|
|
The current income support (based on area alone) is fully replaced with a payment system supporting an effective provision of public goods by farmers, aligned with both environmental and socio-environmental dimensions of sustainability |
Transform Direct Payments using (a combination of) the following measures:
Phase-out payments, in both Pillars, with environmental damage (including activities with high use of non-renewable resources, such as fuel consumption and permanent conversion of land) Cancel coupled Direct Payments for intensive production systems as most harmful CAP subsidy with adverse environmental and social impacts (OECD, 2017) Convert decoupled Direct Payment elements into payments for environmental performance (e.g. within Eco-Schemes), and revise payments not aligned with environmental or socio-environmental goals Shift funds to the Rural Development Programmes and, within them, to Agri-Environment-Climate Measures (AECM) or other instruments benefitting the provision of public goods Reward Member States (MSs) for shifting budgets to targeted payments for public goods and/or to Pillar 2 and, within it, to AECM and similarly beneficial instruments Set co-funding requirements on Pillar 1, while reducing them from Pillar 2
|
|
|
A reduction of GHG emissions in the agricultural sector is achieved |
Revise and reduce payments for intensive animal production (starting with coupled support and continuing through decoupled Direct Payments) Expand instruments supporting a transition to sustainable animal production intensities Revise the application of the ‘Rio Markers methodology’, to register only concrete measures for GHG reduction (especially under AECM and Eco-Schemes) rather than payments with uncertain impacts on emissions -
Strengthen or introduce financial support for
-
○
rewetting of peatlands (Röder, Henseler, Liebersbach, Kreins, & Osterburg, 2015; WBAE, 2016)
-
○
paludicultures (i.e. wet agriculture or forestry on peatlands; Buschmann et al., 2020; GMC, 2019)
-
○
nature-based solutions jointly addressing climate risks and biodiversity
-
○
termination of conversion of organic soils to arable land (Tiemeyer et al., 2020)
-
○
natural-forest restoration and rewilding (Perino et al., 2019) through designated instruments (e.g. payments for forest holders)
Demand MSs to prove that their support schemes lead to actual reduction in GHG emissions using full accounting or emissions' analysis -
Link farm risk management (i.e. insurance) to within-farm mitigation strategies (e.g. maintaining landscape features and vegetation cover to reduce drought, erosion or fire risks) to help building resilience and adaptiveness rather than compensating for losses
-
 Develop and introduce EU-wide and regional labelling of farming products with low CO2 footprint
-
Support education and communication on healthy and balanced diets that focus on pesticide-free, regionally produced, seasonal, low CO2 foods and reduced reliance on animal production
-
Provide incentives to reduce food-waste, transport distances (‘food miles’) and packaging
|
|
|
A zero decline, followed by increasing farmland biodiversity expressed by indicator species and habitats, is achieved at the earliest possible point in time |
Cancel the asymmetric budget cut on Pillar 2 proposed for the financial period of 2021–2027 Secure a significant budget for environmental measures in both pillars Restore the pre-2009 requirement for CAP recipients to set aside at least 10% of agricultural area for semi-natural habitats without production, like buffer strips, fallow land or landscape features Enlist and demand a minimum allocation to measures essential for biodiversity and associated ecosystem services: extensive arable land, buffer strips, fallow land, landscape elements (terraces, hedges, trees on farms etc.), high-diversity grasslands, wetlands, peatlands, and, at the landscape scale, High Nature Value farmland and mosaic landscapes (Lomba et al., 2020) Expand targeted budget for, and enhance farmer-profits from, implementing effective (‘dark green’), specific and/or complex AECM and Eco-Schemes for biodiversity Extend support for extensive grazing contributing to the provision of public goods Improve requirements for, and remuneration of, organic farming that complies with biodiversity-related criteria (e.g. include space for nature) as well as other sustainability criteria (Dainese et al., 2019) Improve the framework for calculating ‘cost incurred’ and ‘profit foregone’ and to generate greater benefits from public goods payments (for both biodiversity and climate) to increase effectiveness and efficiency |
|
|
Innovative agri-environment options with proven benefits are introduced across the EU and their uptake by farmers has successfully increased |
-
Require a minimum allocation by all MSs for innovative approaches such as:
Implement proposed approaches to reduce administrative costs of agri-environmental support without compromising targets (WBAE, 2019b) -
Explore means to improve farmers' motivation and participation in AECM, for example through:
-
○
higher flexibility and adaptability and more participatory approaches
-
○
enhancing financial and knowledge support for local initiatives through existing instruments (such as support for small farmers/investments) and initiatives (such as the European Innovation Partnership [EIP] and the evolving Community-Led Local Development [CLLD])
-
○
using AKIS and other tools to enhance knowledge of the impacts of different farming actions on public goods, and increase the feedback to farmers and other actors
|
|
|
Spatial distribution of measures is improved to achieve higher efficiency of agri-environment payments and contribute to the EU's Green Infrastructure |
Require MSs to employ spatial planning and landscape-level implementation under AECM and Eco-Schemes, and provide rewards for MSs (e.g. by reduced co-funding) and for farmers (e.g. by higher remuneration or labelling) Allocate budgets for piloting and exploring collaborative implementation approaches by farmers Link up Natura 2000 management plans with the utilization of AECM and Eco-Schemes within and beyond protected areas Encourage environmental farm management plans Employ longer-term contracts with farmers to improve both income security and ecological benefits of such efforts |
