Report from A blue future for the CAP post 2013?

Transcription

1 Report from A blue future for the CAP post 2013? Lunch debate focusing on problems surrounding water and how current and future policy can be used to address these issues October 15 th, 12:15-15:00, European Parliament Organized by EEB and BirdLife Europe Hosted by: MEP Bas Eickhout (Greens/EFA) Keynote speakers: Richard Etievant: Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission Michael Hamell: Directorate General for Environment, European Commission Olivier Bommelaer French Department of the Commissioner-General for Sustainable Development Pieter de Pous: Policy Director, European Environmental Bureau (EEB) Panel and reactive statements: John Renner: Farmer, Bellshill Farm in Northumberland, UK Pablo Pindado Carrion: Permanent Representation of Spain to the EU Jesper Wulff Pedersen replaced by Peter Hallenberg: Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, Denmark/ Permanent Representation of Denmark to the EU Jim Marshall: Water UK and Eureau Sergey Moroz: WWF European Policy Office The debate opened with some brief words of welcome from MEP Bas Eickhout and encouragement to have an open and lively discussion. MEP Bas Eickhout moderated the debate between speakers and panelists. Richard Etievant was first to take the floor and opened with the topic of the inclusion of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) cross compliance. He stressed that water is a key issue for the sustainable future of agriculture and that the WFD is the main instrument for water in the Environmental Policy. Therefore, the relevant elements of this directive must be included within cross-compliance, but only when precise obligations at farm level will have been defined in all Members States. Indeed, if the obligations imposed on the farmer are not precisely defined, his/her responsibility cannot be clearly established, then aid reductions cannot be applied and crosscompliance cannot work. He mentioned also other tools by which the CAP can contribute to a better quality of the water: Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC), greening measures under the first pillar, rural development measures, and the Farm Advisory System. In the Council, under the

2 Olivier Bommelaer s presentation on water and sustainability Danish Presidency, a lot of Member States refused the delegated power of the Commission. Instead, the Presidency suggested inviting the Commission to present a new legislative proposal with a view to including the relevant part of the directive once it has been implemented. Richard Etievant finished by reiterating that the CAP, and to an even greater degree the reformed CAP, contains key-elements to address the problems of water that we face in Europe. Michael Hamell was able to provide some perspective from DG ENVI. He hoped that the commission will not have to address water quality as these issues are long the subject of legislation which, by now, should be fully implemented. The WFD RBMP programs of measures are fully applicable this year so it is quite unacceptable that some MS have not yet fulfilled legal obligations. With regard to the Nitrates Directive, progress, though slow, is measurable and the key elements are quality vulnerable zone designation based on good monitoring, action programs containing clear, thorough and understandable obligations for farmers and, importantly, the link to cross-compliance. Specifically now, more attention needs to be paid to the Baltic and Mediterranean Basin regions. A full picture of nitrates directive progress will be available by mid 2013 when the report on implementation for will be published. On the WFD, he stressed the importance of article 11.3 and the urgency of dealing with water use issues including permits, abstraction and efficiency of use. Time is not on the side of delays as water scarcity issues are getting progressively worse. Olivier Bommelaer gave a presentation entitled Using water and ecosystems valuation in decision making to ensure our sustainability in which he gave an overview of 1) an appraisal of farming pollution costs to water 2) Valuing services provide by wetlands 3) Additionality of benefits from avoided pollution and ecosystem services 4) A reflection on ecosystem service studies. He pointed out that there is a strong economic incentive to invest in prevention and clean water, giving the figure that the treatment cost of excedentary nitrogen is between Euros/kg. Further, the benefits of controlling nitrogen and pesticides within water catchment areas are estimated between 800 and 2,400 Euros/year/ha of catchment. There exist also possibilities for additional ecosystem service benefits from, for example, wetlands located within a water supply catchment (all figures from case study by CGDD). He finished with a recommendation that one should never perform a small scale analysis of ecosystem services as this can lead to the undervaluation of complex and serious issues. Pieter de Pous wrapped up the keynote addresses by thanking the host and other speakers for this important opportunity to discuss what the EEB considers an essential element of a greener agricultural policy; making the WFD part of the cross compliance regime under the new CAP. He feels that the combined impact of continuing subsidies to Europe s most polluting farmers, coupled with Europe s misguided support policies for using biomass for energy, show that trends are going in the wrong direction and offsetting the progress that has been made in response to the nitrates directive. The

