Members of the European Parliament are keen to play a full role in the discussions, as Albert Dess has made clear, stating that ‘the European Parliament would make full use of its co-decision prerogatives’. The Agriculture Committee Chair, Paulo de Castro, also noted, however, the need for a ‘cooperative approach’ which was echoed by other MEPs, such as Mr Capoulas Santos who stressed there should be ‘flexibility’ between the Council and the Parliament.

Assuming that the Council and Parliament are able to reach an agreement in summer 2012, other factors external to the legislative CAP process could hinder final agreement. In particular, it is unlikely that any final agreement will be ratified before agreement is reached on the multi-annual financial framework for 2014-2020. Any delay in final agreement on the EU’s budget (expected to be agreed December 2013) will be likely to lead to a delay in the legislative CAP reform process as the budget plays a decisive role on the design of the CAP beyond 2013.

On adoption of the new CAP legislative framework in a set of regulations, tentatively projected to be spring 2013, the Commission will need to finalise and publish the relevant delegated acts and implementing regulations. It also has three months from this date to publish the Common Strategic Framework, to which the implementation of the rural development regulation will need to adhere, along with other elements of the budget.

Even this somewhat optimistic timeline does not leave Member States with much time to finalise the development of their Partnership Contracts and Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) for 2014-2020 (including the necessary ex-ante evaluation) and get them approved by the Commission in time for January 2014, particularly as the Commission is permitted to take up to six months to approve Rural Development Programmes. Any delays in submission of RDPs to the Commission, therefore, have a knock on impact on the date of their approval, leading to delays with programme implementation on the ground, as has happened often in the past.

Of course, it is not just the RDPs that will take time to develop in the early part of 2013. In addition, the significant changes in Pillar 1 that are proposed mean that Member States will need time to work out the practicalities for implementing the new requirements, which for most countries will not be an insignificant amount of effort. Many countries will be changing the basis of their single farm payment away from the historic record model, as they will be required to do. This is a considerable administrative challenge, with a sensitive political dimension in relation to the redistribution of payments.

Even with a fair wind, it is clear that there are some considerable challenges in terms of the timescales for negotiating and agreeing the CAP proposals at the EU level and subsequently making sure they are ready to be implemented in Member States by 1 January 2014. Good collaboration and communication will be needed between all those involved and the willingness to look for solutions that do not simply result in a weakening of the proposals and agreement based on the lowest common denominator.

The CAP Proposals: Green in more than name?

2011-10-12T16:43:00Z

Today’s proposals from the Commission on the future CAP could have represented a major step towards improved environmental management across the EU, but in practice they leave major doubts over how much really will be delivered. Bold ambitions to green the CAP have become diluted by a focus on increasing the legitimacy of direct payments to farmers - at the expense of measures capable of maximising the delivery of environmental public goods. One of the reasons for this is that the new green payments under Pillar 1 have to be applicable in all parts of the EU and paid annually. This creates real challenges for sustaining substantive environmental improvements over time.

Bold ambitions to green the CAP have become diluted by a focus on increasing the legitimacy of direct payments to farmers - at the expense of measures capable of maximising the delivery of environmental public goods. One of the reasons for this is that the new green payments under Pillar 1 have to be applicable in all parts of the EU and paid annually. This creates real challenges for sustaining substantive environmental improvements over time.

Nonetheless making some forms of environmental management virtually compulsory in most farming systems should lead to some improvements in soil, air and water quality as well as biodiversity, particularly in more intensively farmed regions where uptake of agri-environment schemes remains low. In theory, this could also free up funding for more ambitious agri-environment measures under Pillar 2. Of course, the precise impact of the Pillar 1 proposals will vary considerably within Europe. It will depend partly on the rules about what is required in practice, particularly for the types of management that will make up the seven per cent of land under Ecological Focus Areas, the most striking element of the package.

Climate change is signalled as an important issue for the CAP for the first time in these proposals, which is to be welcomed. Some measures should assist towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Examples are the new cross compliance (Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition) standards on maintaining soil organic matter and protecting wetlands and carbon rich soils and the earmarking of funds in Pillar 2. Perversely, however, the new rules to maintain permanent grassland do not provide protection until 2014, which could lead to significant losses in the interim.

Rural development policy remains the key element of the CAP for delivering public goods. Restructured around a series of six priorities, the majority of current measures have been grouped together in an attempt to make it more streamlined and flexible to implement. It is welcome to see the proposals to earmark 25 per cent of rural development funds for ‘issues related to land management and the fight against climate change’. However, the proposed rural development budget will suffer a decline in real terms for 2014-2020. This could be countered in those countries which take advantage of the option to move 10 per cent of Pillar 1 funds to Pillar 2. Conversely, and particularly disappointing, is the ability for a selection of Member States to be able to transfer funding from Pillar 2 to top up their Pillar 1 funding. This goes counter to political commitments made in June at the time of the Budget announcement to maintain a strong Pillar 2.

On a positive note, there is clear progress on several fronts, in particular the increased emphasis on advice and training in Pillar 1 and Pillar 2, collaborative action to promote environmentally beneficial management at the landscape scale and the extension of monitoring and evaluation requirements from Pillar 2 to cover all elements of CAP support. In addition, the introduction of the new European Innovation Partnership initiative for agricultural productivity and sustainability could prove to be an important catalyst for the development of solutions that promote increased food production but in a way that is compatible with the delivery of the full range of ecosystem services.

The legislative proposals and impact assessment can be found here.

CAP Reform post-2013: An Opportunity to Support High Nature Value Farming Systems in Scotland?

2011-10-11T16:31:00Z

This Scottish Agricultural College Rural Policy Centre Briefing briefing discusses recent work to assess HNV farming systems in Scotland and to explore the use of different payment mechanisms to direct more funding to HNV farming systems in future.

This SAC Rural Policy Centre Briefing briefing discusses recent work to assess HNV farming systems in Scotland and to explore the use of different payment mechanisms to direct more funding to HNV farming systems in future. Approximately 40% of Scotland's Utilised Agricultural Area (2,284,000 ha) was estimated to be under High Nature Value (HNV) farming systems in 2009. This proportion has been in decline in recent years, probably due to the retreat of farming from Scotland's hills. No specific mention of HNV farming systems was made in the European Commission's recent proposals for the CAP after 2013 (October 2011) but the proposals do provide potential opportunities for some additional funding to be directed to HNV farming systems. However, if HNV systems are not highlighted as a priority by the Commission, what will encourage Member States to do this? Full details available here.

Radical Re-think Needed to Make the CAP Really Deliver for the Environment

2011-09-05T17:06:00Z

Debate on the forthcoming draft CAP proposals from the Commission has warmed up rapidly with the end of the summer break. Views on how various leaked proposals would impact on farming and the environment are being put forward with some urgency. The potential environmental benefits to be had from the proposal to allocate 30 per cent of the future Pillar 1 direct payments to support ‘green’ practices has been recognised. However, the degree to which it could deliver successfully for the environment depends on a variety of issues that have been highlighted in a new paper drawn up by BirdLife International. This has been produced to coincide with the Commission’s Inter-Service Consultation on Commissioner Ciolos’ CAP reform proposals, expected to occur in early September.

Debate on the forthcoming draft CAP proposals from the Commission has warmed up rapidly with the end of the summer break. Views on how various leaked proposals would impact on farming and the environment are being put forward with some urgency. The potential environmental benefits to be had from the proposal to allocate 30 per cent of the future Pillar 1 direct payments to support ‘green’ practices has been recognised. However, the degree to which it could deliver successfully for the environment depends on a variety of issues that have been highlighted in a new paper drawn up by BirdLife International. This has been produced to coincide with the Commission’s Inter-Service Consultation on Commissioner Cioloş’ CAP reform proposals, expected to occur in early September.

The paper, ‘Common Agricultural Policy reform: Radical re-think needed to make the CAP really deliver for the environment’, is a punchy analysis of the of the proposals’ chances of delivering a genuine greening of the CAP. It applies a series of 12 ‘test’ scenarios to current proposals and assesses to what degree such reforms are capable of meeting environmental demands. BirdLife has circulated the document to all EU Commissioners, including Mr Cioloş, and to key decision makers. They would welcome responses from other stakeholders and commentators so please do email with your contributions to this important debate.

Young Food Producers in the EU

2011-09-04T09:18:00Z

The Slow Food International Headquarters in Bra, Italy, are conducting a research project that looks at the issues facing young food producers in European countries.

The Slow Food International Headquarters in Bra, Italy, are conducting a research project that looks at the issues facing young food producers in European countries. This timely research will be used to inform CAP reform proposals. Producers under the age of 35 are being asked to respond to an on-line questionnaire. If you are eligible and interested in participating in this research project, please email Burcu Gezeroglu.

b.gezeroglu@slowfood.it

Greening the CAP: impacts on farmland biodiversity on an EU scale

2011-08-19T09:12:00Z

PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, in collaboration with Wageningen University & Research centre, released a report which shows regional impacts of greening the CAP in line with ‘Option 2’ of the EC proposal of November 2011. A new tool for calculation of species richness in farming areas has been used, showing substantial biodiversity gains; however with large variations between regions. This suggests more regional differentiation is needed, also for greening of Pillar 1.

‘Greening’ the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), as proposed by the EC, will substantially slow down the decline in farmland biodiversity, most notably in intensive farming areas. Extensively farmed areas are better served by policies preserving their rich biodiversity. Regional variation in policies tailored to reflect local conditions could, therefore, result in a better outcome. These are the main conclusions drawn by PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, in collaboration with Wageningen University & Research centre, in their report Greening the Common Agricultural Policy: impacts on farmland biodiversity on an EU scale, as released today.

In ‘The CAP towards 2020’ (November, 2010) and the ‘EU biodiversity strategy to 2020’ (May, 2011) the European Commission has proposed a generic greening of the EU farm income support. To predict the impacts of these proposals, PBL researchers have used model calculations which assumed extra budget for agri-environmental measures and greening payments for permanent grassland and ecological set-aside of an assumed 5% of the arable land. The results show 3% more farmland species richness in 2020, compared with a baseline scenario. Impacts would be most pronounced in areas of intensive farming, which are presently poor in biodiversity. This 3% is substantial, compared with predicted decline of, for example, the farmland bird index over the 2014-2020 period. However, it will not fully halt the loss of farmland biodiversity.

As a trade-off, biodiversity gains would involve a loss in agricultural production, ranging from 2% for grass to 4% for cereal production. This can decrease EU self-sufficiency for food supply. Policy design could alleviate this trade-off by allowing farmers to use the least-producing fields and field edges for greening measures. Effectiveness for biodiversity could be improved by stimulating farmers to design ecological set-aside areas in such a way that a regional ‘green infrastructure’ would be created, facilitating the spread of source populations in farmed areas.

The average farm income for the EU as a whole would not suffer from yield losses, as these losses are more than counteracted by producer price increases. However, there are considerable income shifts from intensively to extensively farmed regions. In the current CAP, income support is linked to historical production, which favours intensively farmed regions, whereas greening the CAP will link payments more with extensive farming practices. The variety in farm structures, income, farming intensity and species richness, as well as the divergent impacts of policy changes between EU regions, suggest that regionally differentiated policies may be more efficient than a one-size-fits-all approach.

Seeds of Success: How Agri-environment can Yield Results for Nature and Farming

2011-08-17T09:56:00Z

RSPB and BirdLife International have collected examples from across Europe to show how agri-environment schemes are successfully delivering biodiversity and environmental objectives. The purpose of this paper is to celebrate environmental successes under the Common Agricultural Policy and demonstrate how competitive food production can be supported alongside environmental targets.

This paper can be accessed here.

UK House of Lords Inquiry into Innovation in EU Agriculture

2011-08-04T08:22:00Z

The UK House of Lords select committee inquiry into Innovation in EU Agriculture was published on 7 July 2011. The aim of the inquiry was to establish how innovation in EU agriculture can be encouraged in relation to the EU’s new Strategy for Growth and Jobs, Europe 2020, and in the context of new challenges such as climate change, water scarcity and the need to encourage increased production and competitiveness in a sustainable way.

“…the European Governments must see as the prime focus of agricultural policy the need to raise productivity, while supporting environmental sustainability. Innovation must be at the heart of this effort.”

Building on the findings of an earlier inquiry into Adapting to climate change: EU agriculture and forestry that highlighted innovation as a key step in meeting these challenges, the current inquiry draws on both written and oral evidence collated from 55 different institutions and individuals across the EU including the European Commission (EU Agriculture Commissioner Dacian Ciolo?), MEPs (COMAGRI Chair Paolo De Castro), NGOs, industry representatives and individuals. Responses were not limited to UK and EU institutions and included evidence received from the US Department of Agriculture.

The report provides a series of recommendations and conclusions that range from the need for a more strategic approach to food production, an increased focus on research and knowledge transfer, to revisions to EU policy and regulation .Of particular interest in relation to the on-going debate on the future Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the report calls for a number of developments. Under the heading of EU policy and regulation the report calls for:

Payments under Pillar 1 to be made in return for the delivery of public goods but in a way that does not lead to further bureaucratic complexity. This needs to include better knowledge transfer systems and more advice to farmers.
Support for innovation-related projects to be central to support provided under Pillar 2 with flexibility in approach to encourage innovation in relation to all forms of agricultural material, whether food or not, and a higher rate of co-financing to support innovation. The report suggests that ‘such an increase in financing can be supported, at least in part, by reducing the level of direct payments under Pillar 1’.
Better policy coherence between Directorate Generals within the Commission
Continued adherence to the precautionary principle to underpin food safety and security.
A streamlining of the EU decision-making procedures on appropriate technologies for productivity, sustainability, and competitiveness.
The promotion of high animal welfare standards that are mutually supporting to business efficiency.

The context to these recommendations and conclusions and the challenges facing EU agriculture are clearly set out in the report. These include the need to feed an increasing global population (in which improving the productivity of EU agriculture is an important factor), climate change and other environmental pressures as well as the rising demand for public goods from agricultural ecosystems, such as carbon sequestration and the protection of biodiversity. The report concludes that the key challenge is how to achieve ‘sustainable intensification’, a phrase coined from earlier reports for example the Royal Society report, Reaping the benefits, which defines ‘sustainable intensification’ broadly as the production of more food that does not rely on non-renewable inputs or additional land, can consistently deliver desired outputs, and does not cause adverse and irreversible environmental impacts which threaten critical ecological functions.

Although the challenges and the role of innovation are made clear, the report does not go so far as to suggest what should be the focus of such innovation. Instead highlighting wider underlying principles of agricultural research and innovation, including the need for collaboration between Member States, a strategic and flexible approach in order to meet wider challenges, and that this be complemented with suitable knowledge transfer systems, from increasing education at the school level through to farm advice.

In terms of finance the report highlights the discrepancy between the agricultural research funding at the EU level which is less than one per cent of the overall agriculture policy budget, and calls for an increase in financing for research by reducing the proportion devoted to supporting the CAP.

Support for innovation related projects must be central to Pillar 2 and a balance must be ensured between purely agri-environmental projects and funding to support innovation (whilst accepting that the two are often compatible). However, despite the CAP being recognised as needing to play its part in achieving the objectives set out in the Europe 2020 strategy, the report is clear that the current CAP debate is not the main focus of the inquiry.

Support is given in the report to the Commission’s proposal that a higher rate of co-financing could be made available to support innovation-related projects under Pillar 2 with the report going on to suggest that such an increase in financing could be supported by reducing payments made under Pillar 1 and increasing the modulation of funds towards Pillar 2.

Redesigning the CAP to Deliver Public Goods

2011-08-01T12:55:00Z

It is widely recognised that agriculture has an important role in the provision of a wide range of public goods in Europe and this forms a core element of the Commission’s current proposals for the future of the CAP post 2013, supported by Commissioners Ciolos (agriculture), Potocnik (environment) and Hedegaard (climate). However, there is still considerable lack of clarity on whether the proposals in their current form will deliver real improvements in practice, particularly for the environment. At the request of the Policy Unit of the European Parliament, this report considers some of the options for redesigning the CAP to deliver improved public goods outcomes, considering the pros and cons of different options financially, politically and in terms of their potential impacts.

It is widely recognised that agriculture has an important role in the provision of a wide range of public goods in Europe and this forms a core element of the Commission’s current proposals for the future of the CAP post 2013, supported by Commissioners Ciolos (agriculture), Potocnik (environment) and Hedegaard (climate). However, there is still considerable lack of clarity on whether the proposals in their current form will deliver real improvements in practice, particularly for the environment. At the request of the Policy Unit of the European Parliament, this report, 'What tools for the European agricultural policy to encourage the provision of public goods?' considers some of the options for redesigning the CAP to deliver improved public goods outcomes, considering the pros and cons of different options financially, politically and in terms of their potential impacts.

Greening the CAP

2011-07-29T15:31:00Z

As a contribution to the debate on the design of the future CAP, IEEP has produced a paper that sets out a series of conditions that the European Commission’s proposals for ‘greening’ Pillar 1 need to meet if a substantive ‘greening’ is to be achieved in practice in order to deliver their objective of improving environmental outcomes across most of the EU farmed landscape.

The paper argues that if these conditions are not met, the Commission’s claim that the delivery of environmental public goods is to become an increasingly central purpose of CAP support will be brought into question and that ultimately this could undermine the overall legitimacy of the CAP. It concludes that, with the CAP budget set to decline in real terms to 2020, if a strong ‘green’ component was not achieved within Pillar 1 and there were to be no additional funds for environmental delivery within Pillar 2 this would represent a serious backwards step in the progress that has been achieved in making European agriculture more environmentally sustainable over the past 20 years.

The paper can be downloaded here: Greening the CAP: Delivering environmental outcomes through PIllar 1.