-
6
Demand Member States to set S.M.A.R.T (specific, measurable, ambitious, realistic and time-bound) targets in their Strategic Plans
|
All Member States have defined S.M.A.R.T targets to ensure effective and efficient implementation toward fulfilling all CAP objectives |
Require MSs to develop S.M.A.R.T targets in close consultation with scientists and other experts Sharpen the requirements and standards for the design and evaluation of MS's Strategic Plans, especially in terms of target-setting Revise the Performance Bonus (article 123 in EC, 2018) to ensure it incentivizes ambitious target-setting Demand MSs to clarify how they intend to address and reduce trade-offs between objectives Allow partial approval of Strategic Plans to enable approval of well-justified sections while others are revised as needed |
|
|
EU- and MS-specific lists of indicators are based on the best available science and in accordance with SDGs, post–2020 CBD's targets and UNFCCC |
Open the indicators' list to scientific evaluation and participation Clarify the currently non-transparent process of updating the indicators Redesign the set of result indicators using best knowledge so that they can support the comparison of political priorities between MSs and regions as well as for the timely monitoring and readjustment of Strategic Plans Expand the list of result indicators to ensure they balance all CAP objectives and are coherent with the SDGs Link result indicators with existing data monitored and reported by farmers (see Action point 8) to account for feasible tracing of land-use changes and supporting sustainable, adaptive farm management (mowing regime, grazing intensity, use of chemical outputs) Expand the list of impact indicators to cover all CAP objectives: reintroduce the HNV indicator (i.e. maintain it in the current list); include well-tested biodiversity indicators such as the Butterfly Grassland Indicator; include proposed indicators on farm-economy, health and well-being |
|
|
The monitoring and management tools are adequately expanded to trace the CAP impacts and to ensure that payments lead to desirable results |
Allocate a clearly defined EU budget for monitoring of CAP impacts on the environment in all MSs (see Geijzendorffer et al., 2016) Revise monitoring requirements together with scientists and relevant bodies to expand the extent and frequency of monitoring with respect to Cross Compliance, Eco-Schemes and AECM Support development, testing and implementation of emerging technologies and approaches (such as remote sensing, citizen science, DNA-based methods) for data collection and analysis across all MSs (ECA, 2020) Redesign the control and sanctioning mechanisms for putting greater emphasis on addressing potential environmental harm and less on mere ‘formal’ errors Disconnect administrative reporting requirements (=outputs/results) from performance indicators on socio-economic and environmental impacts of the CAP Make monitoring data, especially the EU's Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) and the Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS) data, open and freely available for science and independent impact evaluation; and remove current delays in data releases to allow rapid assessment of progress against targets Implement yearly monitoring for both results and impact indicators where possible and sensible, using the EU's reporting systems (e.g. IACS, LPIS) to account for changes in land-use/cover and management Enhance law enforcement to ensure compliance with requirements, including allocating sufficient resources (staff and funding) to this within the Commission Work on synergies with existing or emerging farmland biodiversity monitoring schemes at the MS and EU level |
|
|
A measurable reduction of environmental leakage, global negative land-use effects and market distortions by EU's agriculture is achieved, complying with the EU's principle of ‘Policy Coherence for Development’ (PCD) |
Abolish payments leading to adverse land-use changes and market distortions outside of the EU -
Develop a strategy for European agriculture with coherent CAP support to assure that agricultural production satisfies EU demands within the planetary boundaries
-
Complement certification and product standards with governmental regulation and legal arrangements in both producing and consuming countries to reduce losses of habitat and biodiversity in tropical forests and other ecosystems (Lambin et al., 2018; Milder, Newsom, Lambin, & Rueda, 2016; Tayleur et al., 2017)
-
Modify trade agreements to require common standards and tying the trading in food commodities with national and EU agriculture, food and sustainability policies
|
|
|
Achieve a measurable improvement in transparency, accountability and public participation in line with SDG 16 |
Open negotiation and implementation documents (such as national Strategic Plans) for public evaluation prior to approval, to enable public scrutiny of data, processes and outcomes throughout the policy cycle. Documents should be made available in both national languages and in English (WBAE, 2019b) Improve political structures for consultation and public participation during the generation of national Strategic Plans as well as during CAP implementation periods in order to enhance adaptive learning for improved sustainability performance Implement a joint decision-making process for DG AGRI and DG ENVI, as well as agricultural and environmental ministers in the Council, to reflect a broader range of affected sectors and stakeholders Improve the use of modelling and scenario building in all ex-ante evaluations to assess more profoundly whether proposed changes can generate the intended improvements, while applying the precautionary principle Decouple the financial decision-making from issues regarding policy design and targeting within the CAP Enhance structured participation of scientists in CAP assessment and policy reform processes |
