Memorandum submitted by the Royal Society
for the Protection of Birds
AGRICULTURE AND EU ENLARGEMENT
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
(RSPB) is Europe's largest wildlife conservation organisation
with over one million members. Our principal objective is the
conservation of wild birds and their habitats. We seek to fulfil
this objective by nature reserve acquisition and management, research,
education and publicity. We also seek to influence legislation
and public policy on matters affecting the environment.
The RSPB is the UK Partner of BirdLife International,
which is a global Partnership of non-governmental conservation
organisations. BirdLife International strives to conserve birds,
their habitats and global biodiversity, working with people towards
sustainability in the use of natural resources. The RSPB has been
working with BirdLife Partners in Central and Eastern Europe on
farming and rural policy issues since the mid 1990s.
SUMMARY
1. Farmland bird populations are likely
to be threatened by EU Enlargement. This statement is based on
recent research and agricultural and rural policy analysis carried
out by the RSPB and BirdLife Partners in Central and Eastern Europe.
We therefore welcome the opportunity to submit evidence on Agriculture
and EU Enlargement. Our comments concern the environmental effects
of the transitional arrangements and of Common Agricultural Policy
reform only. Our key points are:
(i) CAP financial support will create a new
economic environment for farmers and rural societies in the accession
countries (ACs). Farmers will be entitled to receive Single Farm
Payments as income support and to draw on Rural Development funds
for other rural development measures. Financial support is likely
to have a crucial role in changing the existing farming systems
and land use patterns. The extent of the changes and their impact
on biodiversity and the natural environment will derive from political
choices made at member state level on how available money is spent.
(ii) Research commissioned by the RSPB investigated
the potential land use impacts of the Common Agricultural Policy
(CAP) in five of the 2004 ACs. The land use changes are likely
to bring negative environmental impacts, particularly severe in
some regions of the ACs. The scale and type of increases and changes,
and rate at which these will happen are more difficult to predict.
However, negative impacts will be reflected by downward population
changes for bird species across a range of farmland habitats.
(iii) The Copenhagen Agreement (2002) and
CAP Reform (2003) place environmentally positive elements at disposal
of new member states to address environmental issues. The uptake
of these elements will depend on inter alia the share of
financial support received, the capacities of administrative and
agricultural extension advisory infrastructures, and levels of
environmental education of advisors and farmers. An RSPB and BirdLife
evaluation of the accession countries Rural Development Programmes
point to inadequacies in all of these areas.
(iv) The RSPB recommends that the UK Government
draws upon and uses lessons learnt from EU agricultural history
and to urge, within the Council of Ministers that better support
be given to the environment in the future and that sound research
informs agricultural and rural policy. Thus preventing the repetition
of negative impacts of intensive agriculture upon the environment,
birds and other biological diversity.
(v) The RSPB recommends that the UK Government
continues to push for further reform of the CAP towards sustainable
agriculture. Specifically, that agricultural economic forces of
an enlarged Europe include environmental concerns on an increasing
basis by developing new and existing measures to secure the protection
of biodiversity and landscape heritage, and the sustainable use
of natural resources.
INTRODUCTION
2. The RSPB vision is of sustainable systems
of farming that produce adequate supplies of safe, healthy food;
protect the natural resources of soil, air and water that farming
depends on; help to protect and enhance wildlife and habitats
and provide jobs in rural areas and contribute to a diverse rural
economy.
3. This evidence is drawn from independent
research[1]
commissioned by the RSPB, ongoing research with BirdLife Partners
in the ACs and a recent evaluation of their Draft Rural Development
Programmes (CAP Pillar II).
Current Agricultural Trends and Environmental
Conditions
4. Despite their individual political and
land management histories, the majority of the ACs have large
and contiguous areas of low input traditionally managed farmland.
These farming systems and landscapes sustain some of the greatest
diversity of birds and other wildlife in Europe. There are Species
of European Conservation Concern[2]
with significant populations in the accession countries and their
population trends can be correlated to agricultural intensification.
