1. WFD issues in rural development within the EU states
Thomas Dworak
Ecologic Institute- Vienna
Presentation to SSG Brussels, 19 March 2009

2. Table of Content Aim of the study Background CAP Reform
Rural Development
RD - Share of public budget
Overview of RDR measures related to water
Public budget for Agri-environmental Measures (Art 39)
Public budget for Modernising farms (Art 26)
Conclusions
Brussels, 19 March 2009

3. 1. Aim of the study
Summary of an in-depth assessment of RD-programmes as regards to water management in the EU 27 Member States
Brussels, 19 March 2009

4. 2. Background
Agriculture is one of the major causes of water degradation in the EU
Agriculture strongly depends on existing water resources and water quality. There are strong interlinkages between agricultural practices, water quality and quantity
The primary goal of the WFD is to achieve “good status” of all waters, however agricultural practices may impede reaching this goal
CAP is a mirror of the increasing political interest in the conservation of natural landscapes and its resources
How are the current RDPs likely to affect water resources?
Brussels, 19 March 2009

5. 3. CAP Reform Production based CAP established 1962
Latest “Health check” reforms finalised in 2009
Key elements of last reforms:
2003
Single Farm Payment: decoupling of subsidies from production & conditional on “cross-compliance”
Modulation: redirecting money from pillar 1 to pillar 2 from direct payments to rural development
New Rural Development Regulation
2009 Health Check
Increased modulation between pillar 1 and 2
New & Simplified “cross-compliance” rules
New challenges: climate change, renewable energies, water management
Brussels, 19 March 2009

6. 4. Rural Development 2007-2013 Axis I Competitivness
Minimum 10% EAFRD
Minimum 25% EFARD
Minimum 10% EFRAD
Freedom for member-state
L E A D E R 5%
Axis II Environment + Land Management
Axis III
Economic Diver. + Quality of Life
Brussels, 19 March 2009

7. 4. Rural Development
1. EU Strategic Guidelines establish the Community Priorities for the period
A strategic approach
2. National Strategies reflect EU-priorities according to the situation in the Member State concerned
3. Establishment of national or regional programmes on the basis of SWOT analysis
The current RDR:
Offers MSs and regions series 26 measures
Target 3 main domains of intervention
agricultural restructuring
environment / land management
wider rural development
LEADER (method to implement local development strategies)
National Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) and measures submitted by MSs
co-financed by EAGGF and MS
4. Programme implementation accompanied by monitoring and evaluation “ongoing evaluation” based on a Community framework
Brussels, 19 March 2009

8. 5. RD - Share of public budget
Financial split between 4 Axes shows priorities of MS and ability to address water issues
Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Sweden and UK spend more than 50% of public expenditure on Axis 2 “Environment”
Belgium (> 50%), Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal and Spain spend more than 40% and less than 50% of public expenditure on axis 1.
Brussels, 19 March 2009

9. 6. Overview of RDR measures related to water
All 4 axes offer possibilities to protect water:
At least 21 out of 37 measures can be used
Axis 1: water quality and quantity issues can be addressed in the context of farm investments (e.g. Irrigation, machinery).
Axis 2: several environmental measures to improve water quality (e.g. Agri-env. Measures)
Axis 3: Investments for non-agricultural activities (e.g. sewer systems in small villages)
Brussels, 19 March 2009

10. 6. Overview of RDP measures related to water
Measures with focus on the improvement of rural areas’ economic situation
Adding value to agricultural products (code 123)
Agricultural and forestry infrastructure (Code 125)
Tourism activities (Code 313)
Basic Services (Code 321)
Village renewal and development (Code 322)
Measures addressing economic or environmental depending on the MS
Training, information (code 111)
Use of advisory services (code 114)
Modernisation of agricultural holdings (code 121)
Restoration and prevention actions (code 126)
Axis 1
Brussels, 19 March 2009

