Environmental decision-making in the European Union and Canada.

Guy Robinson

Guy M RobinsonCentre for Rural Health &

Community Development,

University of South Australia

Agri-Environmental Policy in the EU and

North America:

Lessons for Australia?

AGRI-ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

Agri-environment policies (AEPs) in the USA, Canada & the

EU are egs of payments for environmental services.

- pays farmers to reduce env disbenefits (negative

externalities) of agric prodn: nutrient run-off, soil erosion

- transfers public funds to farmers;

- creates positive externalities: scenic vistas, farming heritage,

inc biodiversity, desirable habitats;

- can keep farmers on the land.

Different approaches in N. Amer to EU … lessons for Austr?

AGRI-ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

Env payments = highly varied and can be rel. unspecific, with

payment not conditional on delivery of the envl. service.

USA – env payments admin thru Conservation Titles of recent

Farm Bills.

EU – Pillar 2 of CAP + cross-compliance provisions within

commodity payments section of Pillar 1.

Canada – Env Farm Plans, varying by province, agreed between

govt & farmers’ orgs. Ltd payments.

AGRI-ENVIRONMENTAL POLICYEU – seen in part as response to Uruguay Round of GATT

- move from direct commodity payments to agri-env and rur devpt progs (RDPs)

- part of ‘multifunctionality’

- agri-env payments to produce outcomes desired by society that would not be achieved by other means

- focus on both +ve & -ve externalities: farmers rewarded for prodn of public goods and reducing –ve externalities

- Promoting less intensive prodn

US – complying with WTO provisions.

- Increased spending from 2002 Farm Bill: envl goals.

CONTRASTS

EU farmers paid to reduce stocking densities (in order to

reduce nitrogen surplus)

US farmers paid to reduce nitrogen surplus … could reduce

stocking density or invest in manure storage facilities for

their intensive cattle feed-lot.

Canadian farmers encouraged to prevent run-off into

watercourses by extending buffer zones … may reduce

stocking density.

AGRI-ENVIRONMENTAL POLICYUS: forerunner = 1930s Conservation Reserve Program (today

= 10% of US cropland ….+ve effects on commodity prices; and capitalized into value of fmland).

Size & scope of conservn progs. inc. thru 2002 Farm Bill.

+ Grassland Reserve Prog (GRP)

+ Conservn Security Prog (CSP)

But also inc. funds for commodity progs.

EU: 1986 UK Agric Act – creating ESAs.

- Extended thru 1992 MacSharry reforms to CAP

- More in 2000 and 2003, replacing prodn subsidies with ‘Single Farm Payment’ (compensation for dec fm supports)

CROSS-COMPLIANCE

In both the EU & N Amer agri-env policy used to make new

env regns more palatable to farmers.

Baylis et al: agri-env = partial compensation for cross-

compliance … compulsory in EU from 2005, and present in

US thru 1990s (e.g. compensations for retaining & improving

habitats)

- Minimum Good Farming Practice (GFP) levels set for farmers

to qualify for EU Pillar 1 payments & price supports.

Cross-compliance in the latest CAP

reforms “For the first time, the main subsidies are explicitly

linked to compliance with EU standards covering

environmental, public and animal health and animal

welfare. Farmers also have to maintain land in good

agricultural and environmental condition as defined by

the Member States. The Member States will have to

inspect a sample of the farms each year on a systematic

basis to ensure that standards are met.”

http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/capreform/agreement-

summary.htm

CONTRASTSEU – broader view of agric externalities

- includes tradnl features, e.g. stone walls, rare breeds, bldgs … compensation for provision by farmers

- farmers as producers of landscape.

US/Can – targets reduction of –ve externalities, e.g. loss of topsoil, polln of watercourses, loss of habitat

- In US pre-2002 Farm Bill, 90% conservation $ to farmers went to land retirement.

now some exceptions, e.g. Farm & Ranch Land Preservn Prog. But subsidises polln reduction in intensive systems.

