CAP Fitness Check
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Is the CAP Fit for purpose? An evidence-based fitness-check assessment Leipzig, November 2017 Authors: Guy Pe’er, Sebastian Lakner, Robert Müller, Gioele Passoni, Vasileios Bontzorlos, Dagmar Clough, Francisco Moreira, Clémentine Azam, Jurij Berger, Peter Bezak, Aletta Bonn, Bernd Hansjürgens, Lars Hartmann, Janina Kleemann, Angela Lomba, Amanda Sahrbacher, Stefan Schindler, Christian Schleyer, Jenny Schmidt, Stefan Schüler, Clélia Sirami, Marie von Meyer-Höfer, Yves Zinngrebe. Additional contributions (‘boxes’): Felix Herzog and Stefan Möckel. Additional members of the scoping committee: Tim Benton, Lynn Dicks, Kaley Hart, Jennifer Hauck, Felix Herzog, William Sutherland. The work has gone through external review by Irina Herzon, Alan Matthews, Rainer Oppermann, and Stephan Von Cramon-Taubadel. Commissioned by Stichting BirdLife Europe and the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) and further supported and funded by Naturschutzbund Deutschland (NABU), German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, the University of Göttingen, The Greens / The European Free Alliance in the European Parliament, and the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists & Democrats in the European Parliament 1 This document should be cited as: G. Pe’er, S. Lakner, R. Müller, G. Passoni, V. Bontzorlos, D. Clough, F. Moreira, C. Azam, J. Berger, P. Bezak, A. Bonn, B. Hansjürgens, L. Hartmann, J. Kleemann, A. Lomba, A. Sahrbacher, S. Schindler, C. Schleyer, J. Schmidt, S. Schüler, C. Sirami, M. von Meyer-Höfer, and Y. Zinngrebe (2017). Is the CAP fit for purpose? An evidence-based fitness check assessment. Leipzig, German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv), Halle-Jena-Leipzig. Disclaimer This report is the outcome of an independent scientific process and its contents represent the knowledge, experience and opinions of its authors alone. The stated conclusions do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the funding organizations, reviewers, or the scoping committee. Authors’ affiliations: Guy Pe’er: 1) German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, 2) Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Dept. Economics and Dept. Ecosystem Services, 3) University of Leipzig, Germany Sebastian Lakner: University of Goettingen, Dept. for Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Göttingen, Germany Robert Müller: Free Lancer (Germany), associated with Bridge Builders UG, Berlin/Hamburg Gioele Passoni: 1) Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Dept. Conservation Biology, 2) University of Oxford, UK Vasileios Bontzorlos: Free Lancer (Greece) - External collaborator of Center for Research and Technology – Hellas (CERTH), Institute for Bio-Economy and Agri-Technology (iBO), Thessaly, Dimitriados 95, Volos, 38333, Greece Dagmar Clough: Centre for Environmental and Climate Research, Lund University, Sweden Francisco Moreira: 1) CIBIO/InBIO, University of Porto, Portugal, 2) CEABN/InBIO, Institute of Agronomy, University of Lisbon, Portugal Clémentine Azam: Center for Ecology and Conservation Science, Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, France Jurij Berger, University of Goettingen, Dept. for Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Göttingen, Germany Peter Bezak: Institute of Landscape Ecology, Slovak Academy of Sciences Aletta Bonn: 1) Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Dept. Ecosystem Services, 2) Friedrich Schiller University Jena, 3) German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Germany Bernd Hansjürgens: Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Dept. Economics, Germany Lars Hartmann: University of Goettingen, Göttingen, Germany Angela Lomba: 1) CIBIO-Inbio, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos da Universidade do Porto, Campus Agrário de Vairão, R. Padre Armando Quintas, nº 7, 4485-661 Vairão, Portugal 2 Armanda Sahrbacher: Janina Kleemann: 1) Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Dept. Ecosystem Services 2) German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Germany Stefan Schindler: Environment Agency Austria, Department Biodiversity & Nature Conservation, Vienna, Austria Christian Schleyer: University of Kassel, Section of International Agricultural Policy and Environmental Governance, Germany Jenny Schmidt: 1) University of Münster, Institute of Landscape Ecology, Germany 2) Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Dept. Environmental Politics, Germany Stefan Schüler: University of Goettingen, Dept. for Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Göttingen, Germany Clélia Sirami: Dynafor, Université de Toulouse, INRA, INPT, INPT - EI PURPAN, Castanet-Tolosan, France