Agenda item:
Title: WFD and Agriculture. Progress report
Version no.: 1.1 Date: 14 November 2005
Author(s): G. Crosnier (EC) & J. Harris (DEFRA)
Summary
The report presents the progresses of the activity in 2005. In particular, a document on rural development programmes is presented for endorsement.
The Water Directors are invited to:
a) Take notes of the activity’s progresses
b) Take note of the main messages from the London conference on water and agriculture
c) Endorse the working paper on Rural development programmes and WFD
d) Take note that a questionnaire on the first indications regarding the content of the programmes of (“agricultural”) measures will be sent in December.
Contact:
G. Crosnier (EC) () and Judith Harris (DEFRA) ()
WFD AND AGRICULTURE
Progress report in November 2005
1- General background
The link between agriculture and WFD has been identified as one of the highest priority in the 2005-2006 work programme. This has justified starting this new activity. In particular, the working mandate focuses on examining how the reforms to the Common Agricultural Policy can contribute to the achievements of the WFD objectives and provision of guidance on how the authorities working on the WFD and the CAP can co-operate more closely. In addition, recommendations should be made on how working with the farming community can achieve these results in a co-operative manner. The activity is co-led by UK (DEFRA) and the EC (DG AGRI & DG ENV).
A strategic steering group, gathering representatives from both “water” and “agricultural” communities, met twice this year on the 25th April and 21st September 2005. A conference organised in London on 20th and 21st September 2005 was an important milestone in this activity.
1- London conference (20-21 September 2005)
A conference on water and agriculture was organised on 20-21st September in London, under the UK presidency. The overall purpose of the conference was to raise awareness for both water and agricultural communities of the linkages between agriculture and WFD. The main messages from the conference are in annex 1.
In his opening speech, the DG AGRI’s Deputy Director General made clear that the WFD implementation would be supported in the next programming period for rural development 2007-13, especially with the introduction of the directive into the compensatory payments for mandatory obligations (article 38 of the Regulation on the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development). In addition, the 2007 review of cross-compliance standards might be an opportunity to establish closer links with the WFD, if a clear demonstration is made that it is needed.
Therefore, in order to get the best of those opportunities, it is now necessary to make progress on the potential “agricultural measures” to be included in the programmes of measures. The review of the measures and their possible supportive instruments will give clear indication on the needs about the contents of the rural development programmes and the necessity for extended cross-compliance standards. The PRBs network will bring information. In that context, questionnaires will be soon addressed to the Water Directors and the PRBs in order to get as much information as possible.
2- Available deliverables
The 2005 work programme has focused on two activities: assessing the extent to which agriculture needs to contribute to the delivery of WFD objectives; helping the Member States to optimise the RD programmes to implement the WFD.
2.1 Assessing the extent of the agricultural contribution
A working document on pressures and impacts, using the results of 8 MS article 5 reports as well as the first results of JRC and EEA ongoing activities on nutrients, was presented in the London conference. This document needs to be regularly updated with additional assessments of MS article 5 reports and interim progresses of JRC and EEA projects. A final report should be available at the end of 2006.
2.2 Using Rural Development programmes
Regarding the ongoing RD agenda, the steering group agreed on the urgency of delivering recommendations on the use of RD programmes to implement the WFD. A draft paper has been sent on 12 October (annex 2) and is proposed for endorsement by the Water Directors. The paper will be also presented to the:
- STAR committee (Rural development committee) on 14th December.
- Rural Development Directors meeting (end of November).
3- 2006 Work Programme
The continuation of the work programme will focus on the use of:
- Cross-compliance standards in support of WFD implementation
- Water pricing as an incentive for better water management in agriculture.
- Other instruments like the use of new technologies
- Co-operation between water and agriculture authorities and stakeholders.
The detailed work programme is in annex 3.
ANNEX 1
WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE AND AGRICULTURE
LONDON CONFERENCE 20-21 SEPTEMBER 2005
Messages from the Conference
The challenge
1. On the first day of this Conference, we heard that many water bodies across the EU are at risk of not meeting the environmental objectives of the Water Framework Directive. One of the main causes of this is agricultural impacts on water. There are of course other reasons as well, such as hydromorphology.
2. Speakers and audience emphasized that in order to address these agricultural impacts which pose a major economic, social, environmental and political challenge, we need to know more to better establish the problem. But, we also need to take immediate action to meet the WFD timetable.
Possible solutions
3. Bearing in mind the challenge ahead of us, we discussed what could be done to deal with this challenge.
The opportunities of the Common Agricultural Policy
4. There was a general consensus that the reformed CAP was likely to have significant positive long term effect on these agricultural impacts, not least through decoupling payments to farmers from production levels. This is expected to reduce incentives for intensive production.
5. However the scale and nature of these effects are uncertain at this stage and are likely to take some years to assess. The effects are also likely to vary significantly according to sector, region and country.
6. Mandatory cross-compliance requirements are also likely to add further positive effects. The potential to contribute to the aims of the water framework directive is important given two of the directives (groundwater and nitrates) in particular deal with aspects of water protection.
7. However, these effects could be limited because the requirements do not cover all the aspects of the WFD and because there are also uncertainties depending specifically on the rigour with which Member States implement the legislation involved and define and implement good agricultural and environmental practice within cross-compliance. The review of the implementation of cross-compliance in 2007 will provide an opportunity for further reflection.
8. The framework for rural development both within the new regulation for 2007-13 adopted at the September Council (which specifically mentions the WFD) and the Commission’s proposals for the EU strategic guidelines which are currently under negotiation, can play a major role in aiding the implementation of the WFD. It is very important that the River Basin Management Plans fit in with the Rural Development framework and that clear solutions are provided which are adapted to suit local needs.
