Pressure on to green Europe’s farms

Date: 18/03/1999

By Simon Coss

STUNG by criticisms that its plans for reforming EU farm policy were not sufficiently eco-friendly, the European Commission has been making strenuous efforts to underline its 'green' credentials.

A Commission report released in January argued that plans for reforming the Union's Common Agricultural Policy, set out in the institution's 1997 Agenda 2000 proposals for EU spending over the coming seven years, would do a great deal to encourage environmentally friendly farming in Europe.

Entitled Directions towards sustainable agriculture, the report was presented by Environment Commissioner Ritt Bjerregaard and her colleague, Franz Fischler, in charge of agricultural policy.

” The Commission's proposals under Agenda 2000 provide member states and regions with the tools necessary to protect the heritage of our rural areas,” said Fischler as he unveiled the new report.

Bjerregaard also attempted to stress the ecologically sound aspects of the Commission's plans, although she argued that a truly green CAP could only be achieved if EU governments had the necessary political will to make it happen.

” The integration of environmental considerations in the CAP must never be confined to paper alone. It must be reflected in reality, in real and genuine changes in the way production and financial support is organised,” she argued.

Bjerregaard stressed that greening the Union's farm policy “requires a strong and active commitment from agricultural ministers”. She added: “I very much look forward to their commitment here in the final and crucial phase of negotiations on the reforms proposed in Agenda 2000.”

When Agenda 2000 was first published, it was quickly attacked by many green groups for containing few proposals which would oblige farmers to adopt more eco-friendly working methods.

Given that the January report was essentially a restatement of what had already been published in the original document, its critics are unlikely to have changed their views.

The European Environmental Bureau (EEB) has, for example, complained that Agenda 2000 only gives EU governments the option of making agricultural subsidy payments conditional on farmers meeting specific environmental requirements. It does not say funding and green farming practices must be linked. The EEB argues that this means governments could use the CAP budget, “to fund environmentally damaging activities”.

Elsewhere, the Agenda 2000 CAP reform proposals are similarly soft.

When it comes to the question of environmentally sound land use, the Commission has said governments should take the measures “they consider appropriate” to ensure the countryside is adequately protected.

In the case of beef and dairy farming, the Commission argues that the planned new funding regimes for this sector “could” be used to promote more environmentally friendly livestock production.

Agenda 2000 also suggests that extra payments could be made to farmers who, “on a voluntary basis”, provide services to protect the environment.

To be fair, the Commission is already making some efforts to ensure that EU governments crack down on the activities of farmers who damage the environment.

In recent months, it has launched a series of investigations into member states which have failed to respect the 1991 EU legislation on water pollution from nitrates, which occurs when faeces and urine from intensively farmed animals - generally pigs and cattle - seep into lakes, streams and rivers.

Nearly all of the EU's 15 member states have been criticised by the Commission over their record on nitrate pollution.

In January, the institution announced that it would be taking the UK to the European Court of Justice for failing to meet the grade, and infringement proceedings are currently under way against 13 countries in total.