Cross-compliance – Greening of the First Pillar?

1. Heike Nitsch Cross-compliance – Greening of the First Pillar? “Nature Conservation and the EU policy for sustainable land management in the new EU Member States” Bonn, 19 June 2006

2. Structure Structure CC as policy instrument Standards – link to nature conservation Future options? • Cross compliance as an instrument of environmental policy • Impacts of cross compliance standards on nature conservation and biodiversity • Recommendations/Future options

3. Cross- compliance: Objectives Structure CC as policy instrument Standards – link to nature conservation Future options? • Incorporating basic standards on environment, food safety, animal health and welfare and GAEC into Pillar 1 • Enhancing the respect of mandatory standards at farm level • Maintaining agricultural land in good condition • Preventing land abandonment • Maintaining the extent of permanent pasture Promoting sustainable agriculture • As well: Reinforcing legitimacy of the CAP and acceptance by consumers

4. Cross- compliance: Framework Structure CC as policy instrument Standards – link to nature conservation Future options? • EU-wide, horizontal framework for setting and enforcing environmental (and other) standards, composed of: • “Statutory management requirements” (SMR) for the areas environment, food safety and animal welfare, based on EU-Regulations and Directives(Annex III; Reg.1782/2003) • Standards for “good agricultural and environmental condition”(GAEC)(Annex IV) in terms of soil conservation, minimum maintenance of land and retention of landscape elements • Requirement to maintain the share of permanent pasture(Reg.796/2004) • Member States with SAPS: GAEC(according to Reg.2199/2003);SMRs to be introduced from 2009 on • Requirements for systematic control and sanctions • Scope for implementation in Member States

5. Obligatory Cross Compliance in the EU – Characteristics Structure CC as policy instrument Standards – link to nature conservation Future options? • Annex III: Re-enforcement of mandatory standards •  No direct additional cost for farmers • Standards according to national implementation(e.g. NVZ; Natura 2000) • Annex IV: Keep land in good agricultural and environmental conditions • Standards partly based on existing national legislation, GFP or additional standards ( additional effort for compliance) • Wide scope for MS according to national circumstances and priorities • Interaction with AEM? • A command-and-control instrument; low control density + potentially high sanctions • Dependent and based on direct payments(not related to compliance cost and ability of farmers to deliver environmental benefits)

6. Cross compliance – Main standards with impacts on nature conservation Structure CC as policy instrument Standards – link to nature conservation Future options? Annex III: • Compliance with the Habitats and Birds Directives:Management plans only under development; high importance of AEM; impact of CC unclear (mandatory standards only) Mainly avoidance of the deterioration of habitats • Indirect benefits for biodiversitythrough increased enforcement of rules for the application of fertiliser and pesticides  More rigorous and systematic enforcement regime; higher awareness of farmers Better compliance?  Introduction of CC speeding up implementation? But: risk of high sanctions could endanger cooperation of farmers? Annex IV: • Minimum level of maintenance (minimum stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes; protection of permanent pasture; retention of landscape features); standards for crop rotation Requirements for maintaining the share of permanent pasture

7. Selected requirements for GAEC with relevance to biodiversity in EU-15 Structure CC as policy instrument Standards – link to nature conservation Future options?

8. GAEC-standards in EU-10 Structure CC as policy instrument Standards – link to nature conservation Future options? • Information analysed from CZ, LT, LV, PL, SK • Focus rather on good agricultural conditions(in LT, LV, PL, SK standards for minimum maintenance exclusively targeted at keeping agricultural land open) • Examples for further standards: • Protection of landscape elements (only in CZ, rather linked to erosion) • No conversion of grassland: CZ, LV (approval only in exceptional cases), PL (ratio to be maintained at farm level)

9. CC and nature conservation – Analysis of GAEC I Structure CC as policy instrument Standards – link to nature conservation Future options? Standards for GAEC differ widely throughout the EU • Maintenance of landscape features: • Where existing, standards can contribute to conservation, but do not increase quantity or quality • Only few standards forbuffer strips • Minimum maintenance of land: • Not primarily targeted at biodiversity, but rather at keeping land open (long-term option?); partly standards for wildlife friendly mowing • Inflexible standards for avoiding encroachment can increase pesticide use and hinder micro-succession (compatible with semi-open pastures?) • Crop rotation: standards in few MS; little impact • Other: e.g. rules for managing target areas in England (re-inforcement of existing legislation concerning EIA and SSSIs); rules for fallow land • Conservation of permanent grassland: • Provision of safeguard against strong overall decline;but: quality and location generally not taken into account

10. CC and nature conservation – Analysis of GAEC I I Structure CC as policy instrument Standards – link to nature conservation Future options? • Potential for area-wide implementation of meaningful standards is existing, but not realised by many Member States • Due to existing AEM or national legislation, cost for farmers and administrations, to avoid disallowances • CC unlikely to be decisive factor in preventing land abandonment(abandonment of single plots due to high cost for maintenance?) • CC can contribute to preventing very negative impacts of agriculture and conserving existing landscapes and habitatsBut: does not ensure adequate management of valuable areas(few examples for adaptation to local conditions) Environmental impact of Pillar 1 remains limited – strengthening of Pillar 2remains important strategy • Increased targeting of AEM and LFA payments to nature conservation • Budget for Natura 2000 payments

11. Cross compliance – Recommended adaptations Structure CC as policy instrument Standards – link to nature conservation Future options? Control system: • Danger of bureaucratic effort without much impact • Administrative effort for enforcement of standards has to be justified Achieve a maximum of compliance with the given resources for controls and prevent breaches with severe consequences Optimise enforcement system • Further development of risk analysis (control groups; selection criteria) • Link to specialised controls? • Direct payments are insecure in the future CC cannot replace specialised controls Optimising specialised control system remains crucial

12. Cross compliance – Recommended adaptations: GAEC Structure CC as policy instrument Standards – link to nature conservation Future options? • 1. Consolidation and harmonisation of existing standards: • Maintenance of existing landscape elements • Ban on conversion of certain types of grassland (e.g. in designated areas, on organic soils, on steep hills, along water courses) • More flexibility for encroachment; regional decisions on priority areas for continuation of ext. farming or succession/afforestation • Minimum requirements for crop rotation? (bioenergy crops!) • 2. Introduction of mandatory share of “ecological priority area”(replacing obligatory set-aside?) : • Minimum of 5% of UAA at farm level? Regional differences? Except small farms and HNV farms? • Focus on linear features (min. width 5m) • No use of fertiliser and pesticides, no ploughing • AEM as top-ups to increase quality

13. Further long-term scenarios for cross compliance? Structure CC as policy instrument Standards – link to nature conservation Future options? • Expanding set of standards: e.g. WFD, climate protection • Downsizing Annex III and concentration on CC as a tool for land management • Integration of Pillar I and II: • Single EU fund for rural areas • Farmers receive payment for obligatory proactive environmental management and must complete an environmental management plan (simple EIA + action plan) • 3-tier approach: Flat-rate payment for basic standards; increased payments for more demanding activities • Management options may be chosen from a local adapted menu reflecting the specific conditions and needs of the local landscape • Supplement for farmers in areas where continuation of traditional farming practice is important

14. Thank you for your attention Cross Compliance Network Project (2005-2007): www.ieep.eu/projectminisites/crosscompliancenetworkproj/index.php MEACAP Project (Impact of Environmental Agreements on the CAP)(2004-2007) www.ieep.eu/projectminisites/meacap/index.php