Many of species have their highest European populations in the
accession countries, for example, corncrake (Crex crex),
lesser grey shrike (Lanius minor) and crested lark (Galerida
cristata).
5. Since the 1990s, there has been a general
lessening of former environmental impacts, through a reduction
in agro-chemicals for example[3].
However, the trend of extensification has also included large-scale
abandonment, where scrub encroachment and afforestation have resulted
in a loss of agricultural lands of high biodiversity value. Abandonment
has been ascribed to a lack of finances and investment following
political upheaval, alongside shifting demographics of declining
and ageing populations in rural areas[4].
6. The RSPB is extremely concerned that
wildlife, as in Western Europe, will become restricted to fragmented
islands of high quality habitats protected specifically for their
biodiversity interest eg areas designated Natura 2000 sites.
COPENHAGEN AGREEMENT
AND CAP REFORM
7. The Copenhagen Agreement set out an agricultural
budgetary framework 2004-2013 for the ACs. Incentives for land
use change will come, through both Pillar I and II. Farmers and
landowners will have financial support for a range of measures
to upgrade and make competitive their farming systems in line
with required EU standards[5],
and to protect the environment.
8. The RSPB broadly welcomed the CAP reform
2003 agreements as representing a major step towards more sustainable
agriculture in Europe. These reforms represent a more acceptable
entry point for the ACs. However, the RSPB does not consider the
process of CAP reform to be complete. Agricultural production
is often dictated by economic forces, which do not recognise environmental
values. The CAP should have a role in making the environment an
economic force. A force that ensures that agriculture provides
goods which society needs and expects—protection of biodiversity
and landscape heritage, and the sustainable use of natural resources.
This role should be no different in an enlarged Europe.
9. The complex negotiations of the recent
CAP reform underlined the diversity of needs, demands and cultural
values of European rural areas. Within an enlarged Europe, there
will be an even greater diversity, all of which will influence
future CAP reform. CAP financial support will have the power to
create a new economic environment for farmers and other rural
actors. This will be crucial factor in farm decision-making and
will underpin changes to existing farming systems and land use
patterns and with possible negative environmental consequences.
LAND USE
CHANGES AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
RESEARCH
10. Independent research commissioned by
the RSPB[6]
examined the potential land change impacts of the CAP in five
of the accession countries to join the European Union in May 2004—Czech
Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, and Slovenia. Predicting changes
in the use of land allows us to forecast the likely impacts on
bird populations. A summary follows.
Land Use—Arable
11. In all case study countries, arable
land use will intensify, bringing changes in the types of crops
grown and to landscape features. The major change is predicted
to be that of increasing areas of cereal production.
12. Although increased production represents
a small percentage of overall land use change in these countries,
this could have significant implications at local or regional
scales[7].
In all five cases studied, increased use of agro-chemicals linked
to arable production is predicted. The major environmental impacts
of predicted land use change in the arable sector, and specifically
cereals, could include:
(i) Regional and countrywide negative effects
on biodiversity.
(ii) Loss of permanent pastures to cereal
production—soils exposed to erosion and loss of biodiversity
in soil seed banks, as examples.
(iii) Deterioration of soil biodiversity
and quality.
(iv) Pollution of drinking waters and eutrophication
of waterways and wetland habitats.
(v) Increases in field sizes—loss of
field boundaries, such as walls and hedgerows and accompanying
loss of year round food and sheltering opportunities for wildlife.
Land Use—Livestock
13. Land use changes linked to livestock
production in all countries fall into three main categories: intensification,
extensification and abandonment. Impacts are therefore complicated
to predict and are likely to be reflected on a regional scale.
14. Maintaining and extensifying grasslands
may have positive implications for the environment. However, land
use change due to abandonment carry threats such as:
(i) Loss of traditional extensive management
that protects high biodiversity grasslands from natural succession
and afforestation.
(ii) Potential loss of traditional genetic
livestock stocks—both size of genetic pool and diversity.
