Environmental changes to European farming demanded
Environmental campaigners today demanded major changes to European farming to benefit wildlife and rural communities.
The call came as the European Commission launched a review of the controversial Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), vowing to bring in greener policies and tighten controls on multi-billion pound-a-year subsidies to farmers.
Cash handouts to farmers regardless of production have already been banished, virtually eradicating the legendary milk and wine lakes and butter and beef mountains.
And the CAP’s share of the entire £75bn (€104.6bn) a year EU budget has dropped from 70% to 45%, including 11% on rural development and environmental protection.
But now the Commission is proposing a ceiling on the level of subsidies any single landowner can receive and urging EU governments to approve moves to make Europe’s farming policy even more environmentally-friendly across the board.
But the RSPB and BirdLife International say they fear the so-called CAP “Health Check” unveiled today will not do enough to improve the fortunes of farmland wildlife or rural communities.
Both organisations want more “green” farming measures, better enforcement of current CAP environmental practice, and a re-think of plans to end the practice of paying farmers to leave some land fallow – called “set-aside” – which provides wildlife benefits.
The “Health Check” was promised when the CAP was last reformed in 2003 and launches consultations with EU ministers with proposals for CAP changes due next Spring.
As well as abolishing set-aside, and limiting subsidies, it emphasises the requirement of the CAP to take account of the need to tackle declining wildlife, water pollution, water shortages and climate change.
According to the RSPB it gives too little detail of how to enforce requirements on farmers receiving subsidies to maintain good practice such as reducing soil damage and maintaining hedgerows.
And they complain that of the £32bn (€44.6bn) a year spent on EU farming, the bulk will still go on direct subsidies to farmers not linked to environmental or social improvements.
Only 20% of CAP funds are spent on rural development and environmental measures - and plans to switch another 20% of subsidy money have been reduced to 13%.
Gareth Morgan, RSPB head of Agriculture Policy, said: “The Health Check must be much more radical. It recognises the role farming can play in tackling climate change, water pollution and wildlife declines but says little about how farmers can do these things or how their work can be funded.
“We will be lobbying hard for reforms that will make a difference.
“Europe needs a much stronger guiding hand if farming is to move into the more environmentally conscious 21st century we need.”
The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) said the plans had to provide substantial new funding for rural landscapes facing the threat of decline.
Ian Woodhurst, CPRE’s farming campaigner, commented: “Unless farmers are properly rewarded for the countryside management they undertake, the countryside we love will suffer.”
He said research from Natural England showed that 20% of landscapes were showing serious signs of neglect.
“We need to find resources to arrest this decline, and this could boost food production too – by maintaining distinctive and productive local landscapes we can reinforce the connection between high quality countryside and enjoying high quality local foods.
“The Health Check needs to make sure the future of the English countryside is truly healthy, for everyone’s benefit.”
A Defra spokesman said there had been “considerable progress” in reforming CAP.
“We strongly oppose any limits on individual CAP payments, since it simply adds to distortions rather than representing the real root-and-branch reform of the CAP which is needed.
“Linking CAP payments to the size of a farm would simply add to administrative bureaucracy and lead to distortion by encouraging larger farms to break up their businesses into smaller units and penalise more efficient farm restructuring.”
