How to best use the new CAP Eco Schemes?

Ulrike Müller

Q: I would like to invite the people who submitted questions here in the Q&A to get in touch with us via email. We will try our best to reply to them in writing.

Christian Gaebel

Deutscher Bauernverband (DBV)

Q: To Prof. Peter Feindt: I'm missing two main thoughts in your explanations: 1) agricultural production of high quality food and 2) simplification approaches in order to bring useful measures on a practical ground.

Emmanuel PETEL

EC agri

Q: Whatever the package ( public or private) main issue will be the relevance of practices and their ambition ( even with score points). Why we need to an equivalence system at this stage.?

Christian Gaebel

Deutscher Bauernverband (DBV)

Q: Comment on Nils Uterm's comment: This starts with leaving flexibilities for more ambitious measures by shaping a manageable "enhanced conditionality".

Nils Utermöhle

HU Berlin

Q: How high do you rate the basic possibility of carrying out the measures as an eco-scheme for several years on the same area (among other things to increase their effectiveness). (to Pierre-Marie Aubert)

Celia Nyssens

European Environmental Bureau

Q: Your proposal for an increasing budget to eco-schemes over the CAP programming period goes in the right direction, but why stop at 40% when all three speakers spoke strongly in favour of shifting from area-based income support to action-based income support? Greater ambition from Renew is needed, to achieve some impact by the end of the negotiations and start a transition in line with the EU Green Deal. (to Jan Huitema)

Nils Uterm

HU Berlin

Q: Which special measures should be taken to avoid the competitive situation regarding AUKM and 2nd pillar? (to Krijn Poppe)

A: I do not see a lot of competition between Eco-schemes and 2nd pillar agr-environmental contracts. The latter are long term conservation contracts for specific areas with services by farmers that are very difficult to market via products or services to consumers. Eco Schemes help food industry/retail and farmers in their effort to create products (or services) that improve the credence attributes of products.

Christian Gaebel

Deutscher Bauernverband (DBV)

Q: To Jérémy Decerle: Unfortunately, my French skills are not that sufficient. ;-)

Kamila Tovbaeva

Humboldt University, Master student

Q: Don’t you think that Eco-schemes would undermine the existence of private schemes due to higher legitimacy level? (to Krijn Poppe)

A: That is one of the reasons to bundle them. By topping up the private schemes with the eco-schemes as described in our proposal, the private scheme is not undermined but strengthened with governmental credibility and a public auditing of the scheme.

ludwig pertl

links4soils

Q: Wie sollen die Folgen des Klimawandels= Anpassung= Änderung von Temperatur zu Wasser in der Vegetationszeit bewältigt werden? Wie ändert sich die gute fachliche Praxis? Wo bleibt die notwendige Landschaftsgestaltung, um die Ökosystemleistung in Zukunft zu erhalten? Welchen neuen Absatzmarkt müssen wir schaffen-zB erneuerbare Energie.

Harriet Bradley

BirdLife Europe

Q: How would you ensure the quality of the certified schemes? The problem currently is that there are many schemes that claim to be green but in practice deliver little. (to Krijn Poppe)

A: We propose an independent authority per country that decides on indicators and the equivalence of certified schemes with eco schemes (light, moderate, heavy) on transparent and scientific grounds. This prevents greenwashing by food business (and meaning that some schemes will not get an equivalence) as well as by government (based on lobbying as in greening).

Florence Buchholzer

European Commisison

Q: About linking eco-schemes to private market schemes, wouldn't this risk to drive prices paid to farmers even lower? Especially if this private partner checks compliance and equivalence. Thanks (to Krijn Poppe)

A: I don’t think so. The food company like Edeka in Tierwohl or Glanbia in their biodiversity payment scheme already certifies and audit farms. They pay for that or the farmer pays. If that scheme gets equivalence with an eco-scheme, audit costs are not higher. If they add a few indicators (e.g. on climate) to qualify for equivalence, that would perhaps increase the auditing costs a bit, but they are compensated by the eco-scheme payments (otherwise they would not apply). And the government saves auditing costs that they would have if they run their own scheme (so they can pay out more).