(iii) Loss of traditional knowledge in livestock
management—and possible loss of rural farming communities
over longer timescale.
15. Under intensification, the potential
impacts may include:
(i) Loss of traditional extensive management
which supports grasslands of high biodiversity value.
(ii) Improvement of existing grasslands leading
to loss of biodiversity, including soil microflora and fauna and
seed banks.
(iii) Loss of livestock genetic diversity
through standardised, production selected, breeds.
(iv) Increases in farm waste—raising
air pollution (linked to acid rain, greenhouse gases), and potential
for higher water pollution incidence and eutrophication through
poor waste-management.
(v) Higher agro-chemical usage—losses
of wildlife food sources, direct toxicity, increases in diffuse
and point pollution.
(vi) Regional intensification resulting in
negative impact hotspots.
(vii) Loss of small-scale farming more likely
in less competitive regions—possible loss of rural farming
communities over longer timescale.
16. In conclusion, this research predicts
that land use changes are likely to bring negative environmental
impacts, which will be particularly severe in some regions of
the ACs. The scale and type of increases and changes, and rate
at which these will happen are more difficult to predict. Negative
impacts will be reflected by downward population changes for bird
species across a range of farmland habitats.
Research—Impacts on Farmland Bird Populations
17. Based on data from the current EU member
states the impact of intensive agriculture upon bird populations
is stark. When using the modelling methods described in Donald
et al. (2001)[8],
the predicted rates of decline are that for every one tonne per
hectare increase in average cereal yield, an 8.7% decline in the
populations of all farmland birds would be expected and an 11.1%
decline in the populations of the vulnerable species. Similar
losses could be expected with declines in area of low intensity
grassland of high biodiversity value.
18. RSPB researchers have demonstrated negative
impacts of agriculture on farmland bird populations at a number
of spatial scales. Across Europe as a whole, there is a significant
relationship between agricultural intensity, and farmland bird
declines; declines have been greater in countries with more intensive
agriculture. This pattern across countries is repeated within
countries.
19. In Poland, RSPB-funded research is investigating
the likely effects of intensification on farmland birds by comparing
populations between areas of differing intensity. This research
will allow us to quantify the effects of different levels of intensification
and to identify the most important feature of bird-friendly agriculture.
Results to date suggest that numbers of skylarks are twice as
high in low intensity farmland as they are in farmland managed
with medium intensity, and twice as high again in the latter as
on intensive farmland. In other words, skylark numbers would fall
by at least 75% if low intensity farmland were converted to the
high intensity farmland of the type currently found in Western
Poland.
20. Even at the level of individual fields,
RSPB research has demonstrated significant effects of agricultural
intensity on farmland birds. For example, several species have
been shown to occur in greater numbers on organic than on conventionally
managed fields, and set-aside has been shown to be one of the
best field use types for birds.
EVALUATION OF
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
PLANS
21. The Rural Development Regulation (EC
1257/1999) represents a second strand of funding measures to complement
the Common Market Policy in the EU 15. By the time of Accession,
the accession countries will have had their national Rural Development
Plans approved for the period 2004-06.
22. At the end of 2003[9]
the RSPB and BirdLife Partners carried out an evaluation of AC
Rural Development Plans drafts still under negotiations with the
EU Commission. The key points of the evaluation are that:
(i) The ACs Rural Development Plans' show
clearly that priority is being given to development of infrastructure
rather than the protection of the natural environment.
(ii) Agri-environmental schemes (AES) lack
comprehensive design for the protection of high conservation value
agricultural areas in several ACs. In particular, schemes for
biodiversity are a very small proportion of an already poor AES
coverage. Additionally, biodiversity indicators proposed for monitoring
and evaluation of AES are often unrelated to the objectives of
the scheme.
(iii) Administrative and agricultural extension
advisory infrastructures are inadequate to implement fully environmental
measures in the Rural Development Regulation due to a number of
factors: low levels of experience on agri-environmental matters;
limited manpower and funding; low levels of environmental education
of administrators, advisors and farmers. These factors will not
only inhibit the uptake of AES, but also the establishment of
codes of good farming practice across Less Favoured Areas.