Objectives of the first Scottish

Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs)

Protect rough grazing

Protect unimproved, enclosed land in valleys

Repair farm dykes/hedges

Regenerate farm woodland

Harmonise new developments with landscape amenity

Limit modern agricultural practices

Encourage traditional crofting techniques

Protect machair from over-stocking

Encourage positive conservation of machair

Protect wetland areas/loch shores from damage

Restrict pesticide usage on edges of arable fields

Worksheets in the Ontario

Environmental Farm Plan

Soil and site evaluation Water wells

Soil management Pesticide storage

Nutrient management in growing crops Fertiliser storage

Manure use and management Petroleum products storage

Field crop management Disposal of farm wastes

Pest management Treatment of household wastewater

Stream, ditch and floodplain management Storage of agricultural wastes

Wetlands and wildlife ponds Livestock yards

Woodlands and wildlife Silage storage

Energy efficiency Milking centre wash water

Water efficiency Noise and odour

Horticultural production

The six-stage sequence of the EFPStage Actions

1. Introductory workshop site evaluation; assess potential concerns

2. Complete farm review review farm operations; complete relevant

worksheets

3. Second workshop consider possible actions; learn how to develop

a realistic plan

4. Complete action plan identify actions for all ‘Fair’ or ‘Poor’ rated

situations; develop timetable for action

5. Peer review add suggestions/ask for changes; return plan to

farmer; send information anonymously to OFC

6. Implementation of plan put plan into action; re-evaluate each year

Farmers’ self-assessment of soil

resourcesHow do you rate on soil resources, pollution, wastes, pesticides?____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Variable Best (4) Good (3) Fair (2) Poor (1)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. potential for soil very low low moderate high

compaction

2. effects of harvesting wide choice of good choice of limited choice no choice

harvest dates; harvest dates; of harvest dates; of harvest

good natural or good natural fair natural date; poor

tile drainage drainage drainage naturaldrainage

3. crop rotations regular rotation occasional occasional no rotation

and cover crops with soil- rotation with rotation but or cover crops

building crops soil-building little plant and little

and cover crops crops and/or material returned plant material

cover crops to soil or left returned in

on surface soil

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Range of activities undertaken

within the EFP, 1/4/93 - 31/7/02Activity % of all activities Activity % of all activities

______________________________________________________________________________

Soil management 25 Disposal of farm wastes 1

Water wells 17 Wetlands and wildlife ponds 1

Storage of agricultural waste 10.5 Water efficiency 1

Stream, ditch and floodplain Fertiliser storage and handling 1

management 7 Noise and odour 1

Livestock yards 6.5 Milking centre wash water 1

Storage of petroleum products 5.5 Horticultural management 0.5

Treatment of household wastewater 4 Silage storage 0.5

Energy efficiency 4 Manure use and management 0.5

Pest management 3.5

Pesticide storage and handling 3

Field crop management 3

Nutrient management in growing crops 2

Woodlands and wildlife 1.5

EFP-related actions taken by farmers

600 no-till planter drill purchases

220 double-wall farm fuel tanks

600 watercourse and woodland fencing projects

to restrict livestock movement

250 transplanting projects

200 household septic system replacements

1600 drinking water well upgrade or plugging

projects

300 foam markers purchased for sprayers

Items of Work in England’s

Countryside Stewardship Scheme

Managing grassland Managing fen and reedbeds

Lowland hay meadows Managing fen

Upland hay meadows Managing reedbed

Lowland and Culm pastures and old pastures

Upland in-bye pasture Managing lowland heath

Upland rough grazing enclosed pastures Maintaining existing lowland heath

Upland rough grazing Enhancing existing lowland heath

Chalk and limestone grassland Re-creating heath

Upland limestone grassland

Recreating grassland on cultivated land Access Agreements

- Supplement for raised water levels Open

- Supplement for use of native seed Linear - footpaths

Bridleways

Access for the disabled

Access for educational purposes

CONCLUSIONS

Grt variety of progs to choose from if anyone wishes to copy

or ‘learn’ from the experience of AEPs in the EU & N Amer.

In the EU progs often have multiple (rel unspecific) aims &

reflect baselines determined nationally; N Amer – more

targeted & more reflective of producer’s opportunity cost

(e.g. competitive auction-based … may enhance

additionality).

Monitoring – variable!

EU – reflects taxpayers’ views; US – AEP correlates with

other agric subsidies, not conservn awareness.

The End!

Paper has drawn upon the following:

Baylis et al (2008) Ecological Economics

Robinson (2006) Geoforum; Geogrl J.

Robinson (1994) J. Env. Planning & Management

Robinson (1991) Land Use Policy

The Environment Institute