There is a noticeable gap between the EU’s environmental and climate targets and the agricultural plans drawn up by EU countries according to a report published by the European Court of Auditors (ECA).
The 2023-2027 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) gave member states the flexibility to reflect the EU’s ambitious green objectives in their plans.
According to the ECA, all member states made use of exemptions to agricultural and environmental conditions, while some reduced or delayed the application of the green measures that are required for obtaining EU money.
Overall, the auditors concluded that the CAP plans do not show a substantial increase in green ambition.
CAP funding
The €378.5 billion disbursed under the 2021-2027 CAP aims to ensure fair income support for farmers, food security and livelihoods in rural areas.
It also aims to defend the environment against damage and climate change, which can also directly affect agricultural production (e.g. as a result of extreme weather).
The ECA member responsible for the audit, Nikolaos Milionis said: “The green design of the Common Agricultural Policy has improved. However, compared with the past, we haven’t seen substantial differences in the member states’ agricultural plans.
“We conclude that the EU’s ambitions for the climate and the environment are not matched at national level. We also think that key elements for assessing green performance are missing.”
The new CAP introduced more conditions for obtaining EU money, while granting member states more flexibility in applying certain rules.
It added eco-schemes – which reward practices that are beneficial to the climate, the environment, and animal welfare – and reconfirmed rural development measures.
Both were accompanied by requirements to allocate a minimum percentage of funds to environmental and climate measures, an area where all member states complied.
However, the auditors noted that the CAP plans are not substantially greener than in the previous period.
Since some conditionality requirements were relaxed (e.g., crop rotation to improve soil quality, which is now optional) in response to farmers’ protests in May 2024, the plans’ green impact may be reduced further, according to the report.
The auditors also found that the CAP plans are not well aligned with the Green Deal, despite it being one of the EU’s main policies for climate and the environment.
The rules do not require member states to include estimated CAP contributions towards Green Deal targets in their agricultural plans.
According to the auditors, only the increase in organically farmed land is a measurable target, and the corresponding 2030 Green Deal target seems very difficult to achieve.
Their analysis shows that achieving Green Deal targets largely depends on actions outside the CAP.
Furthermore, the auditors underline that the monitoring framework for checking the green performance of the CAP has been simplified, but lacks key elements e.g., reporting on actions committed to reducing emissions is no indication of an actual reduction.
They therefore recommend strengthening the framework, especially by establishing clear targets and result indicators to measure progress.
Agriculture
The auditors’ report states that the agriculture sector represents 13.1 % of total EU-27 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
More than half of these emissions derive from methane emitted by the livestock sector, 31 % from fertilisers and manure, and 11 % resulting from changes in land use.
GHG emissions from agriculture show a slowly decreasing long-term trend, mainly due to a decline in the use of fertilisers and livestock numbers, the auditors stated.
However, after a rapid drop of 15.3 % between 1990 and 1995, emissions decreased by only 15.9 % in the following 26 years.
In its latest State of the Environment report, the European Environment Agency (EEA) found that agricultural intensification remains one of the main causes of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation in Europe, next to intensive forest management, land abandonment and urban sprawl.
Audit
The ECA examined in-depth the CAP Strategic Plans and their process for approval of four member states, including Ireland.
The ECA highlighted that the European Commission previously pointed to the modest environmental value of some of the practices proposed under the sole eco-scheme proposed by Ireland.
“While the Irish authorities strengthened the requirements of some practices, they mostly kept the original eco-scheme, as their strategy focused on maximising participation by farmers,” the auditors stated.
The commission also took the view that the actions in the Strategic Plan to cope with the dairy sector’s pressure on the environment and the climate might not be sufficient.
The ECA stated in its audit: “Ireland referred to several complementary national initiatives to address these issues, such as those included in the Ireland’s Climate Action Plan. The Commission has no control over such actions.”
The analysis shows that the supported area for organic farming has increased and some positive new green European agricultural fund for rural development (EAFRD) interventions have been included, such as an intervention rewarding the status of habitats (result-based) in Ireland and a new intervention to increase biodiversity on arable land in Poland.
Still, many of the EAFRD interventions are similar to those in the previous period, according to the ECA.
The auditors found that the Strategic Plans do contain some key practices related, for instance, to extensive grazing, manure management, precision farming, cover crops, reduced tillage, and biodiversity-preserving actions.
Nonetheless, some other key practices are hardly covered in the four plans they reviewed.
“Methane emissions resulting from enteric fermentation are responsible for almost half of total agricultural GHG emissions. However, very few interventions address this area in the four plans,” the ECA audit report stated.
“Restoring peatlands is also recognised as an effective way of reducing GHG emissions… Ireland and Poland have large peatland areas, but actions on restoration are hardly covered in the plans.”
In terms of monitoring, the ECA noted that most common result indicators actually reflect output, such as share of area, number of animals, or farms under interventions, but do not measure the effects of the interventions themselves.
“While the plans contain some key practices aimed at addressing long-term climate and environmental challenges, some other key practices are insufficiently included in the four [Strategic] Plans” reviewed by the ECA.