The European Commission is committed to tracking the expenditure of public money on climate, biodiversity and clean air. Some limitations have been highlighted in the current methodologies used to track CAP expenditure, and this study aims to provide recommendations on alternative methodologies. The approach considered in this study is based on the identification of the farming practices linked to the different CAP interventions and on the assessment of the impacts of these practices on the environment and climate. It allows for higher granularity compared to the current methodology, greater use of scientific evidence, and harmonisation of the different methodologies. However, some limits remain due to the challenges in assessing the impacts of all CAP interventions at the EU level with a methodology reproducible each year. Based on the methodology developed in this study, 33% of the CAP interventions are positive for climate (versus 41% with the current methodology), 39% are positive for biodiversity (versus 17%), and 21% are positive for clean air (versus 1%). Budget tracking methodologies only assess positive impacts (negative impacts are not considered); thus, these data must be considered with caution and do not reflect the complete picture of CAP impacts on the environment and climate.
Chever et al. (Wed,) studied this question.