EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL ENVIRONMENT
Directorate D - Water, Chemicals & Biotechnology
ENV.D.1 - Water
Brussels, April 2013
WORKSHOP ON IMPROVING DELIVERY OF WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE
MEASURES THROUGH RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES
Brussels, 19 April 2013
Summary report
1
Table of contents
Introduction and purpose of the workshop ................................................................. 3
The potential of the RDP in helping to deliver the WFD and the water blueprint ........ 4
The WFD and the Scotland RDP ............................................................................... 5
WFD and agriculture in the Netherlands in relation to the CAP .................................. 7
Catchment management: delivering the WFD in south west England ........................ 8
Working Sessions..................................................................................................... 10
Getting water measures included within national RDPs ........................................... 10
Action by agencies to ensure effective delivery of measures within RDP ................ 13
Action by farmers their representatives and other stakeholders to ensure RDP
contributes to reaching water objectives .................................................................. 15
Wrap up and next steps ........................................................................................... 17
2
Workshop on improving delivery of Water Framework Directive measures
through Rural Development Programmes
Introduction and purpose of the workshop
A workshop was held in Brussels on 19 April 2013. Its purpose was to facilitate the
sharing of experiences and ideas on how to better integrate and deliver the Water
Framework Directive (WFD) measures in Rural Development Programmes (RDP)
(2014-2020).
The Commission has carried out an assessment of the implementation of the WFD.
In 2009 looking at 100 River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs), 47% of water
bodies will not reach the requirement of Good Status in 2015. Although good
progress has been made on some areas, more needs to be done. Furthermore, 90%
of River Basin Districts (RBDs) have identified agriculture as an important pressure,
including pollution, abstraction and hydromorphological pressures. These pressures
vary across Member States (MS), but there is a consistent issue of needing to
change agricultural practices to protect and improve water resources. Therefore, the
workshop focused on this important pressure for meeting WFD objectives.
Most MS RBMPs contain a reference to the RDP playing an important role in the
delivery of WFD supplementary measures in the first cycle, but most lack detail on
the application of the measures. As new RDPs are being developed now, there is a
window of opportunity to identify actions in RDPs to help deliver WFD objectives for
the next RBMP cycle. Therefore, it is important to bring together WFD experts and
RDP experts to understand how WFD measures will/or can be included in future
RDPs. This was the role of the workshop.
The workshop was held against a backdrop of uncertainty in relation to the on-going
CAP reforms, and the size and priorities for Pillar II within a given MS. However,
sharing good practice on the planning steps necessary for including WFD measures
within RDP will be relevant for whatever budget is finally agreed.
The workshop also aimed to provide a facility to develop networks within and across
MS – bringing people together, especially from the water and agriculture
communities to help develop future solutions. The Commission can ensure that
useful measures are available in the RDP and communicate this to MS, but
ultimately the decisions on what, where and how much will be decided at MS level.
Some participants at the workshop are members of the Water and Agriculture Expert
Group. This has run for 6-7 years and a new possible mandate for this group is being
considered and should be clarified by Water Directors in June. Also there will be
greater clarity after the new CAP is finalised. So discussion at this workshop will also
help frame possible areas to pursue under a future CIS..
The workshop included some background presentations on the current status of the
future Rural Development Regulation and on the experience of using RD funding in
addressing water challenges in the MS. This report begins by providing a summary
3
of these presentations and then includes summaries of the workshop discussions
held between participants to examine MS practice and ways forward.
The potential of the RDP in helping to deliver the WFD and the water blueprint
Mike Mackenzie, DG AGRI.
This presentation focused on what future rural development (RD) policy is aiming to
deliver for water. The objectives for RD policy are more detailed than under the
previous CAP. They are structured around six priorities and sub-divided into focus
areas. Two priorities are explicitly water-related – numbers 4 and 5. Number 4 is on
ecosystems and includes ‘improving water management’. Number 5 is on resource
efficiency and includes increasing the efficiency of water use in agriculture. In
response to the new RD policy, most MS and regions will need to implement some
provisions.
Some of the measures most relevant to water are addressed in a number of different
Articles, set out below.
Article 18 concerns investments in physical assets, including infrastructure. This
includes more efficient irrigation equipment, facilities for water collection, treatment,
etc. It also includes the current investments in non-productive (purely environmental)
investments, which can receive a 100 % support rate from rural development policy.
Many of these non-productive investments are relevant to water, e.g. wetland
restoration.
Article 19 concerns restoring agricultural production potential and preventing natural
disasters. This can be used to support measures to reduce the impact of disasters,
e.g. on flood protection.
Article 21 concerns basic services and village renewal in rural areas. This could
include investments in small scale infrastructure, such as rural water treatment
facilities that are to be used not only for agricultural purposes.
Forestry measures are addressed by a number of Articles. For example,
afforestation or the establishment of agro-forestry systems.can help water balances
and reduce diffuse pollution from land. ,
Article 29 is the agri-environment climate measure. This operates via area-based
payments on the basis of costs incurred and income lost as a result of undertaking
positive actions for the environment, e.g. reducing use of fertilisers or pesticides
beyond legal requirements. Farmers can receive compensation for yield losses in
these cases, as they could if they use less water. A major issue is what constitutes
the baseline and, therefore, what practices cannot be paid for. Currently these are
clear, i.e. cross-compliance, requirements on fertiliser and plant protection products
and other relevant, national, mandatory requirements. For the next period the
Commission has proposed that the baseline should include the greening payments
under Pillar I (e.g. ecological focus areas). This has been controversial and some
MS support "double payment" for the greening requirements under Pillar I and Pillar
II – but the Commission remains resolute that this should not happen
4
Article 31 concerns WFD payments. These are also area-based payments
compensating for additional costs/income foregone. However, these are to
compensate for disadvantages arising from actions farmers have to do (unlike Article
29 which offers payment for voluntary commitments). The Commission has proposed
conditions to limit the cases in which farmers receive such payments as usually they
do not get payments for actions they have to do. So the remunerated requirements
must be in line with RBMPs, they must go beyond other EU law for water protection
as well as legislation in force when the WFD was adopted, and they must involve
major changes in land-use activity and or major restrictions in farming practice,
resulting in a significant loss of income. The Commission has also proposed that the
baseline includes the requirements of cross-compliance requirements and greening.
However, the Council has sought to take out SMRs, but leave in GAEC, for example.
Article 46 includes a range of general conditions on supporting investment;
paragraph 3 contains particular conditions for the case of irrigation. In the
Commission initial proposal there were conditions, but these made too few
distinctions to be politically acceptable so the Council has proposed something more
differentiated but also more complex. Overall, the text should lead to both economic
and environmental gains. There are two basic conditions – there must be a RBMP in
place and there must be water metering either before or as part of the investment.
There are cases of investment in existing equipment, where there needs to be a gain
in water efficiency. If that investment affects a water body with good status, then the
farmer can convert the fully efficiency gain into an economic benefit . However, if the
water body is not at good status for reasons related to water quantity, the farmer has
to convert 50 % of the efficiency gain into an actual reduction in water use. In the
case of investment in a new irrigated area (leading to a net increase of irrigated
area), this would have to be on basis of an environmental analysis (there is flexibility
in the text on this, e.g. one can use an analysis done under EIA or combine analysis
of several schemes, etc.). If a water body is not at good status, it would usually not
be permitted to support expansion of the irrigated area affecting the water body
(though there would be exceptions). There are also particular conditions regarding
reservoirs built before Jan 2013 which are appropriately notified and managed under
the terms of the WFD. There are significant debates on this Article, such as from the
European Parliament, and it will be considered in the trialogue discussions.
The above Articles focus on the major measures for water. However, there are also
other soft measures in the proposal, such as on training, advisory services, a cooperation article on joint projects, technological development, etc.. The potential use
of these to contribute to improving water is high and should be explored by MS.
The WFD and the Scotland RDP
Jannette McDonald, SEPA, Scotland.
The presentation focused on ongoing work on diffuse pollution, for which agriculture
is the main pressure. When the WFD was transposed in Scotland, the country
introduced statutory provisions of good practice for land managers (General Binding
Rules covering the main risks to water quality). These are included in the
5
programmes of measures (POM) and provide a level playing for land managers.
RDP provides top-up funding when and where needed.
Implementation takes a risk-based approach, with a focus on the most important
waters, such as those needed for drinking water or biodiversity.
There is close working with stakeholders. Nationally there is a stakeholder group
including farmers, NGOs, etc.. Furthermore, SEPA has examined 5,000km of rivers
and 4,000 individual farms. This has included provision of 1- 1 advice to those
farmers. As a result, about 75% are now acting on the advice and are changing
practice. However, undertaking such visits is expensive, but has proved costeffective.
There is a growing realisation of agriculture as a pressure and the inclusion of water
and soils priorities in RDR was helpful. RBMPs have identified the RDP as a key
measure. Furthermore, the work has emphasised the importance of water to the
economy, so that water protection is not seen as a purely environmental objective.
Analysis to support implementation is important, such as who should pay to reduce
pollution. The statutory baseline of good practice gives a clear baseline on what
farmers are expected to do and what will be supported.
In reviewing the current RDP, however, it has been found that there is a mismatch
between priority catchments under the WFD and where RDP spending is targeted.
So there has been an agreement on principles with partners to prioritise water, to
target effective measures, etc. Potential measures to be funded need a sound
evidence base showing that the measures will deliver water outcomes. Examples
include fencing, buffer strips and land use change in high risk areas. Currently, gaps
in the list of potential measures include rural sustainable drainage solutions ,
implementation of forestry measures to improve water quality and soil quality
improvement measures.
Issues that need to be considered include the role of nutrient management plans,
how far it is possible to tie training to payments, and variable rates for different types
of buffer strips, etc.
With limited funds it is important to target measures and funding. There is a need
also to focus on no deterioration and not only on restoration. It is also important to
target multiple benefits, e.g. a measure addressing drinking water and biodiversity
together as with peatlands. SEPA would prefer to target measures in priority
catchments, but this might not be politically acceptable. In taking forward work on
targeting, Scotland is piloting mapping tools to identify where a measure is needed.
An advisory service is key to effective delivery. This should be on a one to one basis,
be proactive and targeted to help ensure the right measures are established where
they are needed. If there is investment in advice, farmers change practices and
money is ultimately saved. In the future within priority catchments, farmers may be
invited to apply for RD funding, followed by a visit to those farmers to ensure funding
is only for measures above the baseline and to discuss specific issues. However, if
farmers outside of a priority area get together and make a good case for funding it
should be possible for them to be included in the priority category.
6
Finally, it is important to note that the budget is tight. Therefore, it is important to
have a better understanding of the costs of the WFD, etc. Furthermore, benefits are
seen when water is not considered in isolation, but integrated with other
environmental priorities.
WFD and agriculture in the Netherlands in relation to the CAP
Douwe Jonkers, and Kees van Rooijen, Netherlands.
The Netherlands has a number of challenges. It is a delta of four international river
basins, there are many nutrient rich sediments and there is a need to protect much
of the country from flooding. Roughly half of the Netherlands lies below sea level.
The land is intensively drained to keep dry feet. Furthermore, much of the water
system is artificial and heavily modified. During rainfall nutrients from soils are
extracted due to the pumping and draining leading to high nutrient levels in water
bodies.
The Netherlands has a long history of integrated water management for both
quantity and quality. Every ten years the country produces a national water policy
document (the last was in 2009). RBMPs were annexed to this. The plan aims to
look for synergies between issues, but there will always be compromises between
safety and quality.
The main challenges in meeting the WFD are to deal with the unnatural
hydromorpholgy and water level management, heavily modified water bodies
(HMWB) and emissions from waste water treatment plants and from agricultural
areas,. Measures aim to make HMWB more natural, address water level
management, introduce fish passes, increase water retention in rural areas, broaden
water courses, introduce temporary water storage, and provide for more efficient use
of fertilisers and pesticides. Also dredging, including removal of phosphorus, is a
beneficial measure. Many regional measures are being implemented making use of
CAP funds under the current RDP.
The Netherlands will not meet WFD objectives in 2015. Therefore, the Netherlands
undertook an innovation programme of €75 million to Spring 2013 on new measures
and techniques.
The 3rd RDP (2014-2020) in the Netherlands will be a national plan, but will be
implemented by the 12 provinces through four regional chapters of the national plan.
Also there are 25 water boards providing input on water issues to the RDP. The
water boards have already stated that they will spend €40 million each year on cofinancing water related measures.
Water and agriculture is addressed through the delta plan for agriculture water
management (DAW), an initiative of the agricultural sector (LTO Netherlands). This
is an integrated plan aiming to make agriculture sustainable in 2020 and has been
produced with the co-operation of the water boards, etc. It has introduced a
sustainability certificate for farmers, which includes good water practice. The CAP
will be used to pay for some water services and invest in knowledge development.
7
Farmers produce a sustainability plan and invest in innovative techniques, e.g. on
run-off, drainage systems, water storage, etc.. Farmers view the sustainability plan
as a good alternative to the greening payment under Pillar I. RD under Pillar II can
be used to support measures. Several projects of co-operation by farmers are
already in place with water boards, such as a project on developing a mineral cycle
guide for dairy farms.
Discussion on the presentation from the Netherlands
Clarification was sought on the legal and institutional basis for RD and water
management in the Netherlands. It was noted that the Ministry of Environment is
responsible for the WFD and the Ministry of Agriculture for RD. The 12 provinces
have responsibility for spatial development, including RDPs. Also the 25 water
boards are governmental, but are also locally elected. They are responsible for a
range of issues such as water level management including drainage. Furthermore,
municipalities are responsible for waste water treatment (often in collaboration with
the water boards).
It was asked whether in the Netherlands the water boards alone co-finance RDPs. It
was stated that this is only a part. The water boards collect funds (using their own
billing system) and can use these for safety, water quality, etc. and they have
decided to help the agriculture sector to go beyond the baseline. There is also other
co-financing from the provinces, such as on Natura 2000 and further central
government co-financing.
It was noted that the Commission will want to see commitments for specific
measures, but part of the challenge in delivering these is the provision of cofinancing.
It was noted that when the Commission looked at the need of buffer strips this would
result in 0.25% of land being taken out of production across the EU, but this would
be greater in the Netherlands. Would this be acceptable? It was noted that the width
of buffer strips varies across MS and according to different situations. In half of the
Netherlands it would be impossible to have 5m buffer strips, but it does have fertiliser
and pesticide free zones, which range from 0.5 to 6m. In the higher parts of the
country, there are 5m strips where there are natural streams with high ecological
values. Furthermore, in the lower part of the Netherlands, there is a need to extract
water to drain the landand having broader buffer strips would be not cost effective.
Instead it would be more effective to implement new draining techniques that reduce
drainage as much as possible
Catchment management: delivering the WFD in south west England
Dr Laurence Couldrick, West Country Rivers Trust, UK
The problem for water managers is the mix of sources of pollutants and their
connectivity. There may be different sources and these become a problem when
there is a pathway. This pathway is water, moving the pollutant to a sensitive
8
receptor. Furthermore, pressures vary every year as agricultural commodities
change due to market changes.
It is important to note that it is not what is done that is important, but where it is done.
Therefore, it is necessary to examine the topography of a catchