The EU Agricultural reform fails on biodiversity: Press Release of SCB-ES

The EU spends 40% of its budget on agriculture, (approx. 360 billion € in the period 2014-2020) this influences the management of half of EU territory and has strong effects on biodiversity. Latest reforms of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) have been declared significantly “greener” by the Members of the European Parliament, following promises to make the environment and climate change ‘core issues’ for the new CAP. 

 However, leading conservation experts writing in the journal Science warn that after three years of CAP negotiations the environmental reforms are so diluted they will be of no benefit to European wildlife, and biodiversity will continue to decline across the continent. 

Intensive or extensive, homogeneous or heterogeneous,

Permanent Crops are exempt of any greening measure.
Photographs: Raphaël Arlettaz

 Under the new CAP almost a third of direct payments to farmers are now subject to conditions relating to ‘greening measures’: establishing Ecological Focus Areas, maintaining permanent grasslands, and setting minimum requirements on number of crops grown to stop areas slipping into homogenous ‘monocultures’. However, following thorough analysis, experts have found that the large number of clauses introduced to the greening measures exempt over 88% of farmers in the EU, and over 48% of its agricultural areas from having to incorporate Ecological Focus Areas.  81% of arable farmers are now exempt from the crop diversity measure, and the measure meant to protect natural grassland allows a further loss of 5% of their extent by 2020. At the same time, budgets to support voluntary ‘greening measures’ have been reduced.

 “The thresholds set are not only low but also lack any quality criteria for what counts as green,” says Dr Guy Pe’er, lead author of the paper, from the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research and a member of the Board of Directors of the Society for Conservation Biology – Europe Section (SCB-ES). “This allows on-going intensification under a green label”. Authors conclude that the CAP reforms fail to fulfil Target 3A of the EU Biodiversity Strategy, which explicitly requires the EU to “maximise areas […] covered by biodiversity-related measures under the CAP”.

 

“Individual member states need to use the flexibility offered by the reforms to design national plans for sustaining ecosystems. Unless member states take serious steps beyond those required for the CAP, the EU’s own biodiversity targets for 2020 are very unlikely to be met” says Pe’er.     

The common Agricultural Policy provides subsidies that increase the scale of farming throughout the EU. This has led to increased grassland conversion and peatland drainage. The situation is particularly severe in new member states, where the use of agri-chemicals such as fertilizers has grown rapidly.

This continues to take a heavy toll on wildlife, with dramatic declines in everything from the farmland bird index to ‘permanent’ grassland that, in newer member states, has shrunk over 11% in just the last decade.

“Many regions of the new member states, and countries of southern Europe, are still supporting very high biodiversity”, says András Báldi from the MTA Centre for Ecological Research, Hungary and president of SCB-ES. “But there were new member states that opposed agri-environment schemes, and some already decided to transfer budgets away from Rural Development into Direct Payment for farmers, with essentially no environmental requirements installed. Without obligation from Brussels, we may see no greening taking place”.

“Because of its enormous budget and its direct influence on half of the EU terrestrial area, the CAP offers a great opportunity for win-win policies that promote healthy ecosystems together with food-security and rural development”, says Piero Visconti, a Computational Ecologist at Microsoft Research and a member of the Board of Director of the SCB-ES. “By using scenario analyses, optimization algorithms, and experimental data, it is possible to achieve better outcomes for all societal levels involved, as well as supporting biodiversity and ecosystem services.”

Visconti adds: “it will be very important to rely on scientific-evidence and design outcome-based payment methods. We hope that the EU Department of Agriculture will consider using these tools for a more rigorous assessment of the environmental and economic costs and benefits of the CAP reform at the first opportunity. The knowledge and tools to achieve better biodiversity outcomes from the CAP are available, and the experts are welcoming a constructive dialogue.”

“Appropriate and full scale compensation for farmers managing High Nature Value farmland is key condition for effective protection of farmland biodiversity. We need appropriate funding for programs targeting species-rich grassland in particular,” says former SCB-ES president Martin Dieterich, from the Agricultural University of  Hohenheim. “We also need practical oriented research and university education targeting ecological expertise in the farming sector.”

