Agenda item:
Title: WFD and Agriculture. Progress report
Version no.: 1.1 Date: 19 May 2006
Author(s): G. Crosnier (EC) & P. Petersen (DEFRA)
The progress report is attached.
For information, the results of the questionnaire on the programmes of measures are also attached.
The Water Directors are invited to:
a) Note the activity’s progress
b) Endorse the 3 background papers on water pricing, cross-compliance and co-operation
c) Give indications on the general "tone" of the synthesis of the activity (factual/political)
d) Give first indications on the possible continuation of the activity for 2007-09, including the question of co-leading.
Contact:
G. Crosnier (EC) () and Poul Petersen(DEFRA) ()
WFD AND AGRICULTURE
Progress report in June 2006
1- Current state of play
With the organisation of 2 conferences (London and Vienna) and the production of 5 background papers, the SSG is well advanced in the technical analysis of the situation. In particular, some key messages are emerging:
· Agricultural pressures have a significant impact on water resources and pose one of the biggest challenges to meeting WFD objectives,
· Recognition of the added-value of co-operation between the different competent authorities and stakeholders, especially at the local scale,
· Recognition of water pricing as a potential tool for implementing WFD in certain cases,
· Limited help to expect from the 2003 reformed CAP.
Regarding the reformed CAP, the following points have been stressed:
1) Rural development
Rural development programmes are unanimously considered to be a very potentially powerful instrument to support the implementation of the WFD. However, limited budgets combined with the large extent of agriculture pressures, and competing priorities, will restrain considerably the results this instrument might deliver.
2) Cross-compliance
Limited results are also to be expected from the cross-compliance standards, mainly for 2 reasons: a) the standards do not cover all the WFD aspects; b) the existing legislation is not implemented with the same rigor in all MS.
The background paper on cross-compliance also describes a general process for enforcing the scheme on water issues as well as the different options available to do so.
2- Next steps
The main findings of this technical analysis will be valorised with the production of a synthesis report that will be presented to Water Directors in November 2006. That synthesis may be purely factual (i.e. purely technical) or it can start exploring different policy options (bearing in mind the SSG is also composed also consist of members of the "agriculture community"). Therefore, clear indications from the Water Directors are now needed to guide the draft of the synthesis.
Beyond 2006, using the 2007-09 period of the "CAP health check" (an expression favoured by Mrs. Fischer-Boel), we believe the continuation of the activity can be an opportunity for providing DG AGRI with inputs during this crucial time.
Warsaw Agricultural University
WFD and Agriculture Linkages at the EU Level
The Development of WFD –
Programmes of Measures under the Light of Agriculture
Results of a Questionnaire
addressed to the Water Directors and the Pilot River Basins
15/05/2006
Prepared by:
Katrina Marsden (Ecologic)
Thomas Dworak (Ecologic)
Nadine Herbke (Ecologic)
The Development of WFD - Programmes of Measures under the Light of Agriculture
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors gratefully acknowledge financial participation from the European Community under the Sixth Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities for the Specific Support Action “CAP&WFD” SSPE-CT-2005-006618.
Ecologic and the Warsaw Agricultural University would like to thank all experts of the Environment and the Agriculture and Rural Development Directorates-General of the European Commission, the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and all national experts for supporting us and helping us prepare this document.
DISCLAIMER
Please note: The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the author(s) and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission or individual Member States.
Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of the information contained herein.
The information compiled in this paper is subject to rapid change.
The information presented is the status as of May 2006.
Contents
1 Introduction and Background 1
2 Selection of Measures 2
2.1 Basic Measures 2
2.2 Supplementary Measures 2
2.3 Targeting 3
2.4 Control and Enforcement 3
2.5 Use of Cross Compliance and Rural Development for WFD 4
2.6 Sources of Funding 4
2.7 Exemptions 4
Annex: Examples for Basic and Supplementary Measures 5
The Development of WFD - Programmes of Measures under the Light of Agriculture
Introduction and Background
The Water Framework Directive (WFD) entered into force in December 2000 and aims to achieve the “good status” of all waters in the Community by 2015. Following from these objectives, river basin management plans including summaries of programmes of measures should be drawn. The programmes of measures (PoMs) can be considered as the principal mechanism for the implementation of the environmental objectives of the WFD, and must be developed for each river basin district by 2008 to tackle specific pressures on waters.
