Farm advisers should provide a basic level of advice to farmers about how to improve biodiversity, a new study by the European Commission has found.
The study, Evaluation of the impact of the CAP on habitats, landscapes, biodiversity, found that member states should be required to provide the advice, through their farm advisory service.
“They should then ensure that more specific advice and training are available on-farm, as well as promoting knowledge exchange, in particular for those taking up complex but highly beneficial schemes such as some of those available through the [agri-environment and climate measures],” it said.
CAP funding
The report said that in order to maximise the benefits which can be achieved for biodiversity from CAP funding, a higher priority should be given to focusing CAP instruments and measures that have biodiversity objectives on maintaining the extent and quality of semi-natural habitats.
Such habitats are ones which depend on agricultural or forest management (in particular habitats protected by the Birds and Habitats Directives and semi-natural habitats used by species protected under that legislation), where these are at risk, and especially within Natura 2000 areas.
“In other areas of farmland, CAP instruments and measures should be targeted towards maintaining, restoring and enhancing the extent and quality of semi-natural components in the landscape; and providing other required habitats and landscape features for declining specialist farmland species,” it said.
Natura 2000
A Natura 2000 site is a network of core breeding and resting sites for rare and threatened species, and some rare natural habitat types which are protected in their own right. Ireland has over 400 sites covering over 700,000ha.
Member states should be required to ban ploughing/conversion of all permanent grassland in all Natura 2000 sites, the Commission report found, unless it has been mapped as grassland of a type which does not require protection under the Habitats Directive and on all permanent grassland outside the Natura 2000 sites which requires such protection.
It said that member states should make CAP supports available on all semi-natural grassland, heathland and wood pasture habitats which require agricultural management, by adopting a wider definition of permanent grassland.
The current definition of permanent grassland is land used permanently to grow fodder, forage or energy purpose crops.
Removing trees and shrubs
It recommended that member states should ensure that semi-natural tree and shrub habitats and other landscape features are preserved.
This should be done by setting rules under cross-compliance or non-CAP legislation, so that they cannot be removed by farmers seeking to maximise their receipt of direct payments, it said.
Review of CAP plans
“In the future, member states should be required, in their CAP strategic plans, to review strategically their use of all relevant CAP instruments and measures against the priorities in their prioritised action frameworks (PAFs) and national biodiversity strategies and their action plans (NBSAPs).
“The most effective and efficient instruments and measures (eg tailored and targeted agri-environment and climate measures and the Natura 2000 measure) should then be used in appropriate combinations to achieve the identified priority biodiversity objectives,” it found.
In relation to the range of options available to farmers to fulfil the non-productive area requirement of environmental conditionality, in the next CAP period, the report found that it should “not include options of low benefit to biodiversity such as catch crops and nitrogen-fixing crops”.
Ireland not using RDP measures for Natura 2000 networks
The report found that four member states - Hungary, Ireland, Latvia and the Netherlands - are not using RDP measures to develop their Natura 2000 agriculture networks despite having a strategic priority to do so.
“Ireland and Portugal are not [using two measures] to pursue their strategic priority of developing their Natura 2000 forest networks. Ireland and Latvia have not fully mapped [high-nature-value farmland].”
These two measures are:
M7.1 - Support for drawing up and updating of plans for the development of municipalities and villages in rural areas and their basic services and of protection and management plans relating to Natura 2000 sites and other areas of high nature value.M12.2 - Compensation payment for Natura 2000 forest areas.“Only four of the nine member states for whom tackling invasive species is a priority are using the CAP to pursue it. Ireland, Portugal and Romania do not address the restoration of peatlands and wetlands through the CAP, despite it being highlighted as a priority,” it found.
Objective of the study
The objective of the study was to carry out an evaluation of the positive and negative, direct and indirect impacts of the 2014-2020 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) on biodiversity, habitats and landscapes in areas under the direct influence of the CAP.
This included protected habitats, using causal analysis and the five evaluation criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance and EU added value.
It also examined the extent to which the CAP has contributed to the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, especially Target 3, namely to increase the contribution of agriculture and forestry to biodiversity.