‘Green Growth’ Through Environmentally Sustainable Rural Development

2011-07-20T09:02:00Z

A new publication from the European Network for Rural Development (ENRD) presents a sample of interesting projects promoting ‘Green Growth’ through environmentally sustainable rural development actions in Europe’s countryside. All of the featured projects have received co-finance from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and the Green Growth brochure is part of a series of publications that highlight how the EAFRD is being used in Member States. Find out more on the ENRD website.

Developing a Territorial Approach for the CAP

2011-07-19T08:09:00Z

A timely discussion paper explaining how a territorial approach can be developed within rural development policy and other aspects of the CAP.

Promoting territorial cohesion is one of the objectives of EU policy under the Lisbon Treaty (Article 174). What does this mean in practice? This timely paper, by Francesco Mantino of INEA, a leading European expert on rural development, explores the concept and how it might be applied in practice. He argues that the wide range of socio-economic and environmental challenges that exist in rural areas could be addressed better in a more territorially focused CAP, particularly but not exclusively in “Pillar 2”, covering rural development policy and other aspects of the CAP.

Providing a number of examples from Italy and elsewhere, this paper demonstrates the relevance of a more territorially based approach in the CAP to the current reform discussions.

The full paper can be downloaded here.

Costs of Delivering Environmental Benefits through Agriculture and Forestry Management

2011-07-06T12:52:00Z

This study identifies the scale of funding needed annually to achieve environmental outcomes through agricultural and forestry management by 2020 from the EU Budget. Based on an assessment of scale and nature of farm and forestry management needed to meet the EU’s environmental priorities, the study identified the costs of addressing these priorities through incentives for largely voluntary agricultural and forestry management in the EU-27. It covers the full range of environmental issues linked to rural land management including the protection and enhancement of biodiversity, water quality and quantity, soil, landscape, forest protection and climate change adaptation and mitigation. It includes case studies, providing context specific cost data for three particular environmental issues – arable farmland birds, HNV farmland and soil conservation in Southern Spain.

The report, 'Costing the environmental needs related to rural land management', is intended to help inform policy decisions about the scale of funding needed to achieve environmental outcomes through agricultural and forestry management in the post-2013 Financial Perspective period.

The New CAP - The same but different

2011-07-01T08:07:00Z

The Commission College debated for a long day before agreeing their proposals for the next Multi-Annual Financial Framework (MFF) late on Wednesday evening. The CAP (€372 billion) remains a sizeable element of the Budget but now accounts for a fractionally smaller share of the overall MFF cake than the Cohesion Policy (€376 billion). The two Pillars remain and the basic structure of the CAP is not radically altered although the formal objectives now reflect the priorities of Europe 2020 much more explicitly. Indeed promoting resource efficiency has pride of place in the new objectives along with 'smart, sustainable and inclusive growth'.

The Commission College debated for a long day before agreeing their proposals for the next Multi-Annual Financial Framework (MFF) late on Wednesday evening. The CAP (€372 billion) remains a sizeable element of the Budget but now accounts for a fractionally smaller share of the overall MFF cake than the Cohesion Policy (€376 billion). The two Pillars remain and the basic structure of the CAP is not radically altered although the formal objectives now reflect the priorities of Europe 2020 much more explicitly. Indeed promoting resource efficiency has pride of place in the new objectives along with 'smart, sustainable and inclusive growth'.

How direct payment within Pillar 1 will achieve this result remains unclear but the Commission has gambled a great deal on Pillar 1 and taken considerable trouble to defend it. There is a modest overall decline in CAP expenditure in real terms but this is much less than many people had expected. Two key market support measures have been taken out of the CAP and relocated elsewhere in the MFF including a €3.5 billion reserve for crisis in the agriculture sector. The large discrepancies between Member States in the scale of their direct payments will be reduced although there will still be a sizeable range in 2020. There will be a specific budget neutral and simplified form of support for small farms, scale unknown, partly to reduce administrative burdens.

The major innovation is the greening of Pillar 1 as proposed in the Commission’s November Communication. In future, 30 per cent of the direct payments 'will be made contingent on a range of environmentally-sound practices, going beyond cross-compliance'. No further details are provided. This is a significant share of the CAP budget and could result in some major changes of practice on a European scale if well designed measures are put in place and then monitored effectively. It is not clear whether farmers who fail to enrol in one of the new mandatory measures will risk losing the whole of their direct payments. This appeared to be the formula favoured by the three Commissioners (Ciolos, Potocnik and Hedegaard) in their letter earlier this year. If so, it will create a powerful lever within Pillar 1; if not many farmers may simply choose to opt out, especially if market prices are buoyant.

As expected the Commission has proposed that direct payments will be reserved for 'active farmers', another undefined group. Capping will apply to direct payments and, quite ingeniously, the Commission has proposed not only that farm employment levels could reduce the impact of capping but also that the proceeds would be injected into rural development as well as staying in the Member State concerned. All these innovations may help to increase the appeal of direct payments in a number of countries and in the European Parliament, despite the questions about their fundamental purpose and value for money.

The determined protests against the intended severe cuts in Pillar 2 have made an impact and the reduction is less than feared. Nonetheless, expenditure on Pillar 2 is scheduled to decline in real terms over the period. Scheduled expenditure for Pillar 2 in 2013 is currently €14.79 billion. If this level was to be maintained with no increase up to 2020 the total required would be about €97 billion. On this basis the cut to Pillar 2 in real terms amounts to about 7 per cent in constant prices. Furthermore, there appears to be a scheme to modify the CAP plumbing by introducing a two way valve whereby Member States can move resources between Pillars 1 and 2. So reverse as well as 'forward' modulation will be possible.

There is also the danger that those Member States which are less enthusiastic about environmental public goods will decide to devote a smaller share of their Pillar 2 budget to measures like agri-environment, Natura payments etc than they do at present. The Commission does not appear to be proposing a minimum budgetary ring-fence around these measures of the kind now protecting Axis 2. So questions remain about how far it will be possible to meet the environmental ambitions set out in the budget paper, including biodiversity mainstreaming and a minimum of 20 per cent of all funds to be spent on climate measures.

