European agricultural funding destined for climate action in the 2014 to 2020 period has not contributed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from farming at the EU-level. On the contrary, a new European Court of Auditors (ECA) report identifies that most of this money went to measures with “low climate-mitigation potential.” 

Although more than a quarter of all agricultural expenditure of the EU in 2014 to 2020 – more than €100 billion – was earmarked for climate change, agricultural GHG emissions have not decreased since 2010, the report’s authors warn. 

FoodIngredientsFirst attended a recent press briefing to discuss the findings of the analysis, which was hosted by ECA member for Romania, Viorel Ștefan, alongside the association’s audit team.

“The EU’s role in climate change mitigation in the agricultural sector is of crucial importance because the EU sets environmental standards and most of the Member States agricultural expenditure co-finances,” says Ștefan.

“We expect our findings to be useful in the context of the EU’s goal to be climate-neutral by 2050 at the latest. The new common agricultural policy must be more focused on reducing agricultural emissions and there must be greater accountability and transparency about its contribution to climate change mitigation.”

With the EU’s 2021 to 2027 Common Agricultural Policy currently under negotiation at EU level, this audit report is considered timely.

No moves to limit animal consumption
The auditors examined whether CAP support was provided in the 2014 to 2020 period for practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions from three important sources: livestock farming, fertilizers and manure, and land use.

They also examined whether the use of effective mitigation practices in the 2014 to 2020 period has been better incentivized by the CAP than in the period 2007 to 2013.

Emissions from livestock farming account for about half of emissions from agriculture. These emissions are directly related to the size of livestock, while cattle are responsible for two-thirds of these emissions.

The share of the livestock attributable emissions further increase when emissions are taken into account from animal feed production (including imports). However, under the CAP, no attempt is made to provide limit values for livestock, nor are incentives given offered to reduce it.

The CAP market measures include promotion of animal products, of which consumption has not decreased since 2014. Therefore, ECA concludes that these measures are in place to maintain rather than reduce GHG emissions.

Fertilizers and animal manure climate impact
The emissions of fertilizers and animal manure – which account for almost a third of all forms of agricultural emissions – increased between 2010 and 2018. The ECA suggests to limit CAP-supported practices that increase the use of fertilizers, using methods like organic farming and the cultivation of seed-bearing legumes.

According to the auditors, however, the impact of these practices on GHG emissions is unclear. In contrast, little funding was provided for practices that are demonstrably more effective, such as precision farming methods wher fertilization is tailored to the needs of the crops.

“National targets for reducing GHG emissions from the agricultural sector would provide a flexible way, adapted to the local context, to achieve reductions,” Claudia Spiti Senior, communication officer at ECA, tells FoodIngredientsFirst.

“Member states should also target GHG emission reduction in agriculture by using CAP funds to provide incentives for effective climate mitigation measures,” she continues.

“For example, the rewetting of drained organic soils through direct payments. Rural development interventions or other carbon farming approaches, should also be very effective. Also, rewarding farmers for carbon removals could also be effective.”

Promoting “climate-unfriendly” practices
The ECA asserts that the CAP supports climate-unfriendly practices, such as paying farmers who work drained peatlands. These areas make up less than 2 percent of the agricultural land in the EU, but emit 20 percent of the region’s entire agricultural GHG emissions.

Rural development funds could have been used for the recovery of these peatlands, but this rarely happened, the auditors warn.

Meanwhile, CAP support for measures for carbon sequestration, such as afforestation, agroforestry and the conversion of cropland to grassland have not increased since the 2007 to 2013 period.

The auditors note that the preconditions and measures for rural development differed little from that in the previous period, despite the increased EU climate ambition.

Although the greening scheme was intended to improve the environmental performance of the CAP, it has not incentivized these farmers to implement effective climate-friendly measures and had only a “minor impact” on the climate, ECA concludes.