(iv) The Rural Development Plans tend to
lack environmental focus. This is shown by the inadequate use
and linkage between conservation measures (AES, Articles 16,19,20[10])
and Natura 2000 within Less Favoured Area designations.
23. In conclusion, it would appear that
high proportions of RDPs funding will be used for the modernisation
and restructuring of the agriculture sector while a minute proportion
will be spent for AE measures. This political choice is likely
to lead to intensification and loss of biodiversity, habitats
and landscape diversity.
RECOMMENDATIONS
24. The RSPB recommends that the UK Government
draws upon and uses lessons learnt from EU agricultural history
to urge, within the Council of Ministers, that better support
be given to the environment in the future through CAP funds and
that sound research informs agricultural and rural policy. Thus
preventing the repetition of negative impacts of intensive agriculture
upon the environment, birds and other biological diversity.
25. The RSPB recommends that the UK Government
continues to push for further reform of the CAP towards sustainable
agriculture. Specifically, that agricultural economic forces of
an enlarged Europe include environmental concerns on an increasing
basis, by developing new and existing measures to secure the protection
of biodiversity and landscape heritage, and the sustainable use
of natural resources.
CONCLUSION
26. Accession of Central and Eastern European
Countries to the EU and the consequent entry to the CAP may threaten
birds and other wildlife through agricultural intensification
and abandonment. Equally, accession provides an opportunity to
sustain the wildlife rich landscapes of the accession countries
and their rural communities, if environmental measures within
the CAP are used fully to promote good agricultural and environmental
practice. We do not believe these opportunities are being harnessed
at present and the agricultural history of Western Europe, is
set to be repeated.
27. The RSPB and BirdLife believe that rural
actors and stakeholders should be eligible for support, in delivering
public environmental benefits. This should include: managing,
restoring, recreating habitats and landscape features, supporting
organic and other environmentally beneficial farming systems,
and improving marketing and processing of rural products. Ultimately
protecting bird populations and other wildlife depends on the
choices made by government agencies and institutions, farmers
and landowners as to whether the introduction of the CAP funds
will be used positively and not to the detriment of biodiversity.
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
January 2004
1,000 (
1,250 Poland) per farm, per year for up to five years
subject to the approval of a farm management plan.
1 AGRA CEAS Consulting Ltd. (2003) Accession of
Central and Eastern European Countries to the EU and its Impact
on Land Use and the Environment. The impact of the Copenhagen
Agreement. Commissioned by RSPB unpublished. Back
2
BirdLife Classification of threatened species in Europe. Tucker,
GM, Heath, MF, Tomialokc, L and Grimmett, RFA (1994) Birds
in Europe: Their Conservation Status. Conservation Series
No 3.BirdLife International: Cambridge. Back
3
European Environment Agency (2003) Agriculture and the Environment
in the EU Accession Countries-Final draft for consultations
20/2/03. Back
4
Mayhew, A. (2003) The financial and Budgetary Impact of Enlargement
and Accession SEI Working Paper No 65. Back
5
Under Pillar II, for example, Semi-Subsistence farmers (those
producing food predominantly for their own consumption) will have
the opportunity to receive Back
6
See footnote 1. Back
7
It is the intensification, not the actual area increase, that
has the greater negative implications and impacts upon biodiversity,
as has been shown for a variety of other crop types. PF Donald
(2003) Biodiversity Impacts of some Agricultural Commodity Production
Systems. Conservation Biology (In Press). Back
8
Donald, PF, Green, RE and Heath, MF 2001 Agricultural intensification
and the collapse of Europe's farmland bird populations. Proceedings
of The Royal Society of London (B) 268 25-29. Back
9
Evaluation is given with the best of our knowledge, and with consideration
of limitations due to the lack of access for BirdLife to all RDPs. Back
10
Rural Development Regulation-EC1257/1999. Back
| 
