BirdLife

In this Section

Reality Check – Are Common Agricultural Policy subsidies paying for environmental quality?

Agriculture in Europe

Agriculture and biodiversity in the EU

Shortcomings of the current CAP

BirdLife's vision for the future of the CAP

BirdLife's vision for the future of the CAP part 2

BirdLife International's detailed CAP proposal in coalition with EEB, IFOAM, EFNCP and WWF.

The CAP Health Check

“Could do better - How is the EU Rural Development policy delivering for biodiversity?”

Through the green smokescreen - how is CAP cross compliance delivering for biodiversity?

Less Favoured Areas (LFAs) and High Nature Value (HNV) farmland

BirdLife's view on the 'Food security crisis'

Proposals for the future CAP: a joint position from the European Landowners’ Organization and BirdLife International

BirdLife Agriculture Publications

Save the Albatross

Printer friendly view

Subscribe to News

 Bookmark & Share Bookmark & Share

Change Language

Reality Check – Are Common Agricultural Policy subsidies paying for environmental quality?

Trees Robijns
The study highlights how CAP spending intensity does not reflect any nature conservation priorities.
Zoom In

A new report launched by BirdLife International finds that current CAP spending intensity is not reflecting any nature conservation priorities nor supporting nature-friendly farms in three key European countries.

The new report presents studies carried out in Spain, Germany and the Czech Republic using CAP subsidy data and environmental performance indicators to answer the question: “Does the current CAP support farmers engaged in sustainable practices and delivering environmental public goods?”

The main results are:

• Subsidy intensity has never been found to reflect conservation values or level of public goods delivery;

• Where subsidies are based on historical reference (which is the situation in most ‘old Member States’) there is still a perverse link between subsidy intensity and poor environmental performance, such as depleted and polluted groundwater, lack of landscape elements, etc.;

• Flat rate payments (which is the system used in most ‘new Member States’) seem to remove the perverse subsidy effect but fail to properly reward farmers that deliver public goods (farmers engaged in best practices and worst practices receiving the same amount of subsidies);

• Still widespread problem of very high payments going to farms actively destroying biodiversity or to farms that are delivering virtually no public goods;

• Widespread failure to fund the Natura 2000 network despite repeated claims by the EU that the CAP is a major funding source for management of the EU’s only system of protected areas.

The release of CAP beneficiaries’ data is finally allowing a proper investigation of CAP quality of spending and this report is one of the first attempts to actually measure the environmental performance of the EU subsidy system. Unfortunately the quality of data released by Member States is often poor and not homogenous enough to allow for proper EU wide analysis. BirdLife International hopes that this study will be used by other organizations and government bodies as an example to perform more in debt and EU wide analysis.

If you want to receive the report, send an e-mail to europe@birdlife.org

Next Page » BirdLife Agriculture Publications


Sponsored by:

EU Flag

European Union
This website is part-financed by the European Union


Advertising more »

BL Ads