cultivar_22_Final_EN

CAP post-2020: improving environmental protection while preserving the necessary competitiveness 53 possible to better legitimise the CAP in the eyes of the society as a whole. However, the operationality of the con- cept is still partial, mainly due to the difficulty in associat- ing a value to services, the dependence of the latter on agricultural practices and sys- tems, economic and environmental conditions, and the variability of that value according to the prefer- ences of stakeholders. Consequently, there is a huge need for research, experimentation and innovation. This relates in particular to the issues of identifica- tion, measurement (including the causal relation- ships between implemented practices and systems and the levels of services and disservices; these relationships also vary according to temporal and spatial contexts), and valuation (depending on the preferences of stakeholders). The approach based on packages of services in a given territory naturally raises the question of the rules for aggregating single services/disservices, as well as the delimitation of the relevant territories. Given the environmental importance of this territorial dimension, it is recommended that the post- 2020 CAP should encourage the implementation of terri- torial pilot projects (experiments) that would make it possible to collect valuable information on the causal relationships between policy instruments, practices and systems, and impacts regarding all services relating to the three dimensions of sustain- able development. The shift from an essentially individual CAP to a much more collective and territorial one is a chal- lenge. This territorialisation does not mean the end of a common policy on a EU scale, and in this context it is relevant to better distin- guish between, on the one hand, global public goods that require funding and governance on a European scale, and, on the other hand, local public goods that will be better managed through co-financing and co-governance on a smaller geographical scale. But even within this framework, there is nothing to prevent (in fact, quite the opposite is true) global environmental concerns, such as the fight against climate change or the preservation of biodiversity, from being taken into account in territorial projects, by adapting the measures to this scale according to the specificities of the territories. The question also arises as to the appropriateness of penalising dis- services: if remuneration, whether non-market (by the taxpayer) or market (by the intermediate or final user), for ecosystem services provided by farmers is in line with the beneficiary-pays principle, its coun- terpart, i.e. penalising disser- vices generated by agricul- tural activities in application of the polluter-pays principle, deserves to be examined, if only for the sake of the coherence and legitimacy of public policies. In this context, it is possible to ensure that the application of the polluter-pays principle does not penalise, or hardly penalises, the competitiveness of European agriculture, for instance by retaining the proceeds of the tax within the agricultural sector, and redis- tributing them from the bad to the good performers according to a bonus-malus system; also by apply- ing border adjustment mechanisms for greenhouse gas emissions and the biodiversity. … the difficulty in associating a value to services, the dependence of the latter on agricultural practices and systems, economic and environmental conditions, and the variability of that value according to the preferences of stakeholders. The shift from an essentially individual CAP to a much more collective and territorial one is a challenge.