Transcript Problem - the European Environmental Bureau

Will the reformed CAP respond to
the challenge of sustainable
development of natural resources
and climate change?
Nina Dobrzyńska,
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Poland
Copenhagen, 2 March 2012
The Common Agricultural Policy reform
Three aspects need to be considered when talking about the CAP
after 2013:
1.
The need to reconcile various objectives so that they can
function in the long-term perspective
2.
The need to implement ambitious objectives within limited
budgetary framework (maintaining the current CAP’s budget
in its nominal value = decrease in real value )
3.
Farmer

many responsibilities to deal with;

various and numerous requirements, including ‘greening’,
extensification resulting in lower yields and higher labour
input, keeping numerous registers, lower income =>
encouragement?
CAP for 2007-2013 meets the challenge of protecting
natural resources and mitigating climate change
Pillar I – Majority of the EU farmers: cross-compliance, good agricultural and
environmental condition (GAEC)
o
o
o
o
Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (increasing biomass and soil carbon
sequestration),
Adaptation measures (increasing the soil water capacity),
Preventing the decrease in soil organic matter (crop rotation),
Maintenance of permanent pasture
Pillar II – Measures under axis 2 of RDP
o
o
o
Agri-environment
Afforestation of agricultural and non-agricultural land
LFA, Natura 2000
„Health-check” in 2008
The so-called “new challenges” were defined and added to the list of CAP’s objectives:
o
o
o
o
Climate change,
Renewable energy,
Water management,
Biodiversity.
Do we need greening?
The reformed CAP for 2014-2020 - suggestions
Pillar I – Majority of the EU farmers
Greening

Obligatory mechanism for Member States and farmers – why?

30% of national financial envelope:


Problem – the value of ‘greening’ differs, but public goods are
comparable – no justification …
Suggestion – to set up the EU envelope - the same value for all
MS
Average cost of greening implementation vs.
average greening payment rates
cost of greening implementation (EUR/ha)
rate for greening (EUR/ha)
201
151
114
105
103
47
42
57
25
19
33
28
18
30
21
34
26
33
32
23
24
30
22
La
tv
i
Es a
to
L it n ia
hu
an
Ro i a
m
a
Po nia
rtu
g
Sl al
ov
ak
Un
ia
P
it e
ol
a
d
Ki n d
ng
do
Bu m
lga
r
S w ia
ed
e
Fin n
la
nd
Cz
S
ec pa
i
h
Re n
pu
Hu lic
ng
ar
Au y
st
r ia
EU
27
Lu Irela
xe
n
m d
bo
ur
g
Fr
an
Ge ce
rm
a
Sl ny
ov
e
De nia
nm
ar
Cy k
pr
us
Ita
l
Gr y
ee
B ce
Ne elgi
th um
er
lan
ds
M
al
ta
12
20
38
102
52
49
40
20
7
66
64
61
59
52
82
80
80
78
76
76
72
70
70
69
67
126
120
93
92
86
120
117
113
Rate per ha after application of the unified greening rate (EUR 80 /ha)
600
548
500
400
300
179 189
200
201
298
281 294
272
267
266
257 258 261
244 244 247
241
237
234
219 222 229
201 214 218
167 177 178 181 186 187 192
164
164
161
157
154
149
139 142
99 109 121
100
320 325
361
344 353
374
468
273 281 294
240 245 264
La
t
E s v ia
Lit ton
h u ia
Ro ani
m a
Po ani
rtu a
Sl ga
ov l
Un
a
ite P kia
d ola
Ki n
ng d
d
Bu om
lg
S w a r ia
ed
Fin en
la
n
Cz
ec Sp d
h ai
Re n
p
Hu uli
ng c
a
Au ry
st
ri
EU a
Lu Ire 27
x e la
m nd
bo
u
Fr rg
Ge anc
rm e
Sl an
ov y
De eni
nm a
a
Cy rk
pr
us
Ita
Gr ly
ee
Ne Belg ce
th iu
er m
lan
d
M s
al
ta
-
basic payment
Source: M.Zagorski et all
rate for greening 80 EUR
The reformed CAP for 2014-2020 – suggestions
Greening - what is it about?

