Towards a greener Common Agricultural Policy

Ensuring an environmentally friendly overhaul of the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy will entail payments for environmental objectives, promoting High Nature Value Farmlands, improved flexibility and policy integration.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Trends in multiple socio-economic (yellow colour scale) and environmental (blue colour scale) indicators related to the CAP during the past period (2007–2013).
Fig. 2: The four steps that would make the CAP greener.

Alfred Portátil, Alberto Navarro and José Vicente López-Bao

References

  1. 1.

    Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Policy Department B European Council Conclusions on the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020 and the CAP (European Parliament, Brussels, 2013).

  2. 2.

    Otte, A., Simmering, D. & Wolters, V. Landscape Ecol. 22, 639–642 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    The CAP Towards 2020: Meeting the Food, Natural Resources and Territorial Challenges of the Future (European Commission, Brussels, 2010).

  4. 4.

    Eurostat (European Commission, Brussels, 2017); http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat

  5. 5.

    Thompson, K. J. EuroChoices 13, 20–25 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Emmerson, M. et al. Adv. Ecol. Res. 55, 43–97 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Pe’er, G. et al. Is the CAP Fit for Purpose? An Evidence-Based Fitness Check Assessment (German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research, Leipzig, 2017).

  8. 8.

    Foley, J. A. et al. Nature 478, 337–342 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Butler, S. J. et al. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 137, 348–357 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Agri-Food Trade in 2017: Another Record Year for EU Agri-Food Trade (European Commission, Brussels, 2018); https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/news/documents/agricultural-trade-report_map2018-1_en.pdf

  11. 11.

    Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development Modernising and Simplifying the Common Agricultural Policy (European Commission, Brussels, 2017); https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/consultations/cap-modernising/summary-public-consul.pdf

  12. 12.

    TNS Opinion & Social Attitudes of European Citizens Towards the Environment: Special Eurobarometer 416 (European Commission, Brussels, 2014).

  13. 13.

    Regulation (EU) 2017/2393 of the European Parliament and the Council of 13 December Amending Regulations (EU) No 1305/2013 on Support for Rural Development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), (EU) No 1306/2013 on the Financing, Management and Monitoring of the Common Agricultural Policy, (EU) No 1307/2013 Establishing Rules for Direct Payments to Farmers Under Support Schemes Within the Framework of the Common Agricultural Policy, (EU) No 1308/2013 Establishing a Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products and (EU) No 652/2014 Laying Down Provisions for the Management of Expenditure Relating to the Food Chain, Animal Health and Animal Welfare, and Relating to Plant Health and Plant Reproductive Material (European Commission, Brussels, 2017).

  14. 14.

    Pe’er, G. et al. Science 344, 1090–1092 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Mattews, A. Commission Assaults Rural Development Spending to Protect Direct Payments (capreform.eu, 2018); http://capreform.eu/commission-assaults-rural-development-spending-to-protect-direct-payments/

  16. 16.

    Batáry, P. et al. Conserv. Biol. 29, 1006–1016 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Lankoski, J. Alternative Payments Approaches for Biodiversity Conservation in Agriculture (OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, Paris, 2016).

  18. 18.

    The Uruguay Agreement on Agriculture (World Trade Organization, Geneva, 1995); https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/14-ag.pdf

  19. 19.

    Greening: A More Complex Income Support Scheme, Not Yet Environmentally Effective (European Court of Auditors, Luxemburg, 2017).

  20. 20.

    Is Agri-Environment Support Well Designed and Managed? (European Court of Auditors, Luxemburg, 2011).

  21. 21.

    EU Biodiversity Baseline — Adapted to the MAES Typology Technical Report No. 9/2015 (European Environmental Agency, Luxembourg, 2015).

  22. 22.

    Halada, L., Evans, D., Romão, C. & Petersen, J. Biodivers. Conserv. 20, 2365–2378 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Keenleyside, C., Beaufoy, G. Tucker, G. & Jones, G. The High Nature Value Farming Throughout EU-27 and its Financial Support Under the CAP (Institute for European Environmental Policy, London, 2014).

  24. 24.

    Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on Support for Rural Development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and Repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (European Commission, Brussels, 2013).

  25. 25.

    Strohbach, M. W., Kohler, M. L., Dauber, J. & Klimek, S. Ecol. Indic. 57, 557–563 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Lomba, A. et al. J. Environ. Manage. 143, 140–150 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Lomba, A. et al. Ecol. Indic. 72, 118–130 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Lomba, A., Alves, P., Jongman, R. H. G. & McCracken, D. I. Ecol. Evol. 5, 1031–1044 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Westhoek, H. J., Overmars, K. P. & Zeijts, H. Environ. Sci. Policy 32, 5–13 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Schermer, M. et al. Land Use Policy 52, 382–391 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Sokos, C. K., Mamolos, A. P., Kalburtji, K. L. & Birtsas, P. K. J. Nat. Conserv. 21, 81–92 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Babai, D. et al. Biodivers. Conserv. 24, 3305–3327 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Sutcliffe, L. M. E. et al. Divers. Distrib. 21, 722–730 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Reif, J. & Hanzelka, J. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 232, 208–217 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    de Sainte Marie, C. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 57, 704–719 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Alons, G. J. Eur. Public Policy 24, 1604–1622 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    López-Bao, J. V., Sazatornil, V., Llaneza, L. & Rodríguez, A. Conserv. Lett. 6, 448–455 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Salmoral, G. & Garrido, A. BAE 4, 103–123 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Pavlis, E. S., Terkenli, T. S., Kristensen, S. B. P., Busck, A. G. & Cosor, G. L. Land Use Policy 57, 800–812 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Lastra-Bravo, X. B., Hubbard, C., Garrod, G. & Tolón-Becerra, A. Environ. Sci. Policy 54, 1–9 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Sutherland, L. et al. J. Environ. Manage. 118, 96–105 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Pelikan, J., Britz, W. & Hertel, T. W. J. Agr. Econ. 66, 1–19 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

J.V.L.-B. was supported by a Ramon & Cajal research contract (RYC-2015-18932) from the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to José Vicente López-Bao.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Navarro, A., López-Bao, J.V. Towards a greener Common Agricultural Policy. Nat Ecol Evol 2, 1830–1833 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0724-y

Download citation

Further reading