Public money for Public goods

A new CAP for Europe’s biodiversityAriel Brunner

EU Agriculture Policy OfficerEuropean Division, BirdLife

International

The problemEU common farmland birds (unofficial 2007 data)

50

60

70

80

90

100

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

%

Old EU (33) New EU (23)

EBCC/RSPB/BirdLife/Statistics Netherlands

The problem

Intensification Abandonment

The CAP has been a major part of the problem

• Production subsidies and guaranteed prices driving intensification

• Most investment aimed at intensification

• Miss-managed policies (afforestation)

0

100

200

300

400

500

1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000

Year

No

. b

ree

din

g p

air

s

But the CAP has also increasingly provided parts of the solution

But the CAP has also increasingly provided parts of the solution• Zonal agri-environment

scheme implemented on the 60.000ha Castro Verde SPA

• National population increase from 760 to over 1400 since 1996

• Meanwhile, 8 local populations went extinct and most others declined

• National population concentrated in Castro Verde from 50 to 80%

Where are we now?

• Major CAP reform in 2003 • Subsides decoupled from production but

money not targeted• Receipt of payments linked to Cross

compliance but national implementation very patchy

• Rural Development now receives 24% of the agriculture budget. Biodiversity conservation and management of N2K are key priorities of the EU RD policy, but a lot of funds are wasted (some even damaging)

Very little funding goes toward sustainability

• Very little funding targeted at biodiversity conservation

• Very little money reaches HNV farmers

• Most funds concentrate on the most intensive farming systems

• Most spending has no clear policy objectives

0,0

50,0

100,0

150,0

200,0

250,0

300,0

B€

Pillar I Pillar II

CAP funds distribution (2007-2013)

The CAP is even more important now…

Opportunity for change: The EU Budget review & the “Health check”

• The two issues are linked- the real debate is on the post 2013 CAP

• Opportunity for major CAP reform and a stable outlook for EU farmers

• But risk of overall budget slashing and transfer out of land management

A new vision

Future challenge: paying for the positive externalities of agriculture

•We need farmers and other land managers to deliver public goods such as wildlife habitat.

•In most cases, these are externalities that are not paid for by the market.

•There is a need to create a “public goods market”.

•We need to support marginal High Nature Value farming that delivers public goods but is uncompetitive on the market.

A Sustainable Rural Development and land management Fund

• To establish a sustainable rural development fund for the whole of the EU based on the current Rural Development Regulation but targeted at sustainability, with support for land management structured according to the pyramid model and based on the principle of public money for public goods at its core.

• Current Axis I and III should be maintained but targeted at sustainability, supporting HNV farming, increasing quality production

Increase Pillar II spending at the expense of Pillar I• To continue to

increase rural development funds, towards an end goal of all EU public spending on agriculture being channelled through one instrument that is wholly committed to the delivery of public goods, with biodiversity being a key public good.

Funding for Natura 2000

• To ensure sufficient EU co-funding is made available for the management of Natura 2000.

Funding for High Natural Value farming

• To put in place adequate EU policies for the widespread maintenance of high natural value farming systems whose continuation is necessary for the survival of farmland birds and other biodiversity

• Axis I & III + targeted income support

Better Rural Development

• To improve the quality of rural development and agri-environment spend so that it delivers for farmland birds and wildlife.

Climate change adaptation and mitigation

• For EU agriculture to reduce its own greenhouse gas emissions

• contribute to mitigation through enhanced carbon storage and sustainable bioenergy

• contribute to adaptation by enhancing habitat connectivity and ecosystem services

The CAP health check 2008/9: an opportunity for the transition period

• Further compulsory modulation (at least 20%)

• Full decoupling pillar I payments• Make Cross compliance more meaningful

and ensure implementation across the EU• Ensure the environmental benefits of Set

aside are maintained• Reform the Less Favoured Area scheme

to ensure meaningful support is targeted at HNV farmers

Thank you for your attention!