"We have shown that there is a lot of abuse going on, and member states are clearly favouring certain farm lobbies rather than environmental benefits," said Ariel Brunner, BirdLife International's senior EU agriculture policy officer, lamenting that national governments are failing to grasp the environmental opportunities provided by the EU's Rural Development Policy (RDP).
A BirdLife study, published on 7 May, reviews the potential effects on biodiversity of the EU's rural development programmes 2007-2013, and presents a range of best and worst-practice case studies.
Negative examples include "ill-designed schemes" that pay farmers to plough up hilly slopes, thus increasing erosion, introduce new measures that use the same amount of fertiliser as before, or establish super-intensive olive plantations.
According to BirdLife, rural development investment sometimes even "actively subsidises environmental destruction". For example, in Portugal, 200,000 hectares of biodiversity-rich drylands are earmarked for conversion to irrigated farming, seriously affecting threatened species and exacerbating unsustainable water use.
"Rural development provides a very good infrastructure if we want to make it work," said Brunner. Indeed, when implemented properly, it can help solve the many problems faced in the countryside, like soil degradation, depletion of water resources, wildlife decline and climate change, the NGO argued.
To improve biodiversity, BirdLife called on governments to stop their ineffective schemes, dubbing them no more than "hidden income support for farmers," and asked the EU 27 to design a strategy after thoroughly analysing needs, rather than introduces measures without a previous impact assessment. The NGO also highlighted the need for truly independent evaluation and monitoring of the policy's impact.
Martin Scheele, head of the environment unit at the Commission's agriculture department, said that while the study definitely addresses the right questions, and its conclusions sound plausible, it needed "double-checking". He acknowledged that "we could do better and we should try to do better," but that agriculture's economic sustainability should not be forgotten as "farmers need to make a living".
Klaus Stern, an agronomist and auditor at the European Court of Auditors (ECA) welcomed the study as "well timed", as the ECA is currently preparing an audit on CAP's agri-environmental measures to see whether they are effective in reaching environmental benefits regarding biodiversity, soil and water, for example. He described the BirdLife report's findings as "very concerning", as the ECA expects member states to have "an analysis of strengths and weaknesses and a clear strategy to address them".
ECA knows that "it is a political game" and "where the skeletons in the cupboards are", Stern added.
