HNV grassland protection and the role of the CAP
EFNCP contributes to a new report published by the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation
As we struggle to make the next CAP better for HNV grasslands, it is worth asking whether the last CAP reform offered any improvements, and if so did Member States make good use of them? The Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) provided a valuable opportunity to explore these questions.
EFNCP, in collaboration with Hochschule für Forstwirtschaft Rottenburg, contributed to a wider study of grassland protection in Germany by analysing the key changes to the CAP in the last reform, and gathering examples of how these changes were implemented in a selection of Member States to the benefit (or not) of HNV grasslands. The aim was to present examples of good practice (and some bad) in using CAP mechanisms to support HNV grasslands. The study looked at both pillars of the CAP.
The EFNCP contribution to the BfN study, with all the country examples of "good practice", is available here. The full BfN report is published here
Overall, the EFNCP analysis concluded that the current CAP is not designed in an integrated way at EU level. There are some obligatory measures and rules (some good, some bad), and a very large number of optional measures and optional implementation models. It is left to Member States and regions, if they wish to, to create a policy that has real integration and coherence in the way it works on the ground. We are not aware of any Member State or region that does this in an exemplary way for HNV grasslands, in the sense of adapting the complete policy package, although there are many examples of individual mechanisms being used in a positive way.
Back to news overview