Reacción a "Reactions: Analysis of 2013 data estimates that most CAP funds go to emissions-intensive animal production"

My first reaction is indignation. With data from 10 years ago, the article should have been titled to the past (supported) and not to the present.  

Since then, [2013] there have been changes in the CAP, some as important as the eco-schemes, which are intended to promote environmentally friendly practices. Now, let's talk about the methodology. CAP direct payments are divided into two main groups: decoupled payments, i.e. payments that are not linked to a specific crop or animal, and coupled payments.  

With the latter, it is easy to find out where they go. With the former, which account for the bulk of the budget, the farmer grows what he wants or what he can. What the article shows is that European farmers continue to grow mostly crops adapted to the climate zone in which they are located, mainly cereals, rapeseed and sunflower. With decoupling, crops such as cotton, beet, alfalfa, flax and hemp have lost importance in favour of cereals and oilseeds, but also (and importantly) forestry. 

As far as livestock farming is concerned, it is precisely the productions without coupled aid, such as pig and poultry farming, which are growing. Once again, using a single year, not just an old one, but a single year, prevents us from seeing the overall picture: despite the aid they receive, beef cattle, sheep and lamb and goat farming are all declining. The only one that is growing, and to a more limited extent than pigs and poultry, is dairy farming. 

Old data, referring to a single year, obviating the productive and political dynamics of the last 10 years, are limitations that do not match the ambition of the article. To this can be added other specific errors, such as stating that one of the objectives of the CAP is food sovereignty, which is erroneous, since the objective in this respect is security of supply, which is something quite different.  

Let us now turn to the central thesis. The authors are right when they say that yesterday's CAP direct payments (but also today's) are not aimed at promoting the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, nor (I add) at promoting healthier diets.  

It is true that a growing part of this aid has a greater environmental focus and respect for animal welfare through, among other things, the cross-compliance of aid, it is true that a social component will gradually be introduced into this cross-compliance, but it is also true that much remains to be done to bring all European policies (including investment aid) into line with the objective of adapting to and mitigating climate change.