A few weeks ago at European Parliament the reform of the Community Agricultural Policy (PAC) valid from 2023 to 2029. A long mediation process, which lasted over two years, has thus come to an end, which involves a good 380 MIL throughout the continent and which is equivalent to 34,5% of the entire EU 2020 budget. In 2021 and 2022 there will also be two further years of transition with the refinancing of the current CAP (which is worth about 2,4 MIL for Italy). Resources supported therefore, and on paper also ambitious premises in environmental terms to achieve the objectives set by the Green Deal.
Unfortunately, both the Parliament and the European Council have instead voted a pejorative document compared to the Commission's preliminary proposal, with modest environmental and improvement expectations for all wildlife, in particular for the species for which conservation measures are most urgent and for which Action Plans prepared by the EU Environment Commission. Obviously there are conflicting opinions on the results of this agreement, but from a purely environmental point of view there are many doubts and perplexities about this reform of the Community agricultural policy.
In terms of fauna, the most serious aspects concern the changes to the rules on Good Environmental Agronomic Conditions which have determined the weakening of the protection for wetlands, peat bogs and permanent meadows (GAEC n.2 and n.10) and above all the percentage reduction of agricultural area to be allocated to environmental and non-productive elements (GAEC n.9). The latter is perhaps the most serious and deplorable action from an environmental point of view as, with a specific amendment of the European Council, the calculation will now be made on the arable area and not on the agricultural area (as instead proposed by the EC). This means losing over 38% of the European reference surface for environmental measures.
Another negative aspect is in the definition of lawn which, although enlarged compared to the current CAP, does not include meadows or pastures with shrubs or partially wooded and therefore excludes these environmental typologies (which are very common in our national territory) from the protection and conservation measures envisaged. However, it is left to the discretion of the individual States to decide later whether or not to include these habitats in the definition of lawn. It is truly disconcerting that on the one hand the European Union is asking Member States to intervene precisely on meadows, peatlands and wetlands (Multispecies Action Plan on waders), or on partially wooded agricultural areas (Action Plan on turtledove ), while on the other it reduces the possibility of implementing these measures through the most important financing system for farmers. However, among the positive aspects of this CAP there is a greater allocation of financial resources to the environment with the allocation of 35% of rural development funds and a share between 20 and 30% of the budget for direct payments.
Another positive aspect is given by the acceptance by the European Parliament of an amendment promoted by the FACE and more precisely in the expansion of the definition of agricultural area which now includes not only cultivated land but also permanent crops, meadows and landscape elements (eg hedges, rows, ditches, walls, etc. etc.). These habitats are very important for wildlife and for the entire biodiversity. Having said that, however, the game is not over yet. In fact, from this week the negotiations for the final drafting of the text of the CAP 2023-2029 in trilogy with the Commission and the European Parliament and which will presumably end in the first months of 2021. Here there may still be some small changes and modifications. We expect the Environment Commission to direct its energies on this battle instead of taking initiatives against hunting, as we have unfortunately recently verified in the events of the International Plan on turtledove and on lapwing and pochard species. Subsequently there will be the national and regional steps with the approval of the national strategic plans, provided for by the new CAP and with the additional flexibility with which the various countries can adapt the common agricultural policy according to their own local realities and needs. On the latter front, Federcaccia is already committed and active in defending an agricultural policy that is ever closer to the environment and to the farmers themselves and therefore to be the spokesperson for all hunters in the local discussions of the next CAP. In particular, it will be our commitment to carry out all the initiatives that avoid the abandonment of agriculture in marginal areas and at the same time promote actions to enhance biodiversity and increase wildlife.