Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Landscape 24.11.16


Published on

Published in: Environment
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Landscape 24.11.16

  2. 2. AGENDA • The CAP & its legacy • The economic implications of Pillar 1 • Pillar 2 & agri-environmental schemes • Public money for public goods • The 25-year natural environment plan • What could go wrong • Conclusions
  3. 3. THE CAP AND ITS LEGACY • Why the CAP was created • The disasters of the 1970s and the destruction of the landscape • The great intensification debate • Continual declines & the State of Nature report Status quo is not sustainable – and therefore it will not be sustained
  4. 4. THE ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF PILLAR 1 • Most of the £3 billion subsidies • Agriculture is only 0.7% of GDP • Decoupled for production • Capitalised in land prices • Makes entry very difficult Lots of money for little public good Does not solve the threat of tariffs problem
  5. 5. PILLAR 2 AND AGRI-ENVIRONMENTAL SCHEMES • Weak regulation • Weak targeting • Creates agricultural apartheid between intensive land and environmental bits • Does not maximise biodiversity • Not tailored to wildlife corridors • Too often results in “agricultural roads” around fields • Cross-compliance, not enforced Little money, spent inefficiently for the environment
  6. 6. PUBLIC MONEY FOR PUBLIC GOODS • The key rationale for supporting subsidies • Requires wider landscape and land use planning • Upland areas – reduce intensity, and increase landscape, recreational and biodiversity values • Does not need to go direct to farmers • Could go via National Parks, AONBs, and catchment system operators (see Helm – Catchment management, abstraction and flooding, Natural Capital Paper 1, Feb 2016) • Could be channelled through a public Nature Fund
  7. 7. THE 25-YEAR ENVIRONMENT PLAN • Natural capital provides the conceptual framework • 25 year plan identifies the areas of greatest public good • Pioneers test out the opportunities • ONS provides the numbers • NCC provide the advice
  8. 8. WHAT COULD GO WRONG? • The NFU-preferred post BREXIT outcome – self sufficiency • Return to production subsidies – more intensification • Relax pesticides and herbicides constraint – more pollution NFU argues “no intensification” since 1990 & points at pheasant & wood pigeon populations which have increased… on BBC Farming Today… Not the time to go back to the past…
  9. 9. CONCLUSIONS • Big opportunity, big risks • Natural capital is the way to think about the problem • 25 year plan is the framework • And time is very short & lobbying is intense!
  10. 10. FOR INFORMATION Natural Capital Network Paper 1. Catchment management, abstraction and flooding Dieter Helm Feb 2015 Natural Capital Network Paper 2. In defence of the green belt Dieter Helm April 2015 Natural Capital Network Paper 3. Flood defence: Time for a radical rethink Dieter Helm Jan 2016 Natural Capital Network Paper 4. Green Bonds for Natural Capital – some issues Dieter Helm Jun 2016
  11. 11. BOOK