Millions of pounds of taxpayers' money intended for environmental projects is instead being used to prop up damaging farming practices across Europe, according to a report out this month.

    Could Do Better is the name of a report which has been funded by the RSPB and compiled by Birdlife International looking at environmental farming schemes being paid for by the EU through the Common Agricultural Policy （CAP）.

    The 46-page report has highlighted some of the positive work being done in EU member states with CAP funding which is helping farmers create and protect habitats for wildlife. But it also shines the light on the shameful waste of public money which is being thrown at projects which are of no benefit to the environment and are sometimes causing lasting damage.

    "In principle this European funding is great news for wildlife because it supports agri-environment schemes which protect biodiversity – but the truth is that implementation of the policy by many members states is weak," warned RSPB's head of agriculture policy Gareth Morgan.

    "In compiling this report we found examples of agricultural schemes receiving large amounts of public subsidy from the EU which had no environmental benefit at all, in fact some were causing the degradation of the environment."

    Farmland bird species are in decline across Europe and often this is linked to changes in agricultural activities. Many of these threatened species are extremely sensitive to changes in their habitat caused by intensification of farming - the Spanish imperial eagle requires large areas of sparse wood pasture rich in rabbit, the eastern European red-footed falcon requires traditional farmland with ponds rich in dragonflies and the southern European woodchat shrike requires insects and lizards who live in dry grassland with thorny scrubs.

    CAP funding falls into two pillars, the first is a basic farm subsidy and the second, "rural development" pillar, is aimed at promoting environmental protection alongside rural job creation and improving quality of life. This is done through schemes such as restoring woodlands, leaving fallow land and ensuring livestock continue to graze vulnerable meadows.

    The expenditure on the CAP will be ￡330 billion for the period 2007-2013–or 43 per cent of the total EU budget. Of this 23 per cent–or ￡76.5 billion–is set aside for rural development funding.

    "The findings of this report make it clear that the CAP is still not functioning properly and needs radical reform," Gareth added. "Agri-environment schemes can and do deliver great results for farming and wildlife, but only if member states commit to them properly – otherwise it is simply an exercise in handing out money for nothing.

    "Some EU governments are clearly unprepared to stand up to the vigorous lobbying of their agricultural sector. If they continue to put forward dodgy agri-environment schemes which have no positive impact on biodiversity then Brussels should have the backbone to kick them out.

    歐盟在生態農業方面"本可以做得更好"

    據本月一報道稱，本預想投放于生態項目的納稅人的數百萬英磅如今卻被用于破壞歐洲的農業生產。

    "本可以做得更好"是一篇報道的名稱，該篇報道由皇家保護鳥類協會投資并且由Birdlife international編制， Birdlife international一直關注已由歐盟通過CAP付款的生態農業計劃。

    長達46頁的報道把已由歐盟成員國與CAP投資采取完的積極行動擺在突出的位置，此類行動一直幫助農民繁殖及保護生物動物。但是它也爆光了公共財政對于對環境毫無益處的項目上有時甚至會對環境產生長遠的損害的開支。

    皇家保護鳥類協會農業政策負責人Gareth Morgan警告說，原則上歐盟對于野生動物的投資是一重大消息因為它支持保護生物多樣化的農業環境計劃--但事實是多數成員國實施此項政策的力度非常弱。

    在編制這份報告的過程當中，我們發現歐盟大量公共開支用于對環境毫無益處的農業計劃上面，事實上有些還會產生對環境的破壞作用。

    整個歐洲鳥類數量在縮減并且通常這與農業活動的變化緊密相聯。此類受威脅的種類對因農田緊縮而產生的居住地的變更極度敏感---西班牙帝雕居住要求就很高，大范圍的植被稀疏的林地，要有很多兔子， 東歐的紅腳鷹要求晴蜓多的有池塘的傳統農田。南歐的林鹡伯勞要求要有生活于有多刺的灌木干涸草地的昆蟲及蜥蜴。

    CAP主要投資于兩點，第一點是基本的農田補助金，第二點"農業開發",致力于提高環境保護，創造沿邊的農村工作及提升生活質量。這已經通過計劃例如重修林地，保休耕地及確保家畜繼續在脆弱的牧場地上吃草。

    CAP的開支于2007至2013年期間將達到￡330,000,000或總歐盟支出的43%.其中23%（￡76,500,000）專用于農村開發。

    Gareth 補充說：報告中明確表明CAP仍然沒有正確發揮其功能并且需要激進式的改革，農業環境計劃能夠并且為農田及生物產生很好的效果，但如果成員國承諾正確使用--否則這只是一個只花錢沒有結果的事情。

    一些歐盟國家政府明顯沒有準備好對他們的農業部門進行激烈的游說。如果他們持續進一步推脫農業環境計劃，這對生物多樣化毫無益處的，布魯塞爾可以把他們推出局外。