Of all the changes the reform of Europe’s Common Agricultural policy will bring, proposed ‘greening measures,’ or more crucially their implementation, have stirred the most controversy and sparked debate amongst those in the farming world.

Yesterday, members of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council discussed the greening of the CAP, which under proposals published by the European Commission last autumn would see a third of single payments becoming dependant on claimants fulfilling certain environmental conditions. However, the extent of forthcoming changes and how they will be put into practice remains to be seen.

The Commission’s proposals have been criticised as focusing too heavily on compliance rather than performance and creating too great an administrative burden, making them incredibly difficult to implement.     

‘Flexibility’ in CAP reform

Prior to the debate, Agriculture Commissioner Dacian Ciolos presented a paper detailing some concessions on last year’s proposals. Speaking afterwards, the commissioner described the ensuing debate as “constructive.” Ciolos stuck to his guns in his insistence that greening measures will remain a part of pillar one. He also repeated his assurance, made to UK farmers during a conference in February, that those involved in agri-environment schemes would be considered as fulfilling at least one of the measures. However, it remains unclear how this will be realised.

He said that small farmers would benefit from less stringent rules, in order to avoid penalising smaller farmers, a criticism which has been levelled at the CAP in the past. These include new rules on crop diversifications which have caused concerns for small and mixed farmers.

He also said that new measures introduced as part of pillar one must not have any effect on farmers’ costs; extreme rises in raw materials and input costs have caused enough concern to merit the launch of a European Parliament investigation into their effects on European farmers. The parliament concluded that supporting local food webs, more equitable and sustainable production methods and direct selling would mitigate these rises.

During the debate, UK Farming Minister Jim Paice welcomed the “increased flexibility” of the Commission’s proposals but said, “[The proposals] still don’t address the fundamental problem, which is that we are trying to design a one size fits all approach for the whole of Europe, when there are very great differences between our countries.” However, he went on to assert, “The proposals represent a basis for further discussion and I agree that greening must apply to all land areas right across the European Union.”

Mr Paice said that the UK government would prefer greening measures to remain part of Pillar two rural development considerations, though he admitted that mandatory measures would also yield environmental benefits; he pushed for amendments to proposals covering crop diversification, permanent pasture and set aside, which he said would better represent the diversities amongst European farms.

Concessions

Concessions announced by Mr Ciolos would mean permanent grassland can include “traditional systems,” meaning heather could be accepted, which has been welcomed by Scottish farming unions. He also suggested that, instead of a five year period for permanent grass land, this could be extended to eight years, although UK minister Jim Paice pushed for a further extension to ten years.

Ciolos remained stalwart on his Environmental Focus Areas, which would see 7 per cent of land taken out of production. Although some ministers said that a smaller amount of land, actively managed to support wildlife and biodiversity would be more effective than mandatory set aside, environment groups have claimed that research demonstrates a ten per cent minimum of land should be “dedicated to Ecological Focus Areas if biodiversity and environmental connectivity is to be optimally supported.”

‘Greenwash’

Although farming unions have welcomed the proposals and NFU president Peter Kendall has been quick to claim it as a victory for the union’s lobbyists, wildlife and environment groups have slammed the debates as ‘greenwashing’, diluting and reneging on environmental commitments, which were proposed to reflect the concerns of the European public.

Mr Kendall yesterday commented, “The Commission is clearly willing to consider changes to its proposals to ensure they are a better fit with the reality of different farming systems across Europe, but we have a very long way to go yet.”

However, wildlife organisation WWF said the discussions had been “the death knell for many of the greening measures contained in the original Commission proposal.”

WWF spokesperson Tony Long said, “It is truly depressing to see the direction that negotiations are taking at such an early stage. Member States should be taking stronger environmental measures, rather than working at forming a consensus behind closed doors that will sink the Commission’s proposal. Citizens will not stand by in these difficult economic times and allow farm payments which directly or indirectly lead to the destruction of nature, the contamination of the atmosphere with greenhouse gases and the over-abstraction and pollution of water.”

He went on to criticise the council’s attempts to do away with Ciolos’ proposed EFAs, “The Council is intent on sacrificing the 7% of Ecological Focus Areas, despite the best scientific advice. They are contravening all logic. Member States have to listen to public sentiment and start taking serious strides in protecting the environment,”

The organisation described the ‘menu approach,’ whereby farmers could pick and choose from a range of options as “reckless.” The approach was introduced by Luxembourg and has since found favour with farming groups and member states unwilling to submit to wider ranging reforms.

Following the debate, Dacian Ciolos and Mette Gjerskov, Danish agriculture minister and president of the debate, both assured that the Commission and European Parliament are working together to ensure the reforms run smoothly and speculated that, following the parliament discussion next month, the “big decisions over CAP reform” would be taken towards the end of the year.  

Tweet