Publications Agriculture and food

Will the obligation of environmental results green the CAP?

19 June 2020 - Climate Report - By : Thomas BONVILLAIN / Claudine FOUCHEROT / Valentin BELLASSEN

One of the main elements of the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for the 2021-2027 exercise is the shift of part of the funding towards an obligation to achieve environmental results. Is that an expensive development? Environmentally effective? In order to answer these questions, this I4CE study analyses numerous mechanisms, more or less oriented towards performance obligation. 

 

First of all, the study shows that the distinction between the obligation of means and the obligation of result, or performance obligation, is too manichean. Pure performance requirements in the environmental field never really exist, the practical examples are placed on a continuum of more or less fine estimated results.

 

Estimating the costs of six schemes located on this continuum (Green Payment, Agro-Environmental and Climate Measure, aid for conversion to organic farming, High Environmental Value label and two carbon certification standards) then allows several conclusions to be drawn. First of all, the obligation of result is not necessarily more costly than the obligation of means: AECM for example, generally considered as obligations of means, is more expensive to administer than carbon certification frameworks, considered as obligations of results. The genericity of the system plays an essential role, allowing the costs of design and monitoring to be spread over a large number of farmers.

 

Secondly, with regard to the effectiveness of the instrument in terms of environmental impact, moving towards an obligation of result does not seem to be decisive as such. However, two factors are crucial: the ambition of the scheme and the level of requirement on additionality, for example by making the subsidy conditional on an improvement over an initial state.

 

Finally, the specific interest of the transition to the obligation of results seems to be the facilitation of the CAP environmental assessment, which would make it possible to redirect subsidies, if necessary, in the light of these impact data which are currently lacking.

 

The CAP reform opens up the possibility of introducing new types of payments under the 1st pillar eco-scheme and, in particular, carbon certification frameworks. They pay a lot of attention to the issue of additionality. Being neither more costly to put in place nor less effective than a AECM-type instrument, they could make their appearance within the CAP. The example of support for organic farming shows that supporting CAP support on external labels is not without precedent.

 

Thomas Bonvillain explains, in two minutes, the main lessons of this study. A video to watch in order to understand what the obligation of results under the CAP is and the interest it arouses.

 

To learn more
  • 01/23/2026 Foreword of the week
    Financing carbon farming practices: lessons learnt in France can reinforce the EU level initiatives

    In a challenging economic and political context, especially for the agriculture sector, some incentive schemes can still help bring stakeholders together in climate transition and resilience initiatives. This is the case with carbon certification schemes, which both ensure the credibility of the climate impact of the actions implemented and provide remuneration for farmers and foresters for changes in practices. Some of these measures, such as replacing mineral fertilisers (mostly imported) with organic fertilisers, also help to meet the sector’s needs for resilience and strategic independence, which are crucial in the current context.

  • 01/16/2026 Blog post
    CBAM and fertilisers: ring-fencing budgets to help farmers reduce their use of mineral fertilisers

    The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) came into force on 1 January 2026. It is a carbon tax applied at the borders of the European Union to imports of certain industrial products covered by the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS). Nitrogen-based mineral fertilisers are included in this initial list of products. To avoid an increase in costs for the farmers concerned, the level of the tax has been reduced for fertilisers, and they may even be temporarily excluded from the scope of the CBAM. Yet, for the climate, but also for France’s strategic independence and food sovereignty, the CBAM will ultimately have to be fully applied to mineral fertilisers. To limit or even avoid an increase in farmers’ fertiliser expenditure, we need public policies – some of which are currently under threat. Ring-fencing budgets for these policies would be a way to support farmers’ incomes and the food sovereignty of both the European Union and France, while reducing the carbon footprint of our food system. 

  • 06/12/2025
    Six years of carbon certification in France: an assessment of the Label Bas-Carbone

    Six years after its inception, this study aims to review this mechanism and its projects: what activities are being implemented in the field, what impact are they having on the climate, with what robustness or, on the contrary, what limitations in terms of measurement, environmental integrity, accessibility, etc.? This exercise is also intended to feed into the process of continuous improvement of the scheme and to provide feedback for the current implementation of the European carbon certification framework (Carbon removals and carbon farming: CRCF).

See all publications
Press contact Amélie FRITZ Head of Communication and press relations Email
Subscribe to our mailing list :
I register !
Subscribe to our newsletter
Once a week, receive all the information on climate economics
I register !
Fermer