In response the Commission can point to the greening of direct payments, a major departure however vague. But the fact remains that many eggs are still in the Pillar 1 basket, which is much more difficult to direct at concrete, precise outcomes of the kind needed to deliver public goods.

Possible Threats to Pillar 2 Funding could be a Huge Set Back for the Environment and Rural Areas

2011-06-24T09:53:00Z

In the run up to the announcement of the Commission’s proposals on the EU budget for 2014-2020, rumours abound that a large slice of Pillar 2 of the CAP, essential for delivering environmental management throughout the EU-27, may be sacrificed to avoid significant cuts to Pillar 1 direct payments to farmers.

One rumour even suggests that ‘reverse modulation’ may take place, whereby cuts in the Pillar 2 budget would be used to increase the Pillar 1 budget, under the auspices of paying for the proposed ‘greening elements’. Figures of as much as a 30 per cent cut to Pillar 2 have been suggested.

Speaking at a mini-plenary session of the European Parliament earlier this week, Agriculture Commissioner, Dacian Ciolos, attempted to waylay the rumours, stating that ‘the Commission President, the College and I lay great store by the two Pillars’ and that Pillar 2 ‘will not pay the price in the next budgetary perspectives’.

However, despite his good intentions, he is operating within a political and economic environment where many Member States would prefer to see rural development funding cut (given that it needs to be co-financed from national sources) than see any reduction in their Pillar 1 payments. Even amongst the other Commissioners, he may not be able to garner sufficient support to make good on his promises.

Such a significant cut in Pillar 2 funding would mark a seriously backwards step in the significant progress that has been made over the past 20 years to promote more sustainable management of agricultural land to ensure the delivery of environmental public goods and essential ecosystem services. The proposals to ‘green’ Pillar 1 will only ever be able to deliver a basic level of environmental management. Without sufficient funding available to Member States through Pillar 2, agri-environment schemes are likely to come under pressure to be cut. This would lead to a loss of support to farmers to carry out environmentally beneficial management, with risks to elements of the countryside that the public value highly, such farmland birds, wildflower meadows and beautiful landscapes, as well as the important functions land provides, such as soil and water quality and storing carbon.

These rumours need to be taken seriously if the environment is not to be the major loser in these financial decisions. Given the ambitious EU targets for biodiversity and climate that all Member States have signed up to, and the need for agriculture to play a significant role in meeting them, it would be incomprehensible the very part of the budget that is most focused on delivering this agenda were to be slashed.

The Role of Agriculture in the 2011 EU Biodiversity Strategy

2011-05-11T08:45:00Z

On 4 May, the European Commission published its proposals for a new Biodiversity Strategy for 2011. The strategy places particular emphasis on the important role of the agricultural sector in ‘helping halt the loss of biodiversity in the EU by 2020, and protecting, valuing and restoring EU biodiversity and ecosystem services by 2050’.

On 4 May, the European Commission published its proposals for a new Biodiversity Strategy for 2011. It outlines six priority targets, needed if the EU is to meet its Biodiversity targets for 2020, and stresses the need for action to be taken in all economic sectors and areas of policy. The six priority targets are:

To halt the deterioration and ensure more quantifiable control on the status of habitats and species in the EU, and increase the number of assessments under the Birds and Habitats Directives;
To establish a green infrastructure to maintain and enhance ecosystems;
To maximise the potential of the CAP for delivering biodiversity objectives and introduce Forest Management Plans to ensure the conservation of biodiversity is provided;
To achieve Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) in fisheries;
To combat invasive alien species;
To increase EU contribution to global efforts to avoid biodiversity loss.

The strategy places particular emphasis on the important role of the agricultural sector in ‘helping halt the loss of biodiversity in the EU by 2020, and protecting, valuing and restoring EU biodiversity and ecosystem services by 2050’. The accompanying impact assessment suggests that approximately 60 per cent of agricultural land would need to be managed in a way that supports biodiversity to meet this target (including both extensively and intensively managed areas under grass, arable and permanent crops), although this figure was dropped from the final text of the strategy itself and instead has been translated into the following target:

‘Maximising areas under agriculture across grasslands, arable land and permanent crops that are covered by biodiversity-related measures under the CAP so as to ensure the conservation of biodiversity and to bring about a measurable improvement in the conservation status of species and habitats that depend on or are affected by agriculture and in the provision of ecosystem services as compared to the EU 2010 Baseline, thus contributing to enhance sustainable management’

The strategy emphasises the mutually supporting relationship between agriculture and biodiversity; using insect pollination as an example of how biodiversity is vital for the long-term sustainability of the agri-business sector. It also suggests the development of a platform to improve the sharing of experiences and best practices among sectors (agriculture, extractive industries, finance, food supply, forestry and tourism are those business sectors listed).

The critical role played by the CAP as a means of incentivising farmers to engage in conservation efforts is highlighted. Currently, EU budget under LIFE+ for biodiversity is approximately 286 million euros per year. Although difficult to estimate with any degree of precision, the amount of the CAP budget (EU funds only) used to support the environment (including biodiversity) is in the region of €8 billion/year, although this is dwarfed in size by the total CAP budget (53.5 billion euros per year).

Environmental stakeholders have expressed concern that the strategy fails to commit to anything binding. BirdLife Europe recognises the potential of the strategy but notes that it is ‘somewhat un-ambitious’. This view that the strategy lacks ambition is supported by other environmental organisations, such as WWF, European Environmental Bureau (EEB) and International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM). Also, the lack of concrete, measurable targets has been mentioned as one of the Strategy’s draw backs. Friends of the Earth Europe have requested that the Environment Council considers adopting specific targets for both agriculture and forestry at their next meeting in Luxembourg, 21 June, maintaining that the effectiveness of the strategy depends on it.

Some farming organisations have not responded positively to the strategy. COPA-COGECA argues that the focus on the agricultural sector could make farmers uncompetitive. In a press release, the Secretary-General is quoted saying that ‘farmers are fully aware of their responsibility to preserve the genetic diversity of animals and plants used for production…[and] valuable habitats’, nonetheless a balance must be struck between conserving biodiversity and maintaining their ‘viability, profitability and competitiveness’. He advocates that farmers must be allowed to respond to increasing demands for food and bioenergy resulting from climate change and food security.