Crop diversification (at least 3 crops),

Maintenance of permanent grasslands (the level from 2014),

Ecological focus areas (fallow land, landscape features,
terraces, buffer strips and afforested areas) –
at least 7% of arable land
Organic farms automatically included in pro-environmental payments,
Problem – why agri-environmental and NATURA 2000 are not included?
Greening of direct payments results in increased environmental requirements
also under the area measures under Pillar II
Problem – basic requirements for environmental measures - very demanding,
specific requirements in agri-environmental and climate measures are
very high; system is complex and sophisticated
Problem -
Control of environmental actions is complex and expensive
(greening as AEC)
The reformed CAP for 2014-2020 :
Pillar II
At least 25% of EAFRD contribution – earmarked for measures
relating to climate change and land management:
agrienvironment-climate, organic farming and payments for areas
with natural handicaps (LFA).
Why not to trust Member States? (Subsidiarity!)
Is it justified to include LFA in the obligatory
25% package??
Why are there no measures with evident
environmental and climate-proof effects?
(Natura 2000 payments, Forestry)
Problem
New criteria for delimiting the LFA are purely biophysical and do not include
demographic criteria – Are they attractive?
Disparities between the EU15 and the EU12 – depopulation in new
Member States is a real problem – risk for landscape..
8
The CAP for 2014-2020 :
Pillar II
Agri-environment-climate
Obligatory measure under the RDP – 40 % of EU UAA covered;
 Introducing the element of ‘greening’ in the agri-environmentclimate measure will affect the scope of measures;
 Separating the financial support for organic farming – maybe
clever, but artificial…
 Educational effect and increased awareness on large areas,
environmental effect
Problem – more flexibility, shorter commitment

Payments on Natura 2000 sites and on areas connected
with implementing the Water Framework Directive
Package of forestry measures “Investments in forest area
development and improvement of the viability of forests”
9
For further consideration - strategy
Adjusted and refined instruments =
expected outcomes
BUT:

There are new challenges and what about the new CAP?
Example: Do the newly edited names AEM -> AECM =
different impact or effect???
Lisbon Strategy – lack of success
Europe 2020 – jumble of priorities, focus areas, etc. – a new
strategy or just some superficial changes with complicated
architecture? Risk of failure …and audits….



To consider – CAP's assumptions
Greening
The reform will reduce the potential and competitiveness of Polish and
European agriculture (EFA - 7%);
 Not only less important land, but also lands valuable for agriculture, will
be excluded;
 In the case of countries with fragmented agriculture, such as PL – large
losses;
Expected outcome = assumptions???
 Small and scattered low-quality pieces of land which form neither green
infrastructure nor ecological corridors;
 Negative effect on land arrangement;
 Effect - small parcels of land without any environmental effects;
 Poor crop rotation in comparison with GAEC;
 Problem with control – possible errors and difficulties in the whole
agricultural sector (direct payment) receiving support, as in the case of
agri-environmental measures

Summary

The current CAP includes instruments for climate protection and
sustainable management of natural resources

The
reformed
CAP
–
ensuring
food
security
and
competitiveness on the global market, a challenge of
protecting natural resources and preventing climate
change to greater extent - „manger et avoir une gateau”


Ambitious plans have to be reflected in the budget!
Greening

An unequal level of direct payments - and greening –make it equal!

Burden for farmers and administration ----big landowners may give up payments

NO ENVIRONMENTAL RESULTS AT ALL!!!
POSSIBLE NEGATIVE RESULT –
------OUT OF CONTROL –
Reform in a proposed shape – fiction/
illusion…
Fot. M. Szewczyk
Thank you!
Fot. M. Szewczyk
Fot. M. Szewczyk
Fot. M. Szewczyk
Thank you!
Fot. M. Szewczyk
Fot. M. Szewczyk