Campaigners warn of a lack of a proper impact assessment, and negative consequences for nature and climate<\/p>\n
At a glance<\/p>\n
The European Commission has published proposals aimed at cutting red tape imposed by the Common Agricultural Policy<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
The EU executive says the cuts to bureaucracy could put up to \u20ac1.6bn a year in farmers\u2019 pockets and \u20ac210mn in the coffers of national administrations<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
Environmental non-governmental organisations have questioned why the proposals suggest removing links between the CAP and new environmental and climate legislation. This means national CAP plans would not be required to be coherent with, or contribute to, the Nature Restoration Law<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
The European Commission published its latest omnibus proposal on Wednesday aimed at cutting red tape imposed by the Common Agricultural Policy. Environmental campaigners say the plans go beyond simplification and jeopardise measures to reduce emissions and protect and restore nature. <\/p>\n
Changes to the CAP are nothing new. The EU\u2019s farming policy has undergone various iterations since it was created in 1962 to feed a growing population after the second world war. <\/p>\n
This time the buzz words are \u201csimplification, competitiveness, resilience and digitalisation\u201d, with the commission forecasting the cuts to bureaucracy could put up to \u20ac1.6bn a year in farmers\u2019 pockets and \u20ac210mn in the coffers of national administrations.<\/p>\n
The proposed changes<\/a> include simplified payment schemes for small farmers, simplified environmental requirements and a reduction in overlaps with national rules. For example, farms certified nationally as organic will automatically be considered as meeting some of the EU\u2019s environmental requirements for funding.<\/p>\n On-farm controls will also be streamlined through the use of satellite and other technology and on-the-spot checks limited to one a year per farm. <\/p>\n Presenting the package, EU trade commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis said the aim was \u201cto help the agricultural sector concentrate on farming not forms\u201d.<\/p>\n The commission says the proposal responds to the expectations of the farming community and repeated calls from EU member states to address administrative burdens and bottlenecks in the CAP. Feedback from farmers, national administrations and non-profits was taken into consideration, it insists. <\/p>\n Lack of impact assessment <\/p>\n However, much as has happened with the omnibus<\/a> aimed at simplifying EU sustainability reporting and due diligence rules, the commission has failed to carry out a thorough impact assessment before publishing its proposals.<\/p>\n \u201cGiven the urgent need to put forward measures to address the identified problems, it has not been possible to prepare a full impact assessment,\u201d states the commission proposal, adding that it has prepared a staff working document assessing the administrative cost reduction.<\/p>\n Any benefits to farmers or nature that would be lost if these plans were put into practice have, once again, not been costed, however. \u201cThe extent of the achievement of reduced costs, benefits and their distribution will largely depend on the choices made by member states,\u201d says the EU executive.<\/p>\n Given the urgent need to put forward measures to address the identified problems, it has not been possible to prepare a full impact assessment<\/p>\n \u201cWithout sufficient impact assessment or public consultation, the commission has yet again casually done away with nature and climate protections in Europe\u2019s largest budget, the CAP,\u201d says Th\u00e9o Paquet, senior policy officer for agriculture at the non-profit European Environmental Bureau. <\/p>\n \u201cSuch short-sighted decisions will not only hinder farm resilience due to the many benefits provided by healthy ecosystems, but brings the legitimacy of the CAP into question as it strays further from its environmental and climate objectives.\u201d<\/p>\n No link between CAP and Nature Restoration Law<\/p>\n One change about which the EEB is most concerned is the removal of links between the CAP and new environmental and climate legislation. In concrete terms, this means that national CAP plans will not be required to be coherent with, or contribute to, the Nature Restoration Law<\/a>. <\/p>\n Adopted in June 2024, the law aims to restore at least 20 per cent of EU land and sea areas by 2030, and all ecosystems in need of restoration by 2050.<\/p>\n The EEB says ending the need to link the CAP to new environmental laws is \u201ca step backwards in the EU\u2019s efforts to deliver a greener CAP and goes against the requirements set out in the EU treaties to ensure that sustainability efforts are integrated across policies\u201d.<\/p>\n The WWF suggests that by taking this step, the commission is giving agriculture \u201cspecial treatment when it comes to complying with EU and international goals, such as decarbonisation and soil health\u201d. <\/p>\n BirdLife Europe senior agriculture and land-use policy officer Marilda Dhaskali says the decision to break the link between farming policy and climate and environmental goals \u201cisn\u2019t just bad policymaking, it is a deeply anti-democratic decision that ignores advice from NGOs, the strategic dialogue<\/a> [on agriculture], and even [the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development\u2019s] own staff\u201d. <\/p>\n \u201cAnd it flies in the face of scientific evidence urging us to take the opposite path to secure a thriving farming sector,\u201d she adds.<\/p>\n Speaking to journalists ahead of the proposal launch, French MEP Pascal Canfin said there should be \u201cconsistency\u201d between climate laws and national CAP plans. <\/p>\n Ending the need to link CAP to new environmental laws is a step backwards in the EU\u2019s efforts to deliver a greener CAP and goes against the requirements set out in the EU treaties to ensure sustainability efforts are integrated across policies<\/p>\n Meghan Sapp, advocacy director at the European Alliance for Regenerative Agriculture, tells Sustainable Views, \u201creducing the burden on farmers when it comes to process and bureaucracy is of course a welcome improvement\u201d. <\/p>\n \u201cBut it goes back to the adage, \u2018it\u2019s not the cow, it\u2019s the how\u2019,\u201d she says. \u201cStreamline data so that farmers don\u2019t have to fill in the same thing five times, make it easier and faster to fill in paperwork \u2014 but that does not mean roll back on environmental leadership or existing environmental policies and targets that will increase the impacts of the climate crisis, instead of creating resilience along the entire agrifood supply chain.\u201d <\/p>\n Such a result would be \u201cshort sightedness, bad business and against the supposed policy goals of competitiveness, preparedness and simplification\u201d, says Sapp.<\/p>\n Farmers struggling with climate change<\/p>\n The legislative proposal will be submitted to the European parliament and the council for adoption. This is where the real danger lies as it \u201copens the door for anti-nature decision makers to get their hands on the CAP and scrap even more environmental protections,\u201d says WWF European Policy Office sustainable food policy officer Giulia Riedo.<\/p>\n \u201cThis could accelerate the destruction of our landscapes and make life even more precarious for farmers who depend on healthy ecosystems to survive,\u201d she adds.<\/p>\n