Who gains from saving nature
Ledger 1 : 33 — For each dollar financing nature-based solutions in 2023, about $33 financed activities harmful to nature. (UNEP)
Cases / Finance, funds and markets · European Union · 2014–2021

EU Common Agricultural Policy: climate and farmland biodiversity spending audited by the European Court of Auditors

Short record: the main facts, with sources. A full case file has not been prepared.

Nature's voice · report
Over; more than a quarter of the total CAP budget; attributed by the Commission 100 billion euros were budgeted in my name. When it was measured, no benefit to me was found.
Did nature suffer? Not measured.
What the record lacks: 1 not measured · 1 unclear See the gaps

The European Court of Auditors reported in June 2021 that the Commission had attributed over €100 billion of Common Agricultural Policy funds to climate action in 2014–2020, that this had little impact on agricultural emissions, and that emissions had not changed significantly since 2010. In June 2020 it reported that the policy's contribution had not halted the decline of biodiversity on farmland.

Over €100 billionCAP funds attributed to climate by the Commission, 2014–2020
As stated by the European Court of Auditors in Special Report 16/2021, which found that this funding "had little impact on agricultural emissions, which have not changed significantly since 2010".

Status As of October 2026: the ECA's two special reports (June 2020 and June 2021) are the audit findings on record; no later follow-up is in the sources reviewed.

What?
The ECA audited Common Agricultural Policy spending made for climate and for biodiversity on farmland and reported that the funds attributed to climate had little impact on agricultural emissions, which had not changed significantly since 2010, and that the CAP's contribution to biodiversity had not halted the decline. European Court of Auditors
Where?
European Union (CAP spending across the Member States). European Court of Auditors
When?
CAP climate attribution and biodiversity plan 2014–2020; ECA Special Report 13/2020 published 5 June 2020 and Special Report 16/2021 published 21 June 2021. Council of the European Union
Who?
Gained
None on record
Lost
None on record
Harmed
  • Biodiversity on farmland in the EU — The ECA's report is titled "CAP contribution has not halted the decline"; since 1990 farmland bird and grassland butterfly populations had decreased by more than 30%, according to the ECA press release. European Court of Auditors
Why?
The CAP funds were attributed to climate (2014–2020) and planned for biodiversity on farmland, in the context of the EU's commitment to halt biodiversity loss by 2020 and its objective of climate neutrality by 2050. European Court of Auditors
How?
Two special reports of the European Court of Auditors, an external audit body of the EU. European Court of Auditors
6 of 6 questions answered from the record

What happened

The record, in order.

The European Court of Auditors (ECA) published two special reports on Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) spending made in the name of biodiversity and the climate. Special Report 13/2020, "Biodiversity on farmland: CAP contribution has not halted the decline", was adopted on 19 May 2020 and published on 5 June 2020. The ECA stated that for 2014–2020 the Commission planned to spend 8.1% of the EU budget (€86 billion) on biodiversity, of which 77% (€66 billion) was to come from the CAP.

The ECA found that the formulation of the agriculture target in the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 made it difficult to measure progress, and that the Commission's tracking of CAP spending for biodiversity was unreliable. It reported that, where known, the effect of CAP direct payments, 70% of EU agriculture spending, on farmland biodiversity was limited, and that the Commission and Member States had favoured low-impact options. According to ARC2020, the Commission accepted all of the ECA's recommendations.

Special Report 16/2021, "Common Agricultural Policy and climate", was adopted on 7 June 2021; according to a Council note it was published on 21 June 2021. The ECA stated that the Commission attributed over €100 billion, more than a quarter of the total CAP budget, to mitigating and adapting to climate change during 2014–2020. It found that this funding "had little impact on agricultural emissions, which have not changed significantly since 2010", that most mitigation measures supported by the CAP had a low potential to mitigate climate change, and that the Commission had not set a specific emission-reduction target for the funds reported on climate action.

The ECA also reported that livestock emissions, around half of agricultural emissions, had been stable since 2010 and that the CAP did not seek to limit livestock numbers, and that the CAP supported farmers who cultivate drained peatlands, which emit 20% of EU-27 agricultural greenhouse gases.

  1. 2014Start of the 2014–2020 period in which, according to the ECA, the Commission attributed over €100 billion of CAP funds to climate action and planned €66 billion of CAP funds for biodiversity.
  2. 20205 June: the ECA published Special Report 13/2020 on the CAP and farmland biodiversity (adopted 19 May 2020).
  3. 202121 June: the ECA published Special Report 16/2021 on CAP climate spending (adopted 7 June 2021).

What was said

Claims, in the words of those who made them.

“had little impact on agricultural emissions, which have not changed significantly since 2010”

European Court of Auditors, on the €100 billion of CAP funds attributed to climate action (Special Report 16/2021, executive summary) · 2021-06-21 · European Court of Auditors

“Emissions have not declined further since 2010.”

European Court of Auditors, on greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture (Special Report 16/2021) · 2021-06-21 · European Court of Auditors

“the Commission's tracking of CAP spending for biodiversity is unreliable”

How it looked

What was shown, beside what was recorded.

Shown

    Recorded

    • The ECA stated that the Commission attributed over €100 billion of CAP funds, more than a quarter of the total CAP budget, to climate change mitigation and adaptation in 2014–2020, and found that this had little impact on agricultural emissions, which had not changed significantly since 2010.
      European Court of Auditors
    • The ECA found that the Commission's tracking of CAP spending for biodiversity was unreliable, that the effect of CAP direct payments on farmland biodiversity was limited where known, and that the Commission and Member States had favoured low-impact options.
      European Court of Auditors
    • The ECA stated that for 2014–2020 the Commission planned to spend 8.1% of the EU budget (€86 billion) on biodiversity, of which 77% (€66 billion) was to come from the CAP.
      European Court of Auditors

    In nature's name

    What was promised in nature's name, the money that moved, and what was measured.

    Money moved in nature's name

    WhatKindAmountPeriod
    CAP funds attributed to climate by the Commission
    EU Common Agricultural Policy
    European Court of Auditors    		Budget€100bn2014–2020
    CAP funding planned for biodiversity (ECA Special Report 13/2020)
    EU Common Agricultural Policy
    European Court of Auditors    		Budget€66bn2014–2020

    What was measured

    Measured; no benefit found

    The European Court of Auditors, an external audit body, reported that the CAP funds attributed to climate action "had little impact on agricultural emissions, which have not changed significantly since 2010" and that the CAP's contribution to biodiversity on farmland "has not halted the decline". The ECA's reports are audits of the policy's design and tracking; no measurement by the programme's operator is relied on.

    Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture
    Have not changed significantly since 2010
    ECA Special Report 16/2021, June 2021 European Court of Auditors
    Biodiversity decline on farmland
    Not halted
    ECA Special Report 13/2020, June 2020; the Commission's tracking of this spending found unreliable European Court of Auditors

    Findings on record

    • Official audit European Court of Auditors (2021-06-21) · Special Report 16/2021: “had little impact on agricultural emissions, which have not changed significantly since 2010” European Court of Auditors
    • Official audit European Court of Auditors (2020-06-05) · Special Report 13/2020: “has not halted the decline” European Court of Auditors

    Who gained

    Money that reached nature, beside money that stayed elsewhere.

    Reached nature or the ground

    Not published
    CAP funds attributed to climate by the Commission (ECA Special Report 16/2021)€100bn
    CAP funding planned for biodiversity (ECA Special Report 13/2020)€66bn

    Gained elsewhere

    Not totalled
    Currency: EUR · Window: 2014–2020. All figures cover the same period. * Estimate built from cited figures.

    Responses on record

    • european-commission: Accepted all of the recommendations of Special Report 13/2020, according to ARC2020. · ARC2020

    In court and with insurers

    Every proceeding and every insurer decision on record.

    Lawsuits and rulings

    No court case on record. No court has ruled on this case.

    Insurers

    No insurer decision on record.

    What nature saw

    Outcomes measured on the ground, and nature's note.

    Nature's report opens this page. Below: further outcomes measured on the ground.

    Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture
    Have not changed significantly since 2010
    ECA Special Report 16/2021
    Biodiversity decline on farmland
    Not halted
    ECA Special Report 13/2020

    What we don't know

    Undisclosed, unproven, untried: recorded as data.
    Official audit finding

    Nature

    • Not measured Harm to nature: The record holds no measurement of harm to nature.

    Record

    • Unclear Insufficient: the ECA found that the Commission's tracking of CAP spending on biodiversity was unreliable (Special Report 13/2020), so the amount actually spent for biodiversity is not established by the report.

    Did the harm stop?

    Not stated in the sources reviewed.

    Who paid?

    The money came from the EU Common Agricultural Policy, as the ECA reports describe it.

    Sources

    Voices on record: — Company or project— Government and regulators— Courts✓ Press and investigations— Communities and civil society— Researchers✓ International bodies

    Press and investigations

    International bodies

    Connected cases

    Related matters, and cases linked to this one through the same organisations, with the role each played in both.
    Terms used on this page

    Science and environment

    Peatland
    Wetland where layers of partly decayed plant matter build up over centuries and store large amounts of carbon.

    Carbon and conservation finance

    Standard-setter and registry
    An organisation that writes the rules for carbon credits, approves projects, and records when credits are issued and retired. Such bodies typically charge fees per credit.
    Similar cases
    Finance, funds and markets · Green claim · Green subsidy or budget claim · United States · 2011–2021
    Mantria and DC Solar: two US investment schemes sold on carbon-negative housing, biochar and solar generators
    Same type: Finance, funds and markets, Green subsidy or budget claimHarm to nature not measured
    Finance, funds and markets · Green subsidy or budget claim · Wind, hydro and other renewables · Spain · 2008–2011
    Spanish solar plants registered as complete before they were built: 1,919 administrative sanctions (2008-2011)
    Same type: Finance, funds and markets, Green subsidy or budget claimHarm to nature not measured
    Finance, funds and markets · Green subsidy or budget claim · United Kingdom · 2021
    UK Green Homes Grant: National Audit Office findings
    Same type: Finance, funds and markets, Green subsidy or budget claimHarm to nature not measured
    Finance, funds and markets · ESG / sustainable fund · Green claim · Global · 2018–2026
    Sustainable-labelled funds: assets, renaming under the EU fund-name rules, fees and impact studies
    Same type: Finance, funds and marketsSame countryHarm to nature not measured