The Strategy will now go to the European Parliament and the European Council for discussion and subsequent endorsement.

Developments in the EU-Mercosur Association Agreement

2011-04-14T09:35:00Z

A Mercosur trade agreement in relation to agriculture has the potential to have significant knock-on impacts on the environment. With talks expected to conclude by July 2011, there are significant concerns being raised about the impact, not only on the EU’s agricultural sector, but also what this might mean environmentally.

In May 2010, the European Commission re-launched official trade negotiations with the Mercosur trading bloc (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay) to strengthen their relationships through the negotiation of a new EU-Mercosur Association Agreement, after previous talks stalled in October 2004. Since then, delegations from both parties have continued to meet in order to advance trade talks with the fourth round of negotiations having recently been completed in Brussels.

Eleven working groups held discussions during the recent meeting of the EU-Mercosur 20th Bi-Regional Negotiations Committee (BNC) where discussions were firmly centered on the standard elements of the Association Agreement, including rules of origin, public procurement, services and investment, competition and dispute settlement - to date no discussion of market offers or concessions have been presented. So far there has been little reference to the potential environmental implications of the proposed agreement, with negotiations focusing more on economic and social issues. No official comments have been released by either party regarding details of the outcome of the meetings but EU Trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht was recently quoted as being confident that an agreement could be reached in a ‘short time’. However, the Agreement has been met with increasing hostility from politicians and industry representatives since talks between the trading partners were re-launched.

The European Parliament has shown some opposition to the proposed agreement. Following the adoption of a non-legislative resolution drafted by MEP Georgios Papastamkos (supported in draft by COMAGRI chair Paolo de Castro), on EU agriculture and international trade, the European Parliament stressed that EU trade policy should not jeopardise the region’s ability to maintain a strong agricultural sector given that food safety standards in the Mercosur countries do not match those in the EU. It openly criticised the Commission’s approach which “far too often makes concessions on agriculture in order to obtain enhanced market access in third countries for industrial products and services” calling on the Commission to “stop putting agricultural interests behind the interests of the industrial and services sector.” The European Parliament has also called for an immediate impact assessment on the implications for the EU farm sector .

EU Farm Commissioner Dacian Ciolo? has also added his comments to the debate in line with those of his European Parliament counterparts, adding that there is a lack of consideration around the regulatory burden facing EU and trading partners to resolve any trade imbalances caused by Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). Amid increasing concerns, Commissioner Ciolo? has attempted to calm ministers by reassuring them that any market access offers will be shared with member states before any offer is placed on the table. Commissioner Ciolo? also highlighted the potential gains for EU farmers in sectors such as spirits, cheeses and dairy products, wines and olive oil.

Furthermore, COPA COGECA has spoken out against the EU-Mercosur Association Agreement stressing that it would lead to “a total collapse of the EU beef sector.” Their report, published on 4 March 2011 estimates that trade liberalisation with the Mercosur bloc will lead to EU farmers experiencing direct losses from prime cuts amounting to €16 billion and indirect losses from lower beef prices of around €9 billion in the EU beef sector alone. DG TRADE Commissioner spokesperson John Clancy has played down such claims, suggesting that support provided under the CAP will protect EU farmers and cover the higher costs.

The potential impacts of the Agreement on the beef sector also have implications for the environmental sustainability of the agreement. Anticipated increases in beef production in the Mercosur bloc, and expected reductions in beef production within the EU, potentially could result in land use change in both the EU and in Mercosur countries. COPA-COGECA’s findings echo those of the EU-Mercosur trade sustainability impact assessment as well as a separate study conducted by DG AGRI evaluating the livestock sector's contribution to the EU greenhouse gas emissions (GGELS) both of which predict increased GHG emissions in response to Land Use Change (LUC) from expanding livestock (particularly beef) production in Mercosur countries. The trade sustainability impact assessment goes on to caution that the expansion of agricultural production in Mercosur countries will also lead to a loss in global biodiversity, increased deforestation, and further land and water use pressures, and that these impacts should be given due consideration in future EU-Mercosur trade negotiations.

The European Commission have also confirmed that a Commission Impact Assessment on the Association Agreement is currently underway and due for publication soon.

Following Brussels the next round of negotiations is scheduled to take place in Asunción, Paraguay during the first week of May.

Farmland Biodiversity Concerns and the CAP

2011-04-02T16:34:00Z

This SAC Rural Policy Centre Briefing draws on the findings from an EU-funded project to highlight a range of measures that could be taken to ensure that farmland biodiversity concerns are addressed in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) at an appropriate scale to be effective. Farmers and their farming practices are needed to maintain and improve conditions for habitats and species of European farmland biodiversity concern. However, it is also clear that despite an emphasis on farmland biodiversity concerns, without further major changes to the way that CAP support is targeted, then farmland biodiversity will continue to decline across Europe. Full details available here.

New EU Roadmap for a Competitive Low Carbon Economy Calls Agriculture and Land Management to Action

2011-03-31T10:22:00Z

On 8 March 2011, the Commission published a Communication entitled A Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050 as a key deliverable under the so-called Europe 2020 Resource Efficiency Flagship. The Roadmap sets out the milestones to achieving 80 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. It provides an overview of the pathways for key sectors, including agriculture and forestry, and indicates the percentage reductions from 1990 levels that would have to be achieved per sector by 2030 and 2050 respectively. For the agriculture sector specifically, the Commission’s analysis shows that by 2050 the sector could reduce non-CO2 emissions by between 42 and 49 per cent, compared to 1990.

On 8 March 2011, the Commission published a Communication entitled A Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050 as a key deliverable under the so-called Europe 2020 Resource Efficiency Flagship. The Roadmap sets out the milestones to achieving 80 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 (see attached PDF). It provides an overview of the pathways for key sectors, including agriculture and forestry, and indicates the percentage reductions from 1990 levels that would have to be achieved per sector by 2030 and 2050 respectively. For the agriculture sector specifically, the Commission’s analysis shows that by 2050 the sector could reduce non-CO2 emissions by between 42 and 49 per cent, compared to 1990.