Farm advisers should provide a basic level of advice to farmers about how to improve biodiversity, a new study by the European Commission has found.
The study, Evaluation of the impact of the CAP on habitats, landscapes, biodiversity, found that member states should be required to provide the advice, through their farm advisory service.
“They should then ensure that more specific advice and training are available on-farm, as well as promoting knowledge exchange, in particular for those taking up complex but highly beneficial schemes such as some of those available through the [agri-environment and climate measures],” it said.
CAP funding
The report said that in order to maximise the benefits which can be achieved for biodiversity from CAP funding, a higher priority should be given to focusing CAP instruments and measures that have biodiversity objectives on maintaining the extent and quality of semi-natural habitats.
Such habitats are ones which depend on agricultural or forest management (in particular habitats protected by the Birds and Habitats Directives and semi-natural habitats used by species protected under that legislation), where these are at risk, and especially within Natura 2000 areas.
“In other areas of farmland, CAP instruments and measures should be targeted towards maintaining, restoring and enhancing the extent and quality of semi-natural components in the landscape; and providing other required habitats and landscape features for declining specialist farmland species,” it said.
Natura 2000
A Natura 2000 site is a network of core breeding and resting sites for rare and threatened species, and some rare natural habitat types which are protected in their own right. Ireland has over 400 sites covering over 700,000ha.
Member states should be required to ban ploughing/conversion of all permanent grassland in all Natura 2000 sites, the Commission report found, unless it has been mapped as grassland of a type which does not require protection under the Habitats Directive and on all permanent grassland outside the Natura 2000 sites which requires such protection.
It said that member states should make CAP supports available on all semi-natural grassland, heathland and wood pasture habitats which require agricultural management, by adopting a wider definition of permanent grassland.
The current definition of permanent grassland is land used permanently to grow fodder, forage or energy purpose crops.
Removing trees and shrubs
It recommended that member states should ensure that semi-natural tree and shrub habitats and other landscape features are preserved.
This should be done by setting rules under cross-compliance or non-CAP legislation, so that they cannot be removed by farmers seeking to maximise their receipt of direct payments, it said.
Review of CAP plans
“In the future, member states should be required, in their CAP strategic plans, to review strategically their use of all relevant CAP instruments and measures against the priorities in their prioritised action frameworks (PAFs) and national biodiversity strategies and their action plans (NBSAPs).
“The most effective and efficient instruments and measures (eg tailored and targeted agri-environment and climate measures and the Natura 2000 measure) should then be used in appropriate combinations to achieve the identified priority biodiversity objectives,” it found.
In relation to the range of options available to farmers to fulfil the non-productive area requirement of environmental conditionality, in the next CAP period, the report found that it should “not include options of low benefit to biodiversity such as catch crops and nitrogen-fixing crops”.
Ireland not using RDP measures for Natura 2000 networks
The report found that four member states - Hungary, Ireland, Latvia and the Netherlands - are not using RDP measures to develop their Natura 2000 agriculture networks despite having a strategic priority to do so.
“Ireland and Portugal are not [using two measures] to pursue their strategic priority of developing their Natura 2000 forest networks. Ireland and Latvia have not fully mapped [high-nature-value farmland].”
These two measures are:
M7.1 - Support for drawing up and updating of plans for the development of municipalities and villages in rural areas and their basic services and of protection and management plans relating to Natura 2000 sites and other areas of high nature value.M12.2 - Compensation payment for Natura 2000 forest areas.“Only four of the nine member states for whom tackling invasive species is a priority are using the CAP to pursue it. Ireland, Portugal and Romania do not address the restoration of peatlands and wetlands through the CAP, despite it being highlighted as a priority,” it found.
Objective of the study
The objective of the study was to carry out an evaluation of the positive and negative, direct and indirect impacts of the 2014-2020 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) on biodiversity, habitats and landscapes in areas under the direct influence of the CAP.
This included protected habitats, using causal analysis and the five evaluation criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance and EU added value.
It also examined the extent to which the CAP has contributed to the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, especially Target 3, namely to increase the contribution of agriculture and forestry to biodiversity.
This is a subscriber-only article
SHARING OPTIONS: