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.

    欧盟在生态农业方面"本可以做得更好"

    据本月一报道称，本预想投放于生态项目的纳税人的数百万英磅如今却被用于破坏欧洲的农业生产。

    "本可以做得更好"是一篇报道的名称，该篇报道由皇家保护鸟类协会投资并且由Birdlife international编制， Birdlife international一直关注已由欧盟通过CAP付款的生态农业计划。

    长达46页的报道把已由欧盟成员国与CAP投资采取完的积极行动摆在突出的位置，此类行动一直帮助农民繁殖及保护生物动物。但是它也爆光了公共财政对于对环境毫无益处的项目上有时甚至会对环境产生长远的损害的开支。

    皇家保护鸟类协会农业政策负责人Gareth Morgan警告说，原则上欧盟对于野生动物的投资是一重大消息因为它支持保护生物多样化的农业环境计划--但事实是多数成员国实施此项政策的力度非常弱。

    在编制这份报告的过程当中，我们发现欧盟大量公共开支用于对环境毫无益处的农业计划上面，事实上有些还会产生对环境的破坏作用。

    整个欧洲鸟类数量在缩减并且通常这与农业活动的变化紧密相联。此类受威胁的种类对因农田紧缩而产生的居住地的变更极度敏感---西班牙帝雕居住要求就很高，大范围的植被稀疏的林地，要有很多兔子， 东欧的红脚鹰要求晴蜓多的有池塘的传统农田。南欧的林鹡伯劳要求要有生活于有多刺的灌木干涸草地的昆虫及蜥蜴。

    CAP主要投资于两点，第一点是基本的农田补助金，第二点"农业开发",致力于提高环境保护，创造沿边的农村工作及提升生活质量。这已经通过计划例如重修林地，保休耕地及确保家畜继续在脆弱的牧场地上吃草。

    CAP的开支于2007至2013年期间将达到￡330,000,000或总欧盟支出的43%.其中23%（￡76,500,000）专用于农村开发。

    Gareth 补充说：报告中明确表明CAP仍然没有正确发挥其功能并且需要激进式的改革，农业环境计划能够并且为农田及生物产生很好的效果，但如果成员国承诺正确使用--否则这只是一个只花钱没有结果的事情。

    一些欧盟国家政府明显没有准备好对他们的农业部门进行激烈的游说。如果他们持续进一步推脱农业环境计划，这对生物多样化毫无益处的，布鲁塞尔可以把他们推出局外。