Ireland’s Common Agricultural Policy Strategic Plan will help to make farming greener, but not at the pace that the EU demands, that’s according to the European Court of Auditors (ECA).
The EU’s spending watchdog examined Ireland’s promises submitted to the European Commission and concluded that though they contain improved environmental schemes, they will not shift Irish farming fast enough to meet the EU’s climate ambitions, nor meet its targets.
The ECA takes the example of eco-schemes. These are supposed to “support farmers in adopting practices that minimise the negative impact of agriculture on the environment and climate.”
But the European Commission found that some of Ireland’s eco-schemes only had “modest environmental value”.
When EU officials raised their concerns with the Irish government, the ECA says “while the Irish authorities strengthened the requirements of some practices, they mostly kept the original eco-scheme, as their strategy focused on maximising participation by farmers [rather than maximising environmental impact].”
The auditors told us that that means there are no additional green benefits.
“Eco-schemes were mostly a continuation of existing green farming practices” – without changing their practices, there will not be further environmental benefits, the ECA explained.
Ireland’s eco-schemes has a budget of €1,482,852,495 raising questions over whether it is achieving value for money.
Despite these shortcomings, the European Commission produced a glossy summary of Ireland’s farming programme which paints a positive picture of the CAP Plans’ green credentials.
“Ireland has designed a strategy to promote the sustainable development of the farming and food sector by supporting viable farm incomes and enhancing competitiveness. The Irish CAP Plan also contributes to the achievement of environmental and climate objectives at national and EU levels, and aims to improve socio-economic conditions in rural areas”, the European Commission says.
It is not in doubt that there is environmental ambition both from the European Commission and the Irish government. But the ECA says Ireland’s Strategic Plan promotes farming practices which will not bring about big enough change.
Another area of concern for the watchdog is Ireland’s plan for carbon storage.
The European Commission calculated that Ireland should aim for a 35 percent carbon store in soils and biomass. This was defined as “the share of agricultural area (including permanent grassland) covered by interventions on carbon sinks”.
Rather than agreeing to 35 percent, the Irish government only committed to 8.9 percent carbon storage.
According to the ECA, the government justified the “low” target by arguing that work to protect and restore peatlands through another EU scheme called ‘Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions’ (GAEC 2) would considerably raise the carbon store in Ireland.
But the watchdog says that Ireland has in fact delayed its GAEC 2 programme until 2025 raising questions as to how much carbon will in fact be stored by the end of the current CAP in 2027.
Ireland is not alone in this. The ECA says it is one of 16 member states to postpone its GAEC 2 peatland protection projects.
In response to the findings by the European Court of Auditors, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine said in a statement that the ECA had acknowledged that Ireland’s plan was “more environmentally focused than previously”.
Responding to the ECA’s concerns about eco-systems, the department said:
“In relation to Ireland’s eco-scheme, the key objective was to ensure farmers were supported to continue existing good practices. The measure was funded by a 25 percent cut in the direct payments support. It was therefore important to ensure that all farmers had to the opportunity to engage in the scheme in the context of fairness, and not creating an undue additional burden on farmers already engaging in sustainable practices.
Supporting existing sustainable practices has placed a value on these space for nature areas that were previously considered unproductive and it is encouraging retention and maintenance of very valuable habitat in the context of the biodiversity crisis. Ireland’s plan has a strong focus on environmental action with over 70% percent of funding dedicated to environmental action under the rural development aspects.”
On the ECA’s concerns about Ireland’s low carbon sink percentage, the Department of Agriculture said:
“The contribution of Ireland’s CSP [Common Agricultural Policy Strategic Plan] to carbon storage must be considered in conjunction with national actions outside of the plan, including regulation and supports for innovation.
The target must also be considered in the context of the methodology applied by the [European] Commission. This means that only the action with the highest level of contribution is counted. In addition, some actions are multifunctional measures which will positively impact on a number of environmental indicators, such as biodiversity, climate adaptation, mitigation and water quality.”
The European Court of Auditors scrutinised the CAP Strategic Plans of four member states for their report: Ireland, Spain, France and Poland.
The ECA said it assessed “whether the 2023-2027 CAP strategic plans provide a sound basis for meeting the policy objective of a greener CAP.”
The overall conclusion, not just for Ireland, was that “the Plans for 2023-2027 are greener than in the
previous CAP period, but do not match the EU’s ambitions for the climate.”
The auditors recommend that the European Commission works to “promote exchanges of “green” good practice in the Plans; estimate[s] the CAP’s contribution to the Green Deal targets” and strengthen “future CAP monitoring” in relation to climate and the environment.