Will the reformed CAP respond to the challenge of sustainable development of natural resources and climate change? Copenhagen, 2 March 2012 Nina Dobrzyńska, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Poland Will the reformed CAP respond to the challenge of sustainable development of natural resources and climate change?

The Common Agricultural Policy reform Three aspects need to be considered when talking about the CAP after 2013: 1. The need to reconcile various objectives so that they can function in the long-term perspective 2. The need to implement ambitious objectives within limited budgetary framework (maintaining the current CAP’s budget in its nominal value = decrease in real value ) 3. Farmer  many responsibilities to deal with;  various and numerous requirements, including ‘greening’, extensification resulting in lower yields and higher labour input, keeping numerous registers, lower income => encouragement?

CAP for meets the challenge of protecting natural resources and mitigating climate change P illar I – Majority of the EU farmers: cross-compliance, good agricultural and environmental condition (GAEC) o Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (increasing biomass and soil carbon sequestration), o A daptation measure s (increasing the soil water capacity), o Preventing the decrease in soil organic matter (crop rotation), o Maintenance of permanent pasture P illar II – Measures under axis 2 of RDP o Agri-environment o Afforestation of agricultural and non-agricultural land o LFA, Natura 2000 „ Health-check” in 2008 The so-called “new challenges” were defined and a dde d to the list of CAP’s objectives: o Climate change, o Renewable energy, o Water management, o Biodiversity. Do we need greening?

The reformed CAP for suggestions P illar I – Majority of the EU farmers Greening  Obligatory mechanism for Member States and farmers – why?  30% of national financial envelope: Problem – the value of ‘greening’ differs, but public goods are comparable – no justification … Suggestion – to set up the EU envelope - the same value for all MS

Average cost of greening implementation vs. average greening payment rates

Source : M.Zagorski et all Rate per ha after application of the unified greening rate (EUR 80 /ha)

The reformed CAP for – suggestions Greening - what is it about? Crop diversification (at least 3 crops), Maintenance of permanent grasslands (the level from 2014), Ecological focus areas ( fallow land, landscape features, terraces, buffer strips and afforested areas) – at least 7% of arable land Organic farms automatically included in pro-environmental payments, Problem – why agri-environmental and NATURA 2000 are not included? Greening of direct payments results in increased environmental requirements also under the area measures under Pillar II Problem – basic requirements for environmental measures - very demanding, specific requirements in agri-environmental and climate measures are very high; system is complex and sophisticated Problem - Control of environmental actions is complex and expensive (greening as AEC)

8 The reformed CAP for : Pillar II At least 25% of EAFRD contribution – earmarked for measures relating to climate change and land management: agrienvironment-climate, organic farming and payments for areas with natural handicaps (LFA). Why not to trust Member States? (Subsidiarity!) Problem New criteria for delimiting the LFA are purely biophysical and do not include demographic criteria – Are they attractive? Disparities between the EU15 and the EU12 – depopulation in new Member States is a real problem – risk for landscape.. Is it justified to include LFA in the obligatory 25% package?? Why are there no measures with evident environmental and climate-proof effects? (Natura 2000 payments, Forestry)

9 The CAP for : Pillar II Agri-environment-climate  Obligatory measure under the RDP – 40 % of EU UAA covered;  Introducing the element of ‘greening’ in the agri-environment- climate measure will affect the scope of measures;  Separating the financial support for organic farming – maybe clever, but artificial…  Educational effect and increased awareness on large areas, environmental effect Problem – more flexibility, shorter commitm e nt Payments on Natura 2000 sites and on areas connected with implementing the Water Framework Directive Package of forestry measures “Investments in forest area development and improvement of the viability of forests”

For further consideration - strategy BUT:  There are new challenges and what about the new CAP? Example: Do the newly edited names AEM -> AECM = different impact or effect???  Lisbon Strategy – lack of success  Europe 2020 – jumble of priorities, focus areas, etc. – a new strategy or just some superficial changes with complicated architecture? Risk of failure …and audits…. Adjusted and refined instruments = expected outcomes

To consider – CAP's assumptions Greening  The reform will reduce the potential and competitiveness of Polish and European agriculture (EFA - 7%);  Not only less important land, but also lands valuable for agriculture, will be excluded;  In the case of countries with fragmented agriculture, such as PL – large losses; Expected outcome = assumptions???  Small and scattered low-quality pieces of land which form neither green infrastructure nor ecological corridors;  N egative effect on land arrangement;  Effect - small parcels of land without any environmental effects;  P oor crop rotation in comparison with GAEC;  P roblem with control – possible errors and difficulties in the whole agricultural sector (direct payment) receiving support, as in the case of agri-environmental measures

Summary  The current CAP includes instruments for climate protection and sustainable management of natural resources  The reformed CAP – ensuring food security and competitiveness on the global market, a challenge of protecting natural resources and preventing climate change to greater extent - „manger et avoir une gateau”  Ambitious plans have to be reflected in the budget!  Greening An unequal level of direct payments - and greening –make it equal! Burden for farmers and administration POSSIBLE NEGATIVE RESULT – big landowners may give up payments OUT OF CONTROL – NO ENVIRONMENTAL RESULTS AT ALL!!! Reform in a proposed shape – fiction/ illusion…

Fot. M. Szewczyk Thank you! Fot. M. Szewczyk

Thank you! Fot. M. Szewczyk