550 likes | 680 Views
Demonstration, Contents and Results End User Meeting 30 March 2010. Expected compliance based on: - Actual implementation - If available: National / regional legislation - Else: EU regulations (2005-2009). Baseline Implementation of directives and GAECs 2005 - 2009.
E N D
Demonstration, Contents and ResultsEnd User Meeting 30 March 2010
Expected compliance based on: - Actual implementation - If available: National / regional legislation - Else: EU regulations (2005-2009) Cross Compliance Assessment Tool
Baseline Implementation of directives and GAECs 2005 - 2009 Expected compliance based on: - Actual implementation - If available: National / regional legislation - Else: EU regulations (2005-2009) Cross Compliance Assessment Tool
Expected compliance based on: - Actual implementation - If available: National / regional legislation - Else: EU regulations (2005-2009) Voluntary compliance level (range from 0-100%) + actual implementation Halve way between baseline and 100% compliance + actual implementation 100% compliance level + actual implementation 100% compliance and implementation based on availablenational / regional legislation specifications only Hypothetical: also all non mandatory SMRs and GAECs are fully implemented (test). All mandatory SMRs and GAECs are fully implemented according to the EU regulations Cross Compliance Assessment Tool
Implementation national/regional legislation Contains: SMRs: 160 measures and 66 specifications GAECs: 35 different standards (relating to 5 issues) A total of 2680 national SMRs and 590 national GAECs Characterise the national standards (for assessing potential impacts) Help translate SMRs/GAECs to potential practices and costs (as input for modelling) Represent ‘national diversity’ in EU as a manageable set of categories. Cross Compliance Assessment Tool
Implementation national/regional legislation • 1) Characterise the national standards (for assessing potential impacts) • 2) Help translate SMRs / GAECs to potential practices and costs (as input for modelling) • 3) Represent ‘national diversity’ in EU as a manageable set of categories Cross Compliance Assessment Tool
How do we translate the implementation specifications at EU, national and regional level into input for the models? Cross Compliance Assessment Tool
Obliga-tory? Imple-mented? NO (data) NO YES YES No assessment CAPRI Per region + activity (per crop, animal type) Input data indicators Cost level Compliance level/scenario Miterra Input data indicators Translation of the implementation specifications into indicators EU Regulation On SMR & GAEC National / regional SMR & GAEC obligations To be transposed into national/regional legislation Pot. effect Biodiv & Lands Cross Compliance Assessment Tool
Models in CCAT Animal Welfare Index / scenarioEconomic indicators (Market, Income) / scenario Market response / scenario:1) Changes in cropping shares 2) Change in livestock type/number Biodiversity indicators / scenario: Environmental indicators / scenario- Air : NH3, N2O, CH4, GHG emissions- Water: N leaching, runoff, NO3concentration- Soil : C stock, N, P and metal balances Per region + activity (per crop, animal type) Cost level Compliance level/scenario DNDCmetamodel EPIC metamodel N leaching, runoff, N2O emissionsBarley & Maize N leaching, runoff, erosionBarley & Maize CAPRI Miterra Comparison Cross Compliance Assessment Tool
Strongly varied among regions. • 6 Directives are included: • Birds Directive Highest: Sweden, Scotland, Finland, Germany and some Austrian regions. • Nitrates Directive Highest: Italy and Western France. • Habitat Directive Only important effects in some Austrian regions and Navarra (ES). • Groundwater Directive Low potential effect in most regions (only in Germany it has a higher effect) • Sewage Sludge Directive Highest in Italy and Germany. • Plant Protection Products Directive Low potential effect. • Highest contribution from Birds and Nitrate Directives. Cross Compliance Assessment Tool
Overall highest effectiveness from minimum level of maintenance and soil erosion issues • Soil structure and additional farmer’s obbligations issues lowest overall effectiveness: • Only Finland, France, England, Wales, Ireland, Belgium, Spain (except Madrid and Murcia), Portugal and Austria have implemented additional obligations. Cross Compliance Assessment Tool
Modelled results Cross Compliance Assessment Tool
Cost of compliance Cross Compliance Assessment Tool
Cost Implication at EU level Cross Compliance Assessment Tool
Regional Cost Implication Total cost per UAA Animal related cost per LU Crop related cost per UAA Cross Compliance Assessment Tool
Regional Cost Implication Total cost per UAA Animal related cost per LU Crop related cost per UAA • Animal production more affected than crops • Dir 4 (crops and animals) and Dir16-18 (only animals) major cost drivers • Significant regional difference in cost effects (especially for animals) Cross Compliance Assessment Tool
Income effect Cross Compliance Assessment Tool
Income Effects (EU27) Cross Compliance Assessment Tool
Regional Income Effects Cross Compliance Assessment Tool
Regional Income Effects • Agricultural Income decreases compared to a situation without regulation ( ~ -3%) • No significant difference in income change between animal and crop sector • Minor effect on income of additional compliance (baseline (+90%) to 100% compliance) • Output value of animal products goes up with increasing cost • (market effects can partially compensate) • Output value of crops slightly decreasing (at most stable) Cross Compliance Assessment Tool
Production effect Cross Compliance Assessment Tool
Market effects for selected activities/products Cross Compliance Assessment Tool
Market effects for selected activities/products • Animals: • Overall decrease in herds; • Increasing prices almost compensate CC cost (… but not loss of production) • Crops: • Cereal production increasing (“best alternative”); • Cereal prices go down due decreasing (feed) demand and increasing acreage • Additional cereal production is processed to bio fuels (at lower prices) • “demanding” crops go down (costs can be partially compensated by price effects) • Set aside and fallow land decrease (due GAEC enforcing minimum maintenance) Cross Compliance Assessment Tool
Environmental and biodiversity effects Cross Compliance Assessment Tool
Intensity effects Cross Compliance Assessment Tool
% Change in share of extensive & intensive livestock: Compliance gap 0-100% Extensive Intensive • Increases in intensive livestock group mostly in regions in UK, central France, Spain, • Southern Italy, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania going together with loss of extensive group. Cross Compliance Assessment Tool Cross Compliance Assessment Tool
Share of land use Intensive Compliance gap between 0 and 100% Relative differences Extensive Medium Cross Compliance Assessment Tool Cross Compliance Assessment Tool
Share of land use Intensive Compliance gap between 0 and 100% Relative differences Extensive Medium Landuse intensity Extensification in Mediterranean, Scandinavian and Eastern countries vs. Intensification in Central European countries. Cross Compliance Assessment Tool Cross Compliance Assessment Tool
Environmental effects:changes in emissions Cross Compliance Assessment Tool
Comparison scenarios Cross Compliance Assessment Tool
NO3 concentration groundwater baseline % diff. baselinevs 0-compl. Cross Compliance Assessment Tool
N2O emission baseline % diff. baselinevs 0-compl. Cross Compliance Assessment Tool
Critical N load exceedance Exceedance CL baseline % diff. baselinevs 0-compl. Cross Compliance Assessment Tool
Soil organic carbon stocks baseline abs diff. baselinevs 0-compl. Cross Compliance Assessment Tool
Main conclusion on emissions • Changes in agricultural emissions due to cross compliance obligations range between 1%-6% (0-100% compliance) • Largest decrease in N-leaching • Nitrate Directive clearly improved environmental quality • Balanced fertilization can significantly reduce N emissions • Overall regional effects are positive with some exceptions for certain regions (e.g. Poland, Bulgaria, Romania) and Mediterranean (Alpes-Mediteranee) for different emissions. Cross Compliance Assessment Tool
Overall initial conclusionsand recommendations Cross Compliance Assessment Tool