By 2050 the sector could reduce non-CO2 emissions by between 42 and 49 per cent, compared to 1990.

The Commission expects the rate of emission reductions in the agricultural sector to slow down after 2030, in part due to increased agricultural production as a result of the growing global population. It also notes that by 2050 agriculture will represent one third of the total remaining EU emissions. The Commission therefore expects the agriculture sector to become increasingly important in climate policy terms, not only because it will become proportionally more significant, but also because if savings are not made in this sector, more expensive savings will need to be made elsewhere.

In the context of the ongoing work in the Commission on the CAP legislative proposals, this new Communication provides extra political leverage for the task of improving the integration of climate change mitigation actions with agricultural policy. The measures highlighted in the Roadmap include further sustainable efficiency gains, efficient fertiliser use, bio-gasification of organic manure, improved manure management, better fodder, improved livestock productivity and local diversification and commercialisation of production, as well as maximising the benefits of extensive farming. All of these measures are understood to have potential to reduce the non-CO2 emissions (chiefly nitrous oxide and methane) which are the quantitative milestones for the sector.

Importantly for agriculture and land use in Europe more broadly, the Communication also highlights the role of improved agricultural and forestry practices in increasing the capacity of the sector to preserve and sequester carbon in soils and forests. Examples are given of targeted carbon storage measures such as maintenance of grasslands, restoration of wetlands and peatlands, low- or zero-tillage, reduction of erosion and allowing the development of forests. Although these are paid specific attention, the quantitative milestones do not take into account their effect on carbon emissions of the sector.

It is a significant policy development for the proposed EU Roadmap to include land management practices more friendly to maintaining carbon in soils. Hitherto the mitigation potential of land and soil management has never been explicitly recognised in the CAP policy debate as having an important role to play in helping deliver on climate goals (although it has been part of the debate about the contribution of agriculture to mitigation globally, for example in the 2008 UNFCCC paper published in the run-up to the Copenhagen summit). Lack of attention so far to the importance of practices for soil carbon management has been, firstly, to do with the difficult issues of measurement, monitoring and availability of soil data. Secondly, it has been made much more difficult by the fact that the climate change mitigation potential of the agricultural sector is unfortunately parcelled out into several different categories under the UN and Kyoto reporting and accounting protocols, and thus translated into the EU climate policy. The category ‘agriculture’ comprises only N2O and CH4 emissions, while emissions from ‘cropland management’ and ‘grazing land management’ are accounted for only on a voluntary basis within the sector ‘land use and land use change’ (LULUCF) under the Kyoto protocol. It is therefore significant that the new Communication refers to the need to consider all land uses in a holistic manner and to address land use change and forestry in EU climate policy, specifically in the EU initiative on LULUCF that is expected to be launched later this year.

In the context of recent discussions about ‘sustainable intensification’, it should be noted that the Communication pays attention to the increasing competition for land from a range of uses, and highlights that the dual challenges of global food security and climate change need to be pursued together. In this context the Communication argues the case for continued and rapid ‘sustainable increases in productivity’ to be delivered by diverse agricultural and forestry systems (both intensive and extensive) in the EU and globally, and admits that any negative impacts on water soils and biodiversity will need careful management.

There is an apparent unresolved conflict in the Communication between the rhetorical stress on resilient ecosystems and the admission that, in relation to the contribution expected of biofuels in a low carbon economy, increased pressures are in store for biodiversity, water management and the environment generally. In this context the Communication stresses the importance of developing work on sustainability criteria and indirect land use change.

The political significance of the new Roadmap is underlined by the fact that it is a part of the Europe 2020 Resource Efficiency Flagship. This is translated in the text into an explicit commitment by the Commission, highly relevant for the ongoing work on the new CAP proposals, that in developing the next Multi-annual Financial Framework the Commission will examine the ways in which EU funding can support instruments and investments that are necessary to promote the transition to a low carbon economy.

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.

Farming in the Uplands

2011-03-07T16:24:00Z

The Efra Committee inquiry into Farming in the Uplands sought to ‘identify and evaluate the drivers of change in upland communities, and to develop policy recommendations to enable and equip them to move towards more secure, economically prosperous and sustainable futures’. Evidence from 25 organisations (such as the Tenant Farmers Association, National Farmers Union, Country Land and Business Association, and English National Park Authorities Association) informed the Committee’s recommendations.

The key recommendation from the Efra Select Committee’s inquiry into Farming in the Uplands (HC 556) is the urgent need to develop a strategy for the uplands to identify the key actions needed to ensure the continuation of farming in upland areas of England.

The Efra Committee inquiry into Farming in the Uplands began 16 September 2010 and the final report was published 16 February 2011.

The inquiry sought to ‘identify and evaluate the drivers of change in upland communities, and to develop policy recommendations to enable and equip them to move towards more secure, economically prosperous and sustainable futures’.

Evidence from 25 organisations (such as the Tenant Farmers Association, National Farmers Union, Country Land and Business Association, and English National Park Authorities Association) informed the Committee’s recommendations.

It is suggested that the development of an uplands strategy, in the form of an ‘Upland Action Plan’, would allow policy objectives for upland areas to be integrated, outlined clearly and provide an opportunity to articulate how each objective will be met, with what resources and within what timeframe. The Committee highlights the need for a statutory definition of what is meant by the ‘uplands’ within a UK or England context and suggests that a Natural Environment Bill (potentially to emerge from the Natural Environment White Paper) would offer the legislative possibility to do this.

At a European level, the Committee emphasises that CAP reform must reconsider the way in which current financial incentives provided for farmers to maintain or adopt environmentally beneficial management practices under agri-environment schemes are calculated. For farms on less productive land, they do not provide sufficient compensation currently as the calculations based are based on ‘income foregone’ and additional costs and do not take into account the fixed costs of running a farm.

