National Parks and Wildlife Service
7 Ely place
Dublin 2
14 September, 2011.
Mr Stefan Leiner
European Commission
Nature unit
BU5 06/143
B-1049 Brussels
Belgium
Re: Concerns on the impact of eligibility criteria for Utilisable Agricultural Area under the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) on Natura 2000 sites and in the wider countryside
Dear Mr Leiner,
As a follow up to discussions, in various fora, on negative impacts of agricultural policy I wish to advise you in relation to the effect of the strict interpretation of the regulation on the CAP Single Payment Scheme and its impact on EU and national biodiversity policy.
As you would be aware, the Commission has imposed financial corrections on a number of Member States for not carrying out sufficient checks to ensure that Single Payment Scheme applicants adhere to the regulatory requirements. It is, therefore, a matter of particular importance to Member States to ensure that they are in compliance with these requirements
Ineligibility of lands is one of the key issues that has been identified by the Commission which can give rise to overpayments. In turn, such overpayments can result in the imposition of significant penalties on Member States. It is the manner in which this ineligibility issue is treated which gives rise to concern. Audits and the potential for fines have led the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (DAFF) in Ireland to issue strong guidance to farmers in relation to ineligible land (e.g. land under water, scrub, limestone pavement etc). I understand that other Member States have also deemed heather (greater than 50cm tall), rush-dominated pasture etc as ineligible.
Farmers who wish to maintain their annual payments under the national Single Payment Scheme and who face a diminishing Utilisable Agricultural Area (and thus reduced entitlements) based on tightening eligibility criteria have in many cases decided to “remove” these ineligible lands (habitats) to create permanent pasture. While this is happening in the countryside in general, this practice is also a threat to Natura sites. The Single Payment is a critical part of famers’ incomes, and it is therefore not surprising that farmers have weighed up the potential loss of Single Payment monies versus biodiversity need, or indeed potential risk for breaches of other regulatory requirements, and favoured protecting their single payment. Farmers in agri-environmental schemes are also putting these payments in jeopardy by their actions.
This was discussed at a recent N2K farmland expert group in Brussels where similar problems are emerging across other Member States as a function of tightening eligibility rules. Member States such as Germany, Austria and the UK exchanged similar experiences at that meeting.
It would appear that DG Agriculture rules and regulations are not adequately “proofed” for biodiversity or for the maintenance of favourable conservation status in Natura 2000 sites. This is creating a disharmony at both EU, and national level between the competent Ministries, farmers and NGOs.
The net effect of these rules is leading to a standardisation and homogenisation at landscape level and a removal of the mosaics of habitat (deemed ineligible) that add the biodiversity value to the countryside. The message to the farming community is that these areas and habitats are not important, are not part of the farmed landscape and do not need to be protected.
At the same time, as you know, the Commission is insisting that Ireland put in place action plans for birds in the countryside, many of which require such a mosaic to thrive. This issue is currently a matter of ongoing legal action by the Commission against Ireland.
It would be useful if DG Environment could consider if steps could be taken at Commission level to address some of the current problems. For example,
· farmed habitats in mosaics should be deemed to be eligible and be supported and protected,
· additional payments (e.g. under the greening of the CAP, High Nature Value etc) should be provided to incentivise appropriate farming for conservation
A particular case in point is the Burren Farming for Conservation Programme, an area-based scheme that is resourced from unspent national single payment funds and a direct follow-on from the EU LIFE-funded “BurrenLife” project. I understand that it is the only example of a Pillar I agri-environment scheme in the EU. This programme is deemed by all to be a success, including the farmers involved, or wishing to participate. However, whereas farmers are being paid for restoration works on Natura-designated lands, these very lands are then to a large extent deemed to be ineligible (comprising scrub and limestone pavement) both in SPS and in the Burren Farming for Conservation Programme. The farmer is therefore paid to restore habitat but not to farm in the way necessary to maintain the restored areas. This is a clear contradiction between nature conservation and agricultural policies.
Another example of environmental damage which seems to relate to the eligibility issue, is the spate earlier in 2011 of burning of boglands and peatlands. While some of this was no doubt accidental or anti-social, it appears that much of it was motivated by the eligibility issue. The European Forest Fire Information System Report on these fire events in Ireland highlighted some serious damage in Natura 2000 sites in County Donegal. A fire affecting 8,630ha on the 30th of April 2011 had a “drastic impact in the Natura 2000 sites of Gannivegil Bog, with an area of 2043ha burnt out of the total of 2171ha of this protected area”. For some time it was feared that the fire would threaten a nest site of the recently re-introduced Golden Eagle (part funded by EU LIFE). Another fire had a large impact on Muckish Mountain SAC, where “an area of 455ha was burnt out of the 1523ha of this protected site”. It is almost impossible to catch people in the act, or get evidence to support a prosecution, in situations such as this.
Under Article 68 of the current Single Payment regulation, up to 10% of Pillar I payments can be targeted “at specific types of farming which are important for the protection or enhancement of the environment” and “to ensure against land being abandoned”. Paradoxically where low-intensity farming (ie the HNV model) is already providing biodiversity-added value, this is not being rewarded. On the contrary, in some cases this land is classified as being “abandoned” (and ineligible) or is classified as being “ineligible” for some other reason which in turn can lead to abandonment or destruction.
It is feared that the new Regulation on direct support schemes under the Common Agricultural Policy, with moves towards simplification and flat rate area-based payments, may even increase the pressure for such clearances.
In the interests of balance, I should say that aspects of the Scheme have been beneficial, in particular the removal of incentives for overstocking sheep, and the protection of features such as hedges. We are also aware that there are cases where land eligibility is questionable, where basic stewardship has stopped. We are working closely with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on these issues but they are constrained by the Regulation as operated by the Commission.
We consider that this issue is now having a significant impact nationally, and suggest that the Commission should examine how best to ensure that eligibility rules do not have the adverse impacts now being seen. It may be that DG Environment and DG Agri could consider whether more nuanced guidance could issue on the eligibility issue to mitigate the current problems. We have considered this issue in detail at national level here in Ireland and would be happy to assist the Commission in seeking to address the current problems. My Minister will also be raising the issue with the Commissioner at his meeting next Thursday (22 September) in Brussels.
In addition, of course, we recognise that that there are more systemic long term issues of biodiversity and EU agricultural policy which need to be brought into coherence and which we hope can be addressed in the CAP negotiations which are currently underway. I know that we are both in agreement that clear regulatory and financial supports within the new CAP regime need to be put in place for the protection of Natura sites and biodiversity in the wider countryside.
Yours sincerely
_____________________
Ciaran O’Keeffe,
Director,
National Parks and Wildlife Service
1