3 nitrates directive under a cross compliance regime has shown the effectiveness of this tool to increase compliance among farmers. At the moment, the over-abstraction of water from farming and pollution from farming remain some of the largest barriers towards restoring the health of Europe s rivers and wetlands. Therefore, as long as subsidies continue for farmers, they should be tied to strict compliance measures that will need to be taken under the WFD. If these measures do not exist, it is an enforcement issue with the MS, not an excuse to leave the WFD out of cross compliance. After the speeches by the keynote speakers, MEP Bas Eickhout opened the floor to introductions and reactive statements from the speakers on the panel. John Renner provided the perspective of a farmer who has taken entirely voluntary measures to improve the water and land quality of his farm. He stated that his family farm (Bellshill Farm) lies on land that was previously used for intensive block farming. Due to poor environmental practices in the past, the land had many inherited problems. Renner and his wife laid out goals for the future of the farm including 1) increasing profitability 2) controlling and improving soil quality 3) reducing the cost of production 4) improving sustainability. To address these goals, they have since taken several actions including 1) Increasing the amount of organic matter with a grass rotation 2) Use of an integrated farm management plan (taken from LEAF) 3) Installation of sediment traps 4) Constant movement of feeding stations 5) Creation of a pond system to catch excess sediment 6) use of a bio-bed as a water treatment system. John Renner adds a farmer s perspective to the debate Pablo Pindado Carrion then took the floor, clearly stating that Spain does not support the inclusion of the WFD under the CAP cross compliance. He sees irrigation as the key element in rural development and does not believe that it is possible to reduce EU water by 25% in every irrigation system; especially those which are already very efficient (e.g. drip irrigation). Peter Hallenberg opened his statement with a dislike of implications that had been suggested by several other speakers that the Council is the place where policy gets watered down and the Parliament is where it can be strengthened. He then noted that there will always be diverging interests between water protection and intensive agriculture. This creates a difficulty in carrying out many measures in practice. He concluded saying he is in favor of making links to cross compliance later. Jim Marshall explained that Water UK represents water companies in the UK, and Eureau represents all water suppliers in Europe. Drinking water in the UK is regulated using a risk-based approach that integrates the concept of a catchment-based approach to recognising and managing risks, including

4 diffuse pollution. He believes that the CAP can be economically viable only if it is attached to basic sustainability measures- get the air, soil, and water right and the rest will follow. More specifically he feels that green payments and blueing should occur at the national level. In summary, he is in favor of integrating WFD into cross compliance. Sergey Moroz began by asking everyone to think of farmers as business people, as was demonstrated by the panelist John Renner. He sees the reform of the CAP as a great opportunity that is being missed by maintaining business as usual; however a few opportunities to make improvements to current proposals still exist and need to be used. For example, addressing agricultural water footprint through a twin-track approach: (1) compulsory baseline of some basic measures of the WFD (e.g. permit to abstract water) included into cross-compliance and (2) voluntary schemes funded inter alia by Pillar II to go beyond the baseline (e.g. compensating farmers for restoring or creating a wetland). Cross compliance and permitting remain integral to the policy and therefore it is necessary to include the WFD in cross compliance- if anything, to send a clear message to farmers that water protection is a priority and there are mandatory and voluntary measures at farm level according to Programmes of Measures that Member States need to make operational by 22 December He also highlighted that both experts dealing with WFD implementation and agriculture as well as the Water Directors ultimately responsible for water protection in their Member States have agreed on several occasions that WFD can and needs to be included into the cross compliance. The agricultural lobby are one of the few actors who disagree but they mainly disagree with the cross compliance per se and not so much with concrete measures currently proposed to be included in the cross compliance. At this point, a representative from DG ENVI spoke briefly about river basin management plans. She outlined generally which measures are under cross compliance and which measures are under the greening. She went on to point out that there are gaps in river basin management. Member States should identify suitable measures and include them. Additionally, water quantities need to be in compliance with water metering. To her, the starting point for addressing these gaps is the WFD. After these interesting notes, MEP Bas Eickhout gave the floor back to the DG ENVI and DG AGRI so that they could briefly respond to the panelist s statements. Richard Etievant stated again that the WFD should be put in cross compliance but it requires clear and precise obligations at farm level. Michael Hamell responded that member states have had 12 years to implement the WFD. If the deadline at the end of December is not respected, the Court of Justice might wonder why it is taking so long. In terms of agri-environmental and rural development measures generally for , he pointed out that it is very important to set clear baselines which are in compliance with EU law for these measures in Pillar 2. He recalled the insistence by the Commission for that agri-environment measures have a comparable GAEC baseline so that it would be clear what was covered under each aspect and suggested the logic of this approach would have to apply for the coming period for water.

5 And he stressed that, within or outside cross-compliance, the WFD is fully applicable now as part of the agri-environmental baseline. At this point MEP Bas Eickhout once again took up the microphone thanking all the speakers for presenting their viewpoints. He then invited all attendees to join in the discussion. A speaker from Spain briefly presented a case study of a river basin In Spain that has been severely degraded due to development and voiced her concerns that in Spain there is a lot of interest in the money that the CAP brings in with no attention given to the actual implementation. She stated that this needs to change. Pablo Pindado Carrion from Spain responded to this comment by saying that Spain has seventeen separate regions with The round table debate where participants presented their views. a huge number of different stakeholders. Spain has had a river basins management approach since the beginnings of the 20 th Century, and its RBMPs (25) are not finalized due to the fact that in Spain there are these several regions which make implementation a difficult task. Sergey Moroz responded to Pablo Pindado Carrion saying that a lot of measures are already on the legal books in MS; however issues such as illegal water extraction are still a huge problem in several Member States. For example, with illegal boreholes in Spain, the CAP is just one more tool in the toolbox that can be used to address issues such as this, provided it is linked to direct subsidies farmers receive. Trees Robijns (BirdLife Europe) posed the question whether national policy can act as a baseline, to which the response was yes. This was followed by a question from Faustine Defossez (EEB) whether the baseline is for requirements or payments. The answer was that it is for both. Nuno Sequeira (Quercus, EEB member from Portugal) added an important point saying that we need to not only be more efficient with water but also use less of it. The lunch debate wrapped up with a closing note from MEP Bas Eickhout thanking everyone present for their expertise and opinions.