9. However, the impacts are likely to be limited in relation to the scale of the problem and the size of the budgets available to Member States taking into account competing priorities. Dirk Ahner made the point that if the Rural Development framework is to deliver on this it is essential that adequate funding is ensured for 2007-13.
Case studies/ success stories
10. We therefore have to use a combination of measures.
11. Representatives from the UK, France, Spain, Germany and Denmark presented case studies which could act as examples for what could be done to meet the challenges. These covered measures related to agri-environment, regulation, voluntary agreements, control of water demand, co-operative models and local initiatives. It was clear that it is important to find win-win solutions which benefit farmers and the environment alike. It was therefore particularly heartening to hear from the Aurade case study about initiatives being led by farmers themselves.
12. Several presentations emphasized that co-operation and networking between different authorities and stakeholders is vital to ensure success as is involvement of local people.
13. Another vital element is to acknowledge that long term commitment to deal with the challenges is necessary.
The Future
14. On the second day of the Conference, representatives from Member States’ governments and stakeholders gave their thoughts on how to reconcile WFD and agriculture in the future, knowing the challenges we face and the lessons learned, as discussed on the first day.
15. Many of the conclusions from the first day were echoed in the presentations, such as long term commitment, the need for further analysis, and co-operation at all levels.
16. We do not yet have all the tools necessary to deal with the problem effectively, but we should try to pull together all potential measures and available resources at both Community, State and local level to maximise the beneficial impact on the water environment.
17. Furthermore, it is essential to build partnerships. Farmers need to be involved. They need to be communicated with effectively and also need to have access to the necessary training and advice.
Conclusion
18. In conclusion, the challenge for Member States will be to establish programmes capable of delivering synergistic benefits across several areas, including improvement of water protection. Targeted rural development programmes can help but other instruments and additional sources of funding are needed to fulfil the requirements of the Directive.
Annex 2:
Final report about Rural Development Programmes
Warsaw Agricultural University
WFD and Agriculture linkages at the EU level
Final report about Rural Development Programmes
27/10/2005
Prepared by:
Thomas Dworak (Ecologic)
Zbignev Karaczun (Warsaw Agricultural University)
Nadine Herbke (Ecologic)
Stephanie Schlegel (Ecologic)
Ruta Landgrebe-Trinkunaite (Ecologic)
Final report about Rural Development Programmes – 21/10/2005
Foreword
As a result of a process of more than five years of discussions and negotiations between a wide range of experts, stakeholders and policy makers, the Water Framework Directive (or the Directive 2000/60/EC) of the European Parliament and of the Council established a framework for European Community action in the field of water policy. The Directive, which entered into force on the 22nd of December 2000, sets a framework for the protection of all waters with the aim of reaching a “good status” of all community waters by 2015.
The latest reform of the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in 2003 increased the opportunities for the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD). A working document prepared by the Environment Directorate General of the European Commission highlighted a number of opportunities where the CAP can help achieve the WFD objectives (European Commission, DG Environment, 2003). However, achieving these objectives remains a challenge. Acknowledging this, the Water Directors, who are the representatives of the EU Member States administrations with overall responsibility on water policy, agreed in June 2004 to take action in the context of a Common Implementation Strategy (CIS)[1]. To this aim they established an EU Strategic Steering Group (SSG) to address the issues of interrelations between CAP and WFD. The timeframe for the SSG work is short, given the tight WFD timetable (developing draft River Basin Management Plans by 2008, achieving the ecological status objectives by 2015) and the timing of CAP developments, notably the new European Rural Development Regulation which is to cover the period from 2007 to 2013.
The Strategic Steering Group (SSG) on WFD and Agriculture is led by the UK and the Environment Directorate-General of the European Commission with technical support from the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development. The aim of the group's work, which met for the first time in April 2005, is to identify the issues relating to agriculture which affect a Member State's ability to meet WFD objectives. The group will also put forward suggestions on how to best manage the risk of not meeting these objectives, taking into account the opportunities of the reformed CAP. There is also a role for the group to consider the potential impacts of achieving the WFD objectives upon agriculture, and the effects this would have on policy development and decisions.
As one of its first steps, the focus of the SSG is on preparing a report to support the aims of the WFD which deal with the opportunities available in Rural Development Programmes (RDP). Ecologic and Warsaw Agricultural University (WAU) have been commissioned to prepare this report in the context of the 6th Framework Programme of Research project “WFD meets CAP – Opportunities for the future”[2]. This report about Rural Development Programmes uses information from:
· the output of the SSG on WFD and Agriculture activities and discussions that have taken place since April 2005;
· the replies to the Commission questionnaire on WFD and Rural Development Programmes that was sent to relevant actors in the EU Member States; and
· the Defra activities on the preparation and arrangement of the UK conference on Water Framework Directive and Agriculture, held on September 20-21, 2005 in London, and the conference outcome.
Furthermore, the report builds on the input and feedback from a wide range of experts and stakeholders that have been involved through meetings or electronic communication media.
Ecologic and Warsaw Agricultural University would like to thank all experts of DG Environment, DG Agriculture and Rural Development, Defra and all national experts for supporting us and providing background for this document.
For further information on the details of the report please contact:
Thomas Dworak, Ecologic – Institute for International and European Environmental Policy, Pfalzburger Strasse 43-44, 10717 Berlin, Germany, Email: or
DISCLAIMER
Please note: The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission or individual Member State.
The information compiled in this paper is subject to rapid change.
The information presented is the status as of October 2005.
Contents