The experts offer six ‘immediate actions’ that EU Member states should take. These include increasing the economic support and the uptake of voluntary measures that have documented benefits to biodiversity, comprehensive mapping and protection of existing grasslands and their quality, increasing the availability of ecological expertise to farmers, and monitoring the biodiversity outcomes of the CAP. They also list recommendations for the EU to consider towards the next, still-much-needed revision of the CAP.

“We hope these recommendations will encourage individual states and the EU as a whole to move towards sustainable agriculture, securing vital ecosystems for current and future generations”, says Pe’er.

G. Pe’er, L. V. Dicks, P. Visconti, R. Arlettaz, A. Báldi, T. G. Benton, S. Collins, M. Dieterich, R. D. Gregory, F. Hartig, K. Henle, P. R. Hobson, D. Kleijn, R. K. Neumann, T. Robijns, J. Schmidt, A. Shwartz, W. J. Sutherland, A. Turbe, F. Wulf and A. V. Scott (2014): EU agricultural reform fails on biodiversity. SCIENCE, 6 June 2014, Vol. 344, Issue 6188. DOI: 10.1126/science.1253425.

For open access go to http://www.ufz.de/index.php?en=1625

Evidence on grassland mappings to support protection of high nature value grasslands in the EU

Experts from more than 20 countries responded to the call by SCB-ES to gather information on grassland mappings in Europe. Based on this information and additional contribution from Birdlife and EEB, the Board submitted an official letter to the participants of the ongoing CAP trilogue discussion. For more country-specific information read the  google doc.

"14 May 2013

Recipients:
Mrs Anna Barnett, DG Environment
Ms Caroline Raes, DG Agriculture and Rural Development
Mr Pierre Bascou, DG Agriculture and Rural Development
Mr Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos
Ambassador Rory Montgomery
Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development

Subject:  Evidence on grassland mappings in Member States supports inclusion of high nature value grasslands into EU agricultural policies

Dear Madam/Sir,

As the trilogue discussions related to the CAP subsidy reforms proceed, we are aware that difficulties were raised with respect to the question whether grasslands, wetlands and peatlands have been mapped with sufficient accuracy to enable parcel-level / farm-level payments by the EU.

We think that improved grassland protection through agri-environment measures does not necessarily require full scale mappings. Rather, existing programs within EU member states indicate that target oriented funding can be accomplished independent of mapping status (e.g. MEKA B4 agri-environment measure, Federal State of Baden-Württemberg, Germany).

In addition, in the context of the Natura 2000 implementation, EU member states are required to provide parcel level data on conservation status of Annex I grasslands. Therefore, plot specific data for those grassland areas most significant for nature conservation are already available or should be available according to legal requirements. Provided such data are not available for all countries, we urge the EU commission to consider immediate legal action against the according member states.

A relatively quick query across our European members reveals that such mapping efforts for natural/semi-natural grasslands, C-rich soils, peatlands and wetlands have already been completed in several member states or regions (e.g. Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Latvia, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden). These maps are of high quality standards and already inform conservation efforts at various administrative levels. In addition, colleagues from Greece, Italy, Netherlands, England have informed us about on on-going efforts and projects that explicitly engage in such mapping.

We found a clear indication that approaches, methods, and tools to permit an effective inclusion of high nature value grasslands into EU agricultural policies exist now, and therefore there is no reasons to exclude the protection of these areas from  the CAP 2014 – 2020. These grasslands harbouring up to 50% of the red listed plant species are under increasing pressure from intensification or abandonment. Effective protection can not be postponed beyond 2020, if the EU is serious about achieving its stated biodiversity targets.

We wish to further remind the participants of the trilogue that available information raised in the context of projects defining High Nature Value areas throughout the EU indicates that in many cases the current area of natural and semi-natural habitats within agricultural areas in Europe is considerably more than 7 % and thus above the maximum target of Ecological Focus Areas currently discussed. For Germany the 2010 Indicator report on national biodiversity targets indicates High Nature Value Farmland (HNVF) at 13% of the totally farmed area. The figures are even higher in the new EU Member States (for example in Romania, see Appendix). We therefore reiterate our strong support to adopting the highest possible scenario in order to avoid the likely situation where CAP funding continues to support the loss of semi-natural habitats and associated biodiversity in Europe.

We would be pleased to have an opportunity to discuss our concerns with DG Agriculture and Rural Development and members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development of the European Parliament.

Yours sincerely,

Prof. Dr. András Báldi, President, Society for Conservation Biology - Europe Section
europe@conbio.org"

Society for Conservation Biology urges EU members to save the Common Agricultural Policy

Click here to read the SCB-ES letter sent to EU officials

3 April 2013

Recent decisions by the European Parliament reject a radical reform of the environmental aspects of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). These decisions include reducing the sets-aside area devoted to nature protection (“Ecological Focus Area”) to 3% instead of the originally-proposed 7%, and a watering-down of the crop diversification requirements, thus encouraging continued intensification and expansion of large-scale mono-cropping (such as maize) across Europe.

In a letter to Parliament Members and Commissioners, SCB-ES expressed its deep concerns about these decisions and warns that it contradicts the principles and strategies of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Action Plan, as well as international agreements signed by the EU. SCB-ES states that “…the rejection of more profound CAP reforms amounts to a significant retreat from the international targets on sustainable development, environmental protection and biodiversity conservation”.

“The Parliament’s decision is disappointing not only because it counteracts the efforts to halt biodiversity loss, but also because it ignores scientific evidence and tools for reconciling economic and environmental needs.”, says Dr. Guy Pe’er from the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ and chair of the Communication Committee of SCB-ES.

The EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2020 states that “biodiversity safeguards contained in existing EU law must not be weakened, and new strategies must not fail” and that “CAP is a crucial tool for biodiversity conservation, mitigation of climate change, and ecosystem services.” SCB-ES is convinced that the current decision by MEPs on the CAP reform stands in stark contrast to these statements, and will lead to a failure in achieving a favourable conservation status of 40% of all habitats and species in Europe by 2020.

“We should not forget that there are areas of Europe, especially in the newly joined member states, that are both biologically and culturally diverse”, says Andras Baldi, President of SCB-ES. “These are being degraded at an exceptional rate, and the main culprit is agricultural intensification”.

Towards the upcoming meeting of the “trilogue” between DG Agriculture and Rural Development, the Council of Agriculture Ministers and representatives of the EU Parliament, SCB-ES urges the EU to take a last chance in correcting these anomalies of the CAP reform. They specifically called to maintain sufficient spending on the environment, set back the Ecological Focus Areas at 7% or higher (in fact, scientific evidence suggests that 10 % should be a more realistic figure), reinstate the protection of carbon- and biodiversity rich grasslands, and perform a careful inspection of eligibility criteria to ensure that funding is spent wisely. SCB-ES further calls to acknowledge the biological (and cultural) diversity of European landscapes and accordingly ensure crop diversification, especially in environmentally sensitive areas, in order to halt the rapid intensification of agricultural areas across Europe.

“Estimates suggest that 30-40% of the yearly food production in developed countries is wasted, and at the same time, farmers in Europe produce more biofuel and less food”, says Prof. Pierre Ibisch, Chair of the Policy Committee of SCB-ES. “This means that greater flexibility for the farming industry to maximise productivity, and less control on impacts, will not safeguard against food shortages but instead will hamper ecosystems services, and, in the longer term, productivity.”

Contacts:

1) Dr. Guy Pe’er, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ.  Tel: +49-341-2351643, Email: guy.peer (at) ufz.de (English, Hebrew)

2) Dr. András Báldi, MTA Centre for Ecological Research, Institute of Ecology and Botany. Tel: Email: andrasbaldi (at) gmail.com (English, Hungarian)

3) Prof. Pierre Ibisch, Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management Faculty of Forest and Environment - Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development. Tel: +49-3334-65 7178 Email: Pierre.Ibisch (at) hnee.de (English, German)

4) Dr. Barbara Livoreil, Tel: +441248382953 Email: barbara.livoreil (at) gmail.com  (English, French)

Multimedia:

What we lose with intensification: pictures of

a) traditional agricultural landscape in Hungary (picture: Bajomi Balint)

b) a white stork in a meadow in Poland; agricultural intensification is one of the main threats on a species of high cultural importance (picture Adam Wajrak)

c) Common hamster: an Annex IV species that reached very low population size in Western Europe, and is rapidly declining in Central and Eastern Europe mainly due to agricultural intensification (picture: Adam Wajrak).