Christian Gaebel

Deutscher Bauernverband (DBV)

Q: Additional Agri-Environmental and Climate Measures (Pillar 2) will succeed if Eco-Schemes with clear demarcation succeed in Pillar 1. Eco-Schemes (Pillar 1) will succeed if there are still scopes, flexibilities and incentives for additional measures for the farmer after the "enhanced conditionality" has been met. The discussion about GAEC 9, namely the debate between production-integrated measures and non-productive areas, weakens the acceptance for the entire system. How does the European Parliament resolve this struggle between productive agricultural areas and non-productive areas? This debate doesn't get us anywhere to meet agronomic and ecological demands. Cooperation and productive solutions between agriculture and nature conservation are required. No debate about "either ... or". (to Ulrike Müller)

Stefan

Bayerischer Bauernverband

Q: A very interesting concept with the CPI. Can this be used to use them for imports into the EU to make sure that they had been produced by a sustainable farm? (to Krijn Poppe)

A: In principle yes. But it will be hard in practice. It means that you say to a company importing from e.g. Brasil that the product is only allowed in if it has a certificate of origin that guarantees that the product has been produced in this way. Not sure if this is possible.

Harriet Bradley

BirdLife Europe

Q: The science shows that we need a minimum of 10% of natural vegetation on farms to support farmland biodiversity and the related ecosystem services it provides. How will your proposal ensure that we get to at least 10% across the farmed landscape, especially in intensive areas where many of these features have been lost? (to Jan Huitema)

Stefan Köhler

Bayerischer Bauernverband

Q: How does the EU wants to make sure that the farmers in the EU will survive in globalized markets when farm products will be imported that are produced under lower standards then in the EU. With every CAP reform the EU farmers lost production that was compensated from outside. Of course we can pay farmers for ecological aspects but makes this sense when the food security of the EU people is going down and we exported ecological problems in other countries. How about a ecological tax for dumping imports to make sure that the products are produced in the same way like farmers in the EU? (to Prof. Dr. Peter H. Feindt)

Harriet Bradley

BirdLife Europe

Q: The Environment Committee proposed many positive changes to fix the CAP in its opinion. On one point in particular, they proposed a specific ringfencing for biodiversity schemes of 15bn/year. The latest Court of Auditors report again backs up the need for this money to be formally ringfenced for effective biodiversity measures. Will you support this chance to the post-2020 CAP? (to Nils Torvalds)

Harriet Bradley

BirdLife Europe

Q: We agree that ecoschemes need to pay for results, and be effective. Do you/Renew support requiring Member States to provide scientific evidence for the ecoschemes they propose, and also that these schemes should have ex-post monitoring to, also to show they are effective? (to Jan Huitema)

Christian Gaebel

Deutscher Bauernverband (DBV)

Q: Question to Prof. Peter Feindt: In order to be seriously able to start modeling possible design options of the Eco-Schemes (Pillar 1) and the Agri-Environmental and Climate Measures (Pillar 2) on a solid economic fundament, what are your numbers on the costs (lost benefits and costs incurred) that a farmer incurres when he/she basically fulfilles the demanding requirements and standards from the "enhanced conditionality" as the grounding "baseline"? A balanced and viable cost-benefit ratio of "baseline costs" and the DP amount per hectare is required as an important basis for additional services and benefits through Eco-Schemes (Pillar 1) and Agri-Environmental and Climate Measures (Pillar 2). (to Prof. Dr. Peter H. Feindt)

Ludwig Willnegger

EuroChem Group

Q: Can eco-schemes cover the application of enhanced efficiency fertilizers, e.g. inhibitors, that contribute substantially to lower the CO2 footprint of food production and decrease nutrient losses?

Andre Prescher

NABU

Q: Instead of assigning only 30-40% to eco-schemes, wouldn't it be better to phase out direct payments completly by 2027? (to Prof. Dr. Peter H. Feindt)

Dieter Staat

Dutch water authorities - Vewin

Q: Ecoschemes could help to encourage farmers to take extra measures aiming to improve water quality and quantity and therefore be instrumental for the implementation of the Water Framework Directive. Water bodies differ per member states however, and would therefore require trailer made ecoschemes. Wouldn’t an eu defined list of ecoschemes hamper this trailer made approach? (to Prof. Dr. Peter H. Feindt)

Christian Gaebel

Deutscher Bauernverband (DBV)

Q: What ideas does the European Parliament use to ensure that the practical implementation of measures within the Eco-Schemes can be carried out in a practical and unbureaucratic manner for local farmers and the responsible authorities? In the current debate, unbureaucratic ways are neglected way too often.

Andre Prescher

NABU

Q: How can we ensure that eco-schemes only fund high-quality and effective environmental measures that go above a certain baseline? Otherwise we end up with a second greening, which failed among others because it paid additional tax-payer's money for already widespready farming practices with low environmental ambition. (to Jan Huitema)

Andre Prescher

NABU

Q: If a farmer does a 10% EFA Eco-Schemes, which replaces the 5% conditionality rule, would he still get paid for the full 10% or only for what is on top (=5%) (to Jan Huitema)