ECA: European agriculture, far from complying with the Green Deal

There is a considerable gap between what the European Union's climate and environmental targets want and what national plans for agriculture say, according to the special report published last night by the European Court of Auditors (ECA). According to ECA experts, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) 2023-2027 gave member states the flexibility to reflect the EU's ambitious green goals in their plans, but in reality all countries used derogations from agricultural and environmental conditions and some reduced or they delayed the application of the green measures needed to receive the money from Brussels. Auditors say that overall the CAP plans are not much more ambitious in their green aspirations, with the agricultural sector accounting for 13.1% of total EU-27 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, of which more than 50% come from the methane emitted by the livestock sector, 31% from fertilizers and manure, and 11% are the result of land use changes

With a budget of euro378.5 billion, the CAP 2021-2027 aims to ensure support for a fair income for farmers, food security and livelihoods in rural areas. At the same time, the CAP aims to protect the environment against damage and climate change, which may in turn have a direct impact on agricultural production (for example following extreme weather events).

Nikolaos Milionis, ECA expert and responsible for this audit, said: "The Common Agricultural Policy now has a more robust green architecture. However, we do not yet see major differences compared to the past in the Member States' plans for agriculture. Our conclusion is that the EU's climate and environmental ambitions are not adequately supported at national level. In addition, there are missing elements that are essential for the evaluation of ecological performance".

On the one hand, the new CAP introduced more conditions to benefit from EU subsidies. On the other hand, it gave member states more flexibility in applying certain rules. An additional novelty are the eco-schemes, which reward agricultural practices beneficial to the climate, environment and animal welfare. The new CAP kept the measures for rural development. Both eco-schemes and rural development measures come with the requirement to allocate a minimum percentage of funds for environmental and climate measures. The good news is that all Member States have fulfilled this task. The downside is that the CAP plans are not much "greener" than in the previous period. In addition, because some conditions are no longer so strict (for example, crop rotation to improve soil quality has now become optional), in response to farmers' protests in May 2024, the environmental impact of the plans risks being further reduced. For example, despite the intentions to significantly expand the area benefiting from support under the CAP 2023-2027, the target set by the Green Pact that 25% of land be cultivated in an ecological system by 2030 seems very difficult to achieve, it is stated in the cited report, especially since the Community Executive expects that in 2027 only 10% of agricultural land will be cultivated organically.

The ECA auditors also found that the CAP plans are not well aligned with the Green Deal, even though we are talking about one of the EU's main climate and environment policies. Member States are under no obligation to include in their agricultural plans the estimated contributions of the CAP to the objectives set by the Green Deal. According to the auditors, the only aspect that can be measured is the increase in the area of organically cultivated land. However, the objective that the Green Pact sets in this regard seems very difficult to achieve. The auditors' analysis shows that achieving the Green Deal targets is largely dependent on actions outside the CAP.

The monitoring framework used to assess the environmental performance of the CAP has been simplified, the auditors admit, but it still lacks some essential elements (for example, reports on measures taken to reduce emissions do not tell us whether emissions have actually been reduced). The auditors recommend a more robust framework containing clear objectives and outcome indicators to measure progress.