For further information:

The Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) is an international organization of scientists and conservation professionals with thousands of members from more than 60 countries. Members include academics with expertise across the natural and social sciences, field biologists, educators, resource managers, administrators, economists, lawyers, and many others.  SCB is dedicated to advancing the science and practice of conserving the Earth's biological diversity. The European Section (SCB-ES) represents conservation professionals from all the 27 EU member states.

Recent rejection of necessary radical CAP farm subsidy reforms

Members of the European Parliament

Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development

Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety

                                                                                      Commissioner Dacian Cioloş

Commissioner Janez Potočnik

3 April 2013

Dear Madam/Sir,

The Society for Conservation Biology – Europe Section (SCB-ES) would like to express its deep concern about the recent rejection by Members of the European Parliament and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development of necessary elements of the CAP farm subsidy reforms. The view held by SCB-ES, (and shared to our knowledge by all main European environmental organisations) is that the rejection of more profound CAP reforms amounts to a significant retreat from the international targets on sustainable development, environmental protection and biodiversity conservation.

The European Parliamentary Report (2012) ‘Our life insurance, our natural capital: An EU biodiversity strategy to 2020’ deplored the failure of the European Community to meet its 2010 biodiversity target, and made straightforward statements regarding the CAP towards 2020, emphasising “the vital role of farmers in achieving the new EU biodiversity objectives”.

In an uncompromising language, the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2020 indicates the commitment required by decision-makers to ensure these targets: “biodiversity safeguards contained in existing EU law must not be weakened, and new strategies must not fail.” It also states that “CAP is a crucial tool for biodiversity conservation, mitigation of climate change, and ecosystem services.”

In the light of the above, the recent parliamentary decision is disappointing. We are particularly concerned that a) the reduction of ecological focus areas to merely 3%, and b) the weakened requirements on crop diversification, may lead to a failure in achieving a favourable conservation status of 40% of all habitats and species by 2020. These decisions specifically contradict Target 3A) By 2020 maximise areas under agriculture to ensure conservation of biodiversity and bring about a measurable improvement.  

SCB-ES does not doubt the need to support robust and adaptive strategies for sustainable food production. However, scientific evidence clearly suggests that short term maximisation of productivity may well hamper long term provision of ecosystem services and thus productivity in agricultural systems and beyond.

We urge the MEPs and European Commissioners to honour the parliament’s commitment to the EU Biodiversity strategy 2020 and global biodiversity targets agreed upon by the EU and member governments during the COP 10 in Nagoya (Aichi targets) by ensuring that the CAP subsidy reforms are appropriately aligned to the six principal targets of the EU strategy, as well as the environmental requirements set by the Maastricht Treaty.

We specifically urge to maintain the 25% minimum spending on the environment, set back the Ecological Focus Areas at 7% or higher (noting that scientific evidence indicates a need to set it at 10% or higher), reinstate the protection of carbon- and biodiversity rich grasslands, and perform a careful inspection of eligibility criteria to ensure that funding is spent wisely. SCB-ES further calls to acknowledge the biological (and cultural) diversity of European landscapes in ensuring crop diversification, especially in environmentally sensitive areas, as means to halt the rapid intensification and homogenization of agricultural areas across Europe.

The upcoming meetings of the trilogue among DG Agriculture and Rural Development, the Council of Agriculture Ministers and representatives of the EU Parliament offer still the opportunity to rectify these elements of the CAP reform. The SCB-ES Policy Committee stands ready to support any effort to identify the means that are still available to ensuring that the common agricultural policy supports maximisation of both economic and environmental benefits, using best available knowledge. We are prepared to provide any evidence, documentation and tools that could prove useful, and are keen to organise any necessary meeting(s), or a round table with relevant European Commissioners and stakeholders.

In the longer term, it is the intention of the SCB-ES Policy Committee to present a more comprehensive response to the recent decision made by the MEPs on the CAP farm subsidy reforms. It will offer recommendations based on sound principles of cost efficiency, sustainability, and adaptive ecosystem management.

Please be so kind to contact us at europe@conbio.org (or the addresses below) to organise a meeting or a round table at your earliest convenience.