Water pollution has been recognised as the main environmental problem caused by agriculture. Pollution of water destined for human consumption was the initial concern of the EC. The latest reform of the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in 2003 increases the opportunities for the implementation of the WFD.
In view of contributing to the currently ongoing policy making process under the CAP and the WFD implementation, a questionnaire addressing the issue of the PoM specifically in respect to agriculture, was sent to all EU Water Directors as well as to the Pilot River Basins (PRB). Answers from 19 Member States (MS) and three River Basins were received by the European Commission, DG Environment.
The questionnaire aimed to gather first information on basic and supplementary measures tackling agricultural pressures within the MS and Pilot River Basins and further to identify the most popular measures in the EU. This should help to highlight and allow further enhancement of the linkages between the CAP and the WFD.
The specific aims of the questionnaire were to:
· strengthen the development of new instruments to support the WFD. (e.g. if some technical measures are similar throughout the EU, this information could be used to trigger a discussion at EU level in order to make best use of an instrument to support those measures);
· provide information that may have consequences on the budget negotiation of the 2006- 2013 Rural Development Programmes in the individual MS (the criteria on Community level are fixed in Art. 69 (4) of R 1698/05);
· support the design of the detailed rules of Art. 38 Rural Development Regulation (payments linked to the WFD);
· support the review of the Cross Compliance Regulation in 2007.
This document gives an qualitative overview of the results to be distributed to the member states. The individual member states are not named in the summary as the purpose is to allow member states to discover what others are doing and identify possibilities which may be useful for their own PoMs.
Selection of Measures
Basic Measures
The amount of information provided by Member States on their programmes of measures varied enormously, perhaps reflecting their preparedness. Where basic measures were linked to a European Directive, this was most often the Nitrates Directive, though measures were also commonly linked to Birds and Habitats Directives, the Sewage Sludge Directive and in a few cases the Bathing Water and IPPC Directives. Some member states have already started to prepare “catalogues of measures”. These vary from describing individual measures such as buffer zone establishment, to lists of the regulations and national programmes which should be implemented (e.g. cross compliance). There seems to be a greater concentration on technical measures (mostly buffer stripes/zones) rather than instruments though a few countries described pesticide and fertiliser taxes as part of their basic measures.
Examples for basic measures derived from the questionnaire are listed in the Annex of the summary document.
The most commonly quoted measures were those to reduce the effects and use of nitrates. In particular, buffer zones, manure storage and spreading, measures to reduce nitrate leaching and reduction of the amount of nitrates in fertilisers seemed to be particularly common. Measures to reduce the amount of phosphorous reaching water bodies were also fairly common and the use of sewage sludge was also mentioned by some Member States.
Measures to address hydromorphological problems were less usual. However, re-establishing natural river patterns and flood planes were listed by a number of Member States. Though abstraction was mentioned by a couple of the southern Member States, it did not seem to figure highly for the majority. Most Member States did not describe potential benefits for media other than water. Those that did, commonly quoted benefits to soil erosion and biodiversity. One member states also mentioned benefits to the climate through greenhouse gas emissions reductions.
Since the basic measures are meant to reach the requirements of existing legislation, many of the measures listed have been carried out by Member States (particularly in the case of the EU-15) since the 1990s. The measures are therefore well established and the costs of individual measures known. Few estimates were made for the costs of the whole set of measures however. Those that were varied greatly (50 to over 300m€) depending on how broad a definition had been given to actions affecting water quality and how much the Member State needed to do to reach “good status”.
Supplementary Measures
Unsurprisingly, even less information was available about supplementary measures as most Member States intend to first implement basic measures and then work out what further action is needed. A number of Member States intended to include voluntary agri-environmental programmes for farmers as part of their supplementary measures thus having the opportunity to make use of further Rural Development funding. Some Member States intended to use instruments such as taxes and charges more as part of the supplementary measures. The importance of educational initiatives were also mentioned by most.
A list of examples for supplementary measures derived from the questionnaire is provided in the Annex of the summary document.
It appears that so far, no Member State has completed studies on the total costs and benefits of implementation of the programme of measures. However, most Member States intend to carry out such studies though they seem to be at very different stages. Some have plans to carry out such studies in the future while for others, research on cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is well under way, for example, a Member State has developed an environmental costing model converted from a previously created model to estimate the costs and benefits of the reduction of atmospheric emissions. Another Member State is developing a database of generic cost information.
Targeting
In order to target the areas where agricultural activity has a particularly high impacts on water, most Member States use a variety of maps showing different variables. Land-use and groundwater maps were commonly used as a starting point. Other data which was found to be useful was the European soil database, the Corine Land Cover assessment, erosion and vulnerability maps, pressure/ risk maps produced for WFD basin characterisation, agricultural statistics and locations of national and European designated protected areas. Smaller scale studies were also carried out by some Member States in pilot areas.
Some Member States used particular models to process data collected. Models mentioned included the SENTWA (System for the evaluation of the nutrient transport to surface water) model to simulates nutrient emissions from agriculture to surface water; the PEGASE-model, used to calculate the chemical quality of the river system; RAUMIS; MONERIS and GROWA-WEKU. Less specifically other countries used tools for screening diffuse pollution and modelling on a catchment scale including nutrient budgeting was also used.
Some countries also included socio-economic criteria in their targeting. Risk assessments and CEA were carried out by a few Member States and a number mentioned stakeholder consultation and counselling.
Control and Enforcement
Most countries stated that as the Programmes of Measures were sourced generally from existing legislation, there were already monitoring, control and enforcement systems in place for a variety of directives and agri-environmental schemes. These could be carried out by a number of actors. Environment departments or agencies were responsible in a number of countries. In others, responsibility was divided with agricultural departments and water authorities often having a share.
Monitoring of groundwater and surface water quality was often carried out. Biodiversity monitoring was also described as relevant by a number of Member States. It was mentioned however that the existing control systems were not always effective and additional controls would need to be put in place. The difficulties in establishing a relationship between pollution and polluter for diffuse pollution was also touched upon.
Inspection and monitoring systems mentioned included those linked with agri-environmental scheme, WFD, cross-compliance, the number of prosecutions carried out against farmers, agri-environmental scheme take-up, monitoring for protected areas, Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZ) action programmes and required reporting for them, surveys of farm practice, cost-effectiveness analysis, environmental impact assessments. Training of farmers was also mentioned by one Member State in this section.
Responses varied widely between countries and gave impression that some countries had much more work to do than others. In particular, while most of the EU-15 already had systems in place for monitoring compliance with many directives or agri-environmental schemes, the new Member States seemed, overall, less satisfied with the schemes in place in their countries.
Use of Cross Compliance and Rural Development for WFD
Most Member States were undecided as to whether potential supplementary measures would be made mandatory under Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC). Many Member States were also unsure if potential supplementary measures would be included in the national Rural Development programme; however generally the answers were more positive and depending on the funding situation, many countries intend to include them Around 40% intended to fund basic measures making use of the Rural Development funds and over 50% intended to fund the supplementary measures partially in this way. Article 38 (Natura 2000 and WFD payments) was mentioned as being a means to fund basic measures and 21 (training), 39 (agri-environmental payments), 57 (conservation and upgrading the rural heritage) were mentioned as useful for the supplementary measures. However, most Member States seemed to be in a fairly early stage of considering funding sources and had not got as far as considering relevant articles.