Marie von Meyer-Höfer: University of Goettingen, Dept.for Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Göttingen, Germany Yves Zinngrebe: University of Goettingen, Dept. for Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Göttingen, Germany 3 Table of Contents Table of Contents 4 List of Acronyms 8 1 Executive Summary 10 2 Introduction 30 2.1 The CAP objectives 30 2.2 The CAP and the sustainability context 30 2.3 The reform-path of the CAP since 1992 31 2.4 The CAP components 35 2.4.1 Pillar I 36 2.4.2 Pillar II 37 2.5 Necessity of this assessment 38 2.6 Objectives of this assessment 39 3 Methods 42 3.1 Methodological steps 42 3.1.1 Scoping 42 3.1.2 Evidence gathering 43 3.1.3 Data extraction 44 3.1.4 Quality control 46 3.1.5 Reviewing 46 3.2 Evaluation criteria 46 3.2.1 Land use, farm structure and management 47 3.2.2 Effectiveness 48 3.2.3 Efficiency 48 3.2.4 Internal Coherence 49 3.2.5 External coherence 49 3.2.6 Relevance 51 3.2.7 EU Added Value 52 3.3 Evaluation topics 53 3.3.1 Growth of agricultural productivity 53 3.3.2 Fair standard of living for farmers 53 3.3.3 Market stability 54 3.3.4 Balanced territorial development 54 3.3.5 Climate action and energy 55 3.3.6 Soil protection and integrity of water resources 56 3.3.7 Biodiversity and ecosystem services 56 3.3.8 Organic farming in the context of sustainable farming 57 3.3.9 Animal welfare 59 3.3.10 Health, sustainable consumption and production 60 3.3.11 Reducing inequalities 61 3.3.12 Global effects of EU’s agriculture and the CAP 61 4 4 Results 63 4.1 Overview of the knowledge base 63 4.2 Land use, farm structure and management 66 4.2.1 Land use 66 4.2.1.1 Overall trend on land use 66 4.2.1.2 Results of our literature review on CAP effects on land use 67 4.2.2 Farm structure 68 4.2.2.1 Overall trend on farm structure 68 4.2.3.2 Results of our literature review on CAP effects on farm structure 76 4.2.3 Farm management 79 4.2.3.1 Overall trend on farm management 79 4.2.3.2 Results of our literature review on CAP effects on farm management 82 4.3 Effectiveness: Socio-economy 84 4.3.1 Growth of agricultural productivity 84 4.3.1.1 Overall trends on agricultural productivity 84 4.3.1.2 Results of our literature review on CAP effectiveness on agricultural productivity 86 4.3.2 Fair standard of living for farmers 88 4.3.2.1 Overall trends on fair standard of living for farmers 88 4.3.2.2 Results of our literature review on CAP effectiveness on standard of living for farmers 90 4.3.2.2.1 Incomes in agriculture 90 4.3.2.2.2 Labour in Agriculture 93 4.3.3 Market stability 94 4.3.3.1 Overall trends on market stability 94 4.3.3.2 Results of our literature review on CAP effectiveness on market stability 95 4.3.4 Balanced territorial development 96 4.3.4.1 Overall trends on balanced territorial development 96 4.3.4.2 Results of our literature review on CAP effectiveness on territorial development 97 4.4 Effectiveness: Environment 99 4.4.1 Climate Action and Energy 99 4.4.1.1 Overall trends on climate action and energy 100 4.4.1.2 Results of our literature review on CAP effectiveness on climate action and energy 102 4.4.2 Soil protection and Integrity of Water Resources 107 4.4.2.1 Overall trends on soil and water 107 4.4.2.2 Results of our literature review on CAP effectiveness on soil and water 110 4.4.3 Biodiversity and ecosystem services 112 4.4.3.1 Overall trends on biodiversity and ecosystem services 112 4.4.3.2. Results of our literature review on CAP effectiveness on biodiversity and ESS 115 4.4.3.2.1 Agri-Environment-Climate measures 115 4.4.3.3.2 Greening measures within Pillar I 117 a) Crop diversification 117 b) Ecological Focus Areas 119 c) Permanent grasslands 123 4.4.3.3.3 High Nature Value Farmland 125 4.4.3.3.5 Cross compliance 128 4.4.4 Organic farming in the context of sustainable farming 128 5 4.4.4.1 Overall trends on organic farming in the context of sustainable farming 129 4.4.4.2 Results of our literature review on CAP effectiveness on organic farming 129 4.4.5 Animal welfare 133 4.4.5.1 Overall trends on animal welfare 133 4.4.5.2 Results of our literature review on CAP effects on animal welfare 134 4.5 Efficiency 135 4.5.1 Income support 135 4.5.2 Climate action and energy 140 4.5.3 Biodiversity and ecosystem services 142 4.5.3.1 Agri-environment-climate measures (AECM) 143 4.5.3.2 Comparison of investments vs. effectiveness between EFA, AECM and Natura 2000 146 4.5.3.3 Ecosystem services 148 4.5.4.6 Compensation of income foregone vs. insurance investment 150 4.5.4.7 Administrative efficiency 151 4.6. Internal coherence 155 4.6.1 Competing interests of production and environmental protection within the CAP 155 4.6.2 Coherence between Pillar I and Pillar II measures 158 4.6.3 Coherence among instruments within Pillars 160 4.6.4 Conditions