Yours sincerely,

  

Prof. Dr. András Báldi, President, Society for Conservation Biology - Europe Section

Institute of Ecology and Botany, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Centre for Ecological Research

Prof. Dr. Pierre L. Ibisch, Chair of Policy Committee, Society for Conservation Biology - Europe Section

Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management, Faculty of Forest and Environment, Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development. Alfred-Moeller-Str. 1, 16225 Eberswalde, Germany.

Dr. Guy Pe’er, Chair of Communication Committee, Society for Conservation Biology - Europe Section

UFZ – Centre for Environmental Research, Department of Conservation Biology. Permoserstr. 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany.

Copies: IEEP, WWF, BirdLife International, Butterfly Conservation Europe, IUCN

Common Agricultural Policy reform - Study highlights the need to reconnect people and nature

Traditional farming landscapes around the world are rich in biodiversity and cultural heritage, both of which are typically lost from areas dominated by modern agriculture. A new international study published in the leading journal Conservation Letters (2012; DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00227.x) argues for a novel approach for the sustainable development of traditional farming landscapes. Such landscapes face a conundrum: on the one hand, their social and economic development is a high priority, but on the other hand, conventional development pathways can destroy their immense natural and cultural heritage.

According to the lead author of the study, Professor Joern Fischer from Leuphana University Lueneburg, the findings have implications for the upcoming 2013 reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP): "Virtually all of the debate about the CAP reform to date has been about who ought to receive farming subsidies in the future, and for which practices. The debate is dominated by lobby groups focusing either on economic growth, or the modernisation of farming practices, or the environment. A much more holistic approach is needed to develop a vision for the future of Europe's agricultural landscapes."

 A key challenge is to maintain high biodiversity, while also allowing for socioeconomic development. Dr Tibor Hartel, co-author of the study, works in Transylvania in Central Romania, one of Europe's most biodiverse farming landscapes: "Our landscapes are highly biodiverse, and the CAP reform should help to maintain the immense natural heritage in landscapes such as those in Transylvania. But people here are poor, so we must also find ways to develop economically, too. It can't be one or the other, we need both!"

Professor Tobias Kümmerle from the Geography Department of Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, who also contributed to the study, has worked across Eastern Europe. His work has repeatedly shown what conventional agriculture can do to biodiversity: "In many regions of Eastern Europe, agriculture is now practiced intensively, with big fields, and lots of chemical inputs. Implementing this kind of agriculture in Europe’s few remaining traditional landscapes would destroy their exceptional biodiversity." 

But how can biodiversity conservation and economic development be harmonised? Professor Fischer argues that we need to think outside the box. "It seems like at present, all we can think of is to somehow pay people so they keep using ancient practices. The idea is that we give them subsidies to effectively preserve the past. A preservation strategy will fail: it is an artificial link between people and nature. Instead of such artificial links, we need more meaningful linkages between people and the environment."

Reflecting on the nature of traditional linkages, Dr Hartel says: "In the traditional societies of Eastern Europe people have had very direct connections with nature. People looked after the land, and the land gave them crops, fresh water, hay for domestic livestock, fruit and many other ecosystem services. The inherent incentive for using sustainable land use strategies was the need to maintain these ecosystem services – unlike today, it’s never been about payments. Besides financial incentives, we need to develop strategies to keep the inherent connection between people and nature in traditional landscapes."

The study concludes that the CAP reform must think beyond narrowly focused subsidies geared either at enhancing agricultural production, or at maintaining traditional and potentially outdated practices. Local initiatives should be supported that aim to re-create genuine links between people and nature, for example via regional specialty food products (such as fine cheeses or wine), or via cultural and ecological tourism. Professor Fischer concludes: "The CAP reform is a huge opportunity. Instead of just debating who ought to get which slice of the subsidy cake, the EU could use this opportunity to lead the world in systematically re-connecting people and nature. The benefits of such a move for sustainable development can't be overstated."

(source: https://www.hu-berlin.de/press-portal)

FURTHER INFORMATION

Prof. Dr. Tobias Kümmerle
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
Phone: +49 30 2093-9372
Email: tobias.kuemmerle@geo.hu-berlin.de
Web: www.geographie.hu-berlin.de