EEB First analysis of the final CAP deal and its impacts on the environment
DIRECT PAYMENTS: HOW HAS THE GREENING BEEN DILUTED?
The greening as originally proposed by the European Commission has been severely diluted. On top
of being reduced to an empty shell, it will not even apply to half of the European farmland.
Three methods have been used to weaken the timid greening component proposed by the European
Commission:
1. Weakening of the content of the measures themselves
2. Increasing of the numbers of farmers exempted from the greening
3. The inclusion of an ‘equivalence system’
-
CONTENT OF THE MEASURES
The Commission originally proposed a package of three measures applicable at farm level: 7%
Ecological Focus Areas (EFAs), crop diversification (three crops) and protection of grasslands with a
cut-off date in 2014.
The EEB called for 10% EFAs, crop rotation instead of diversification and the protection of highly
valuable grasslands with a cut-off date set in 2011.
Under the final deal the percentage of EFAs is reduced to 5% and elements that have nothing to do
with ecological infrastructures such as nitrogen fixing crops and short rotation coppice have been
included. The measure is further weakened with a ‘weighting factors’ mechanism that can over
weight some ecological elements such as a single tree or a pond. The final deal also dilutes the crop
diversification measure - starting with two crops only and includes protection of grasslands at
national/regional level only, with a focus on N2000 grasslands.
Ecological Focus Areas
Percentage and
threshold
Eligible elements
Weighting factors
Commission’s original
proposal
7% at farm levelthreshold 3 ha
ONLY ecological
elements (buffer strips,
landscape features,..)+
delegated acts
Not intended
EEB proposal
10% at farm level – no
minimum threshold
ONLY ecological
elements (buffer strips,
ponds, hedges, landscape
features.)
NO
Final deal
5% at farm level and 15
ha threshold
Ecological elements+
Non ecological elements
such as nitrogen fixing
crops (with no
Matrix table in the basic
act/Coefficients to be
decided by delegated
7% MAYBE in 2017- only
after co decision process
-
sustainable management
requirements!) and short
rotation coppice
acts
EXEMPTION MECHANISMS
The minimimum threshold (number of ha) to get exempted from the greening measures was set at
three hectares by the European Commission.
Under the final deal the threshold has been increased to 15ha for Ecological Focus Areas (EFAs)
(under 15ha farmers do not have to have EFAs which means that 35,5% of the EU’s utilisable
agricultural area (UAA) will be exempted which equals to 89% of all holdings!)
On top of that farmland with 75% or more grasslands areas or crops under water are exempted.
Special exemptions for MS with a high percentage of forests have also been included.
Permanent crops are also exempted from EFAs, which was the only applicable greening measure for
these crops. This exemption means that land under permanent crops will not have to follow any
greening requirement.
Crop diversification: The final deal exempts farms below 30 ha from having to do diversify with three
crops, this equates to 46% of UAA or 94 % of all holdings.
Grasslands: Now grasslands can be protected at regional or national level instead of a strict
protection at farm level. A positive element that ensures that grasslands in Natura 2000 are strictly
protected has been added though.
-
EQUIVALENCE MECHANISM
On top of the weakening of the content and the exemption of around half of the EU farmland from
greening measures or even more, the final deal includes the possibility for farmers not to have to
comply with greening measures. Instead their farming practices would be considered ‘equivalent’ to
the greening measures via a list of equivalent measures.
This equivalence mechanism risks not only watering down the impact of greening measures but will
also lead to an increased level of complexity and bureaucracy. Even if a strict equivalence of
measures is better than a more general equivalence of benefits, this approach still weakens the
greening and risks blurring the baseline for requirements and payments in Pillar 2.
Looking at all of these measures together this means that in some cases more than half of the EU
farmland will be exempted from a few weakened measures.
It should be pointed out that some of the greening measures as proposed by the Commission were
already required under rules requiring that farmers comply with other legislation to qualify for
payment (cross compliance) in some Members States (e.g France) and hence compulsory until
now. This agreement is therefore a step backwards on previous reforms.
-
MANDATORY NATURE OF THE GREENING
While the Commission introduced a mandatory greening the final deal failed to make all direct
subsidies conditional upon a package of simple and effective measures that would benefit the
environment. Farmers unwilling to comply with the greening will now at most lose 125% of their
greening payment, and this loss will only occur after several years of non-compliance.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT PILLAR - HOW ITS ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE HAS BEEN ERODED?
In addition to the dilution of the greening of the first pillar, the final deal erodes further any hope for
the environmental delivery of the future CAP by eroding the minimum spending for the environment
under the second pillar.
While the European Commission put in a weak recital a 25% minimum spending for environmental
measures, the European Parliament made it compulsory in an article and only covered agrienvironment measures and organic farming. This was supported by a strong majority in the
Parliament Plenary.
Unfortunately, if the final deal includes a higher and compulsory minimum spending (30%), it does
not limit it to actual environmental measures and includes non environment related measuresthat
risk eating up the whole 30% without bringing any environmental benefits to our rural areas.
The deal includes investment measures in minimum spending (art 18). This measure has little to do
with the environment and is under axis 1 (competitiveness) of the current Pillar 2. Currently 44% of
the Rural Development (RD) budget currently goes to axis 2 (environment) and a large share is spent
on Less Favoured Areas (Areas of Natural Contraints or ANCs in new CAP). By adding the 44% to the
share represented by the investments measures, we end up far above the 30%. This would allow MS
to reach the minimum 30% easily while even dropping some of the measures that matter for the
environment such as Agri Environmental Measures or Organic Farming.
This, in addition to the severe dilution of the greening in Pillar 1, the possibility of reverse modulation
and the smaller budget overall and new measures added into Pillar 2 for ‘risk management’ (an
‘income stabilization tool’ coming on top of the income support under pillar 1 , mean that the
environment will almost certainly be worse off.
-
CROSS COMPLIANCE (HORIZONTAL REGULATION)
The European Commission proposed to include two very important pieces of legislation in ‘cross
compliance’ – forcing farmers who receive funding to comply with other legislation. In this case the
Water Framework Directive and the Sustainable Use of Pesticides.
The final deal removes these two pieces of legislation from cross compliance and only includes them
in the farm advisory system (which are in many cases run by the companies that sell the pesticides).
This will lead to situations where farmers who pollute water and / or use illegal chemical substances
will still receive public money.
Finally the Commission proposed to introduce into Cross Compliance a new ‘Good Agricultural and
Environmental Condition’ measure to protect wetlands and carbon rich soils but the final deal has
deleted this very valuable element.
-
AND DOUBLE FUNDING?
Even if the final deal includes a reference to the "no double funding principle" it is still very unclear
how this will be transposed and whether it will be done efficiently.