11. 6. Overview of RDP measures related to water
Axis 2
Measures primarily reducing environmental costs
NATURA 2000 on agricultural land and the WFD (Code 213)
Agri-Environmental measures (Code 214)
Non productive investments on agricultural land (Code 216)
First afforestation of agricultural land (Code 221)
First afforestation of non-agricultural land (Code 223)
Natura 2000 payments on forest land (code 224)
Forest-environment payments (Code 225)
Non-productive investments on forest land (Code 227)
Natural handicap payments (code 211, 212)
Measures addressing economic or environmental depending on the MS
First establishment of agroforestry systems (code 222)
Recovery of forestry potentials (code 226)
Brussels, 19 March 2009

12. 6. Overview RDP measures related to water
Axis 3
Measures primarily reducing environmental costs
Conservation and upgrading of the rural heritage (Code 323)
Measures with focus on the improvement of rural areas’ economic situation
Tourism activities (Code 313)
Basic Services (Code 321)
Village renewal and development (Code 322)
Brussels, 19 March 2009

13. 7. Overview of RDP measures related to water
RDPs takes into account regional differences  production traditions and methods, farm size and natural conditions
In Mediterranean rural areas measures focus on increasing efficiency by reducing inputs (e.g. water) to improve competitiveness
Baltic states focus on reducing the leakage of nutrients to the Baltic sea
In new MS measures focus on improving and securing current situation by strengthening non-agricultural activities
Brussels, 19 March 2009

14. 7. Overview of RDP measures related to water
Main water issues mentioned
Water quantity: most efforts target irrigation efficiency
Water quality: target Nitrate and pesticide pollution
Two measures most prominent as regards budget, water and geographic distribution. They are:
Agri-environmental measures (Art 39 - code 214)
Modernisation of agricultural holdings (Art 26 - code 121)
Brussels, 19 March 2009

15. 8. The importance of Agri-environmental Measures (214)
Brussels, 19 March 2009

16. 7. The importance of Agri-environmental Measures (214)
Multi-purpose measures:
Land use change covers activities for the conversion of arable land into grassland
Buffer zones include the of establishment of riparian zones, buffer strips or any other zone that set restrictions on fertiliser/PPP use and have requirements linked to spraying dates and/or techniques, limited grazing and livestock access
Promotion of extensive grazing, extensive livestock production and/or extensive grassland use
Brussels, 19 March 2009

17. 7. The importance of Agri-environmental Measures (214)
Input reduction:
Nutrients reduction, e.g. limits in fertiliser use (time and type), nutrient balances on farm level, crop rotation plans, catch crops
Pesticide reduction in all farming practices, e.g. limits in pesticide use
Restriction pesticide use for specific crops
Organic farming: input reduction, rotation, extensification of livestock. This measure is applied in all MS
Integrated farming schemes
Soil erosion measures combine measures such as stocking limits and maintaining terracing and soil cover
Specific protection measures for wetlands
Water saving measures
Brussels, 19 March 2009

18. 9. Public budget for Modernising farms (Art. 26)
Brussels, 19 March 2009

19. 9. Conclusions Avoiding negative effects: Effectiveness:
Are institutional arrangements in place to ensure that safe guard mechanisms are operational?
Develop systems of control that consider the sustainability of water resources and economic sustainability. One way could be the development of approaches that do not focus on micro-economic level but rather on the level of a region/basin.
Effectiveness:
Success in the implementation of measures will depend on the uptake of measures by farmers
Improvements are needed in RDP monitoring system, so that the cost effectiveness of the measures can be identified
Brussels, 19 March 2009

20. 9. Conclusions Currently the WFD and the RDR have different timetables
Assessments providing more geographical information
An in-depth assessment should be carried out to identify potential synergies between the RD controls and the monitoring system established under the WFD
LEADER has no detailed and systematically assessment as regard to water. An assessment could identify best practice examples to find local solutions between the water managers and farmers.
Brussels, 19 March 2009

21. 9. Conclusions The Health Check proposed new measures:
Most sensitive issue as regard to water management is the proposed funding for water storage (including water overflow areas) un
Adaption to Climate change
Further development of energy crops. This can increase or decrease environmental pressures.
 Design of new measures should be considering the risks to water.
Brussels, 19 March 2009

22. Thank you for listening!
Thomas Dworak
Ecologic Institute - Vienna,
Auhofstrasse 4/7, AT-1130 Vienna
Brussels, 19 March 2009