I have been experiencing either as an ispector and land-owner and reading on examples of negative consequences of the PAC on conservation: meadow and scrubland plowed in order to benefit of the set-aside subsidies; forests being "improved" (as conservation in the traditional and very effective form of "let it be" is not subsidized), and in general uncompetitive agriculture being subsidized. But I never have heard of cases as those mentioned in the article where the PAC would favor: over-use of chemicals, loss of landscape heterogeneity, abandonment of High Nature Value (HNV) farming systems. Are there in the PAC provisions for those actions?
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.