The European Environmental Bureau has heavily criticised the progress of ongoing Common Agricultural Policy reforms.

image expired

The EEB, an influential environmental citizens' group in Europe, used the occasion of its conference in Dublin to condemn the dilution of 'greening measures' over the course of CAP negotiations. At the conference on Wednesday, in the current seat of the EU presidency, the organisation said CAP in its current incarnation will not deliver for the environment.   

Of chief concern to EEB is the issue of 'double funding', which it claims could undermine greening measures. According to a report released by the Bureau on Tuesday, the concept of 'green by definition' championed by member states' minsters in the EU Agriculture Council risks allowing those receiving CAP funding to be paid subsidies for environmental protection, which may not be as effective.

The new study examines the situation in Poland, the Netherlands, France, Ireland and Spain.

It evaluates how a proposal supported by Agriculture Ministers under which farmers would be considered 'green by definition' could work on the ground in the five selected member states. The study, which was conducted by the Institute for European Environmental Policy, examines how existing certification (e.g. organic) or voluntary measures under agri-environment schemes could be considered to be 'equivalent' to the package of three compulsory greening measures proposed by the Commission in October 2011.

Since the Commission's proposals were published, the reforms have been subject to much change as they passed through the EU's other legislative bodies. In late March, when the European Council finally reached a partial agreement on CAP reforms, EEB lamented the outcome as "Hammering the final nail into the CAP greening coffin."

The EEB/ IEEP study concludes that while ministers' equivalence "may sound like a sensible and practical option in theory, the practical issues with its application are likely to lead to far greater administrative complexity and cost… with little additional environmental benefit."

The study questions whether many agri-environment schemes require farmers to carry out the full range of measures commensurate with 'greening' conditions. It adds that, due to the disparity between different certification and agri-environment schemes within the EU, establishing and assessing what constitutes 'equivalence' would prove difficult for EU inspectors.

Ahead of the conference, EEB said in a statement that "since the European Commission released its proposal to 'green' European agricultural policy, the reform has gone awry and will not now meet its objectives." The group accused the EU Parliament agriculture committee, which returned a vote at the beginning of the year on reform proposals, and the Council of attempting to "greenwash environmental measures."

Although the Parliamentary agriculture committee (Comagri) elected to adopt equivalence in January, the plenary of the Parliament rejected proposals for the equivalence mechanism in subsequent voting. However, just days after the plenary vote, the Agriculture Council endorsed the equivalence mechanism at its March meeting in Brussels on the grounds of introducing more flexibility and simplification.

In the UK, Defra intends to implement a single scheme, which it claims would allow farmers to choose from a variety of measures. Joining the scheme would be mandatory for claimants wishing to receive payments dependent upon fulfilling CAP greening requirements; the decision to make 30 percent of direct payments dependent on some form of 'greening' has survived thus far.

Faustine Defossez, EEB Senior Agriculture Policy Officer commented on Wednesday, "The greening of the CAP must simplify rather than expensively over-complicate future delivery of environmental outcomes from agriculture. Current attempts by decision makers to maintain the status quo against a real reform and greenwash the policy with questionable mechanisms such as 'equivalence of benefits' and 'green by definition' might do nothing more than contribute to burying this policy in the long term."

The EEB conference taking place one Wednesday comes just one day before the final closed-door trialogue negotiations between the European Parliament, Council and Commission, where the three factions will attempt to reach a final agreement on CAP reforms. The EEB study will be made available on Thursday.

EEB has called for the retention of the three requirements initially proposed by the Commission. These are:

• Crop diversification – three different crops to be grown on arable land over 3 hectares, with no crop covering less than 5 per cent of the area and the main crop covering no more than 70 per cent.
• Permanent grassland – maintain 95 per cent of the area of permanent grassland on the holding as declared in 2014.
• Ecological Focus Areas – 7 per cent of the holding (excluding permanent grassland) must be managed as ecological focus areas, examples of which include landscape features, fallow land and buffer strips