Responding to the Secretary of State on CAP reform

On Monday, the Secretary of State outlined her vision for reform of the Common Agriculture Policy. 

Here I outline our response.

We need substantive CAP reform to realise what Biodiversity Minister Richard Benyon referred to this week as Defra's “determination to reverse the decline of farmland birds”.  The RSPB and our Birdlife partners argue for a policy that directs the funding - billions of Euros of taxpayers’ money - to the farmers who deliver the things we need but the market fails to pay for like an attractive countryside rich in wildlife.  Defra’s strong position on CAP reform in Europe – leading the way for others – is vital if we are to have any hope of succeeding.

There are however some points where RSPB’s view differs from Defra – not on what needs to be done, but on how it is best achieved.

Greening Pillar 1

First, I’d like to be clear that whatever the Pillar I ‘greening’ schemes look like at the end of the negotiations, they cannot replace targeted and well designed agri-environment schemes in Pillar II. Pillar II must be properly resourced and we applaud Defra for maintaining their firm line on this.  I fully agree with the Secretary of State that the best way to make the CAP greener would be to increase the share of the budget going to Pillar II. 

However, this is a view shared by few others across Europe.  The political reality is that most Member States want the large majority of funds to remain in Pillar I – and however little we like it, that’s what’s going to happen. Therefore we have to make Pillar I payments work much harder for the environment and so, unlike the Minister, we believe that the Commission’s original proposals could, or rather must, be made to work.

Greening in Pillar I is an opportunity to raise the baseline of environmental delivery in every Member State of the EU.  To do this, greening must work effectively alongside Pillar II agri-environment schemes. 

Like the Secretary of State, we want farmers who have already stepped up for the environment to be recognised. It would be a nonsense for a farmer in the Thorney Farmland Friendly Bird zone, who may already managing up to 20% of his cropland for wildlife, to then have to assign an additional area of his farm for greening.

But this is where it all starts to get complicated (if it wasn’t already!).

We want wildlife friendly farmers to be recognised but this isn’t the same as a ‘free pass’ for farmers in agri-environment schemes – for the 70% of farmers in schemes, ‘greening’ would end up being a continuation of the status quo. Surely this defeats the object – to get more environmental bang for the taxpayer’s buck. We need to be smart and look at ways where we can both recognise the fantastic work already being done by many farmers and increase the overall environmental performance of farming in every Member State. Every farmer has a role to play – no exceptions.

If we get this right, we could see some real benefits: basic ‘greening’ in Pillar 1 could free up money in Pillar II to fund more targeted agri-environment work.  Admittedly the Commission’s proposals need a lot of work before this can become reality, but some of the proposals have huge potential.

A final point on Pillar 1: scattered throughout Europe are special farming systems which are fantastically rich in biodiversity and deliver a suite of other benefits for society including carbon storage and water quality. These ‘High Nature Value’ (HNV) farming systems are life support systems for a lot of Europe’s wildlife, yet are being lost at an alarming rate.  Most of them are economically unviable and vulnerable to the opposing threats of intensification and abandonment. Supporting HNV farming is a key objective for the CAP, yet the proposals on the table fall miserably short of delivering what is needed. A premium for HNV farmland could secure their future for just a tiny proportion of the CAP budget.

Cutting the red tape

Smart regulation has a vital role to play in protecting the environment, but I absolutely agree with the need to streamline the paperwork.  As land managers ourselves, the RSPB understands why farmers feel frustrated dealing with unnecessary bureaucracy. However, let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater by scrapping regulations that are essential for the protection of society and the environment.  When industry steps up and takes ownership of an environmental problem through voluntary action that is to be applauded. Regulation is only one of the levers for effecting change – but it is a vital part of the tool kit. As dairy farmers highlighted at the summit on milk prices in London last week, sometimes voluntary codes are insufficient and a regulatory backstop is essential - even if this does mean a little bit of the dreaded “red tape”.

As anyone involved in CAP reform in Brussels will know, it’s a little like playing chess, with 26 opponents each with their own agenda, some of them using slightly different rules, with long gaps between moves followed by periods of frantic activity. 

OK, not very much like chess, but you get the point.

I'll return to the great CAP game later in the year.