The report stresses the importance of upland farmers in the provision of public goods and urges this role to be exploited to its full potential. For example, carbon markets should target upland farmers to incorporate the restoration of peatlands in their long-term goals. They should also be targeted to support the development of water markets to promote water sequestration and subsequently reduce flood risk. Improved access to agri-environment and diversification schemes combined with training will be key to achieving these goals. The report also suggests that tourism opportunities, particularly within national parks could be exploited to a much greater extent and that issues surrounding the introduction of superfast broadband and affordable house must be addressed in these areas.

The Efra Committee notes its concerns that the abolition of the Commission for Rural Communities will narrow the Government’s understanding and limit their expertise in this area. To avoid any serious repercussions, it is recommended that an advisory panel is established and that the research carried out by the Commission for Rural Communities is continued so that policy is effectively ‘rural proofed’.

The Future of Global Food and Farming from a European Perspective

2011-02-18T10:24:00Z

Foresight reports published in France and the UK examine the challenges facing the global food system between now and 2050, and the policy decisions needed to ensure that a global population rising to nine billion or more can be fed sustainably and equitably.

The Global Food and Farming Futures Report

The Global Food and Farming Futures report, conducted by Foresight, the UK Government’s futures think tank, has recently been published. It uses scientific evidence from an array of sources as well as futures analysis to identify critical issues facing the global food system to 2050 and to explore and analyse possible policies and interventions for addressing those challenges.

The project has taken a long term, strategic look at likely challenges over the next 40 years to 2050, and a very broad view of the food system and the wider context in which it operates, considering many different types of concerns and experiences, from African smallholders to multinational retailers, from governance to evolving consumer demand. Contributors were drawn from a wide range of disciplines: natural and social scientists and experts in risk management, economics and modelling. The project involved around 400 leading experts and stakeholders from about 35 low, middle and high-income countries across the world. The report identifies five key challenges for the future:

Balancing future demand and supply sustainably – to ensure that food supplies are affordable;
Ensuring adequate stability in food supplies, and protecting the most vulnerable from the volatility that does occur;
Achieving global access to food and ending hunger (recognising that producing enough food in the world so that everyone can potentially be fed is not the same thing as ensuring food security for all);
Managing the contribution of the food system to the mitigation of climate change; and
Maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem services while feeding the world.

Agrimonde

Alongside this British-based project, the French have been researching this topic in their own foresight study, Agrimonde, conducted by INRA and CIRAD. Applying the same timeframe and using similar research methods, they too have recently published their report.

The French report stresses the importance of a future agriculture which is both productive and ecologically sustainable, pointing to our current food model in industrialised countries as especially ineffective in the latter. In particular, excessive consumption and excessive losses during the distribution and final consumption phases of our food model must all be recognised as key failings. The report argues that that this type of food system should not be adopted elsewhere, and highlights the importance of having a secure international market for agricultural and food products.

Commission 'Agricultural Policy Perspectives' Published

2011-02-04T10:02:00Z

DG Agriculture has published three new briefings discussing key aspects of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) pertinent to the debate on its future design and structure. These Agricultural Policy Perspectives critically explore how the CAP might evolve in the future and provide an insight to the Commission’s stance on the future for direct payments, market measures and rural development within the CAP.

The prospect of CAP reform in 2013 has led to three main policy questions:

What market measures would best support the agricultural sector and rural communities during times of economic volatility?

How can agricultural support be more equitably distributed between farmers and Member States?

What is the most effective means of addressing the environmental challenges facing Europe?

DG Agriculture has published three ‘Agricultural Policy Perspectives’ on its website to discuss direct payments, market measures and rural development providing a useful insight into DG Agriculture’s current thinking on these issues.

Direct payments

The Policy Brief on ‘The future of CAP direct payments’ (Brief No2) recognises the ineffectiveness of the current ‘targeting’ and ‘distribution’ of direct payments. The Commission argues against the introduction of a ‘flat-rate’ system for future payments, stating that it would overlook the fundamental differences between small and large farms resulting in an unequal balance of payments. The report stresses that both environmental and financial factors should be incorporated in the future design of payments, but it would appear that no clear alternatives have been worked up as yet, keeping the debate open. Any redesign of direct payments, however, would lead to significant redistribution of support between farmers and the paper highlights the need for a transition period in which farmers would have time to adjust. The nature and duration of such a transition will be a critical issue in the forthcoming CAP negotiations.

Market measures

Policy Brief 3 explores ‘The future of CAP market measures’ (Brief No 3) and explores the possibilities of introducing an ‘income stabilisation tool’ in Europe, based on the Canadian model. This would compensate farmers for their losses relative to their individual average annual income (within regulations laid down by the WTO green box that farmers must be suffering from a fall of more than 30 per cent and less than 70 per cent in their income). However, the Brief stresses that for a future market measure to be effective it must be well suited to other EU support mechanisms already in place, which this income stabilisation tool is not. The diverse agricultural conditions throughout the EU-27 act as the main deterrent to such a broad-brush policy mechanism. Furthermore, early estimates by DG Agriculture show that such a scheme could require an investment of as much as up to €6 billion per year.

It is interesting to note that the Commission is looking to models outside of the traditional market mechanisms used in the EU. However, the fact that the options considered do not seem to fit well with other elements of the CAP, suggests that their final decision with regards to market mechanisms might not be that revolutionary after all.

Rural development

The Policy Brief on ‘the future of Rural Development’ (Brief No 4) states that the current objectives of rural development policy need to be amended to refocus the policy outcomes on achieving a competitive and sustainable future for rural areas. In keeping with the Europe 2020 Agenda, the paper considers how rural development policy can be repositioned to achieve the priorities of ‘smart growth, inclusive growth, and sustainable growth’ (COM(2010) 2020) post 2013. The aspiration for rural development policy is for ‘more flexibility and better targeting the policy response to the challenges while at the same time reducing the administrative burden for administrations and beneficiaries’. The paper also highlights the need for rural development policy to be adequately funded. It does not foresee the need for the modulation mechanism in the future if the CAP budget is appropriately allocated between the two Pillars. However, it also intimates that there may be a need to revisit the allocation criteria for distributing rural development funding between Member States, an issue that has been a taboo in previous reforms.