3) a. Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)

1. 3) a. Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Water Directors’ meeting Budapest, 26 & 27 May 2011 Nicolas ROUYER European Commission DG Environment Water unit

2. Questions for the Water Directors: • Do you see any technical obstacles to the inclusion of the WFD into cross compliance? • Do you see the green component as an opportunity for water protection? •  Do you see a European standard on buffer strip width as a workable option? Slide 2 / 17

3. Overview presentation: 1. CAP reform: where we are now 2. WFD in cross compliance 3. The green component of the CAP Slide 3 / 17

4. 1. CAP reform: where we are now • April/May 2010:public consultation (the Water Directors contributed) • 18 Nov. 2010:Communication on CAP reform • Second half of 2011:legal proposal with impact assessment Slide 4 / 17

5. 1. CAP reform: where we are now Water protection issues was clearly identified in the Communication COM(2010)672: • Water quantity • Water quality • Ecosystems (hydromorphology) • Extreme events (droughts, floods) Different CAP mentioned tools to address water: • WFD in cross compliance • the green component • the rural development regulation Slide 5 / 17

6. Green component Direct payments The Common Agricultural Policy: Pillar I Income Markets Cross compliance Public goods Structural adjustment Pillar II Rural development

7. 2. WFD in cross compliance (1) Are WFD provisions relevant for cross compl.? • Water protection is identified as a major concern for the European citizens (Flash Eurobarometer, 2008 & 2009) • Pressures by agriculture on the water resources are very high (review of the draft RBMP, 2010) Slide 7 / 17

8. 2. WFD in cross compliance (2) Do WFD provisions have a direct link with the agricultural activity? WFD provisions regulate: • how & how much water is used • the conditions to discharge used water • the activities that may give rise to diffuse pollution • the hydro-morphological aspects such as the conservation of the riparian areas. Slide 8 / 17

9. 2. WFD in cross compliance • (3) Do the WFD provisions relate to actions attributable to individual farmers? Examples of failures to follow the rules: • abstraction of water without a permit (WFD art. 11.3.e) • discharging waste water directly to water courses without a permit (WFD art. 11.3.g & j) • application of pesticides not in accordance with the rules (WFD art. 11.3.h) • modification of a riparian area of a water body without authorisation (WFD art. 11.3.i) Slide 9 / 17

10. 2. WFD in cross compliance (4) Are the WFD provisions controllable at reasonable costs and quantifiable? • Water policy is not new in the EU: in every MS, well developed system of water management (with controls, inspections & sanctions) on which the WFD implementation builds • Cross compliance can make full use of the existing control mechanisms without implying additional costs Slide 10 / 17

11. 2. WFD in cross compliance (5) Does the WFD create undue discrepancies between farmers, beyond what is required to take into account local needs? • The environment is very diverse, as well as the characteristics & intensity of the activities that put pressures on it. • There is a strong baseline that has to be complied with in all cases, and the flexibility to define additional measures that are needed to take into account local circumstances. Slide 11 / 17

12. 2. WFD in cross compliance (6) Does the timeline of the WFD implementation match with the 2014 CAP reform? • All the RBMP are expected to be in place in early 2012 (currently >80% of the EU covered) • Many important mandatory WFD measures are already in place at farm level • The other obligations must be specified by the end of 2012 (WFD art. 11.7) Slide 12 / 17

13. 2. WFD in cross compliance • A European standard on buffer strip width? • Scientific evidences show that buffer strips have a positive impact on water • According to EEA calculation, the impact on the arable land surface would be low (e.g. 0.24% with a 5 meter standard) • A national 5 meter standard currently applies with success in one MS where the farming conditions are extremely diverse Slide 13 / 17

14. Green component Direct payments 3. The green component of the CAP Pillar I Income Markets Cross compliance Public goods Structural adjustment Pillar II Rural development

15. 3. The green component of the CAP A tool to enhance a large scale uptake of the measures, but there are some concerns: • risks of a « menu-approach » • the combination with cross compliance (& RDR) • the share of green measures in 1st pillar • the necessity to reward public goods Slide 15 / 17

16. 3. The green component of the CAP Different technical measures are considered: • permanent pasture • green cover • crop rotation • ecological set-aside All are relevant for water protection but there must be a real added value Source: DG ENV/B1 Slide 16 / 17

17. Questions for the Water Directors: • Do you see any technical obstacles to the inclusion of the WFD into cross compliance? • Do you see the green component as an opportunity for water protection? •  Do you see a European standard on buffer strip width as a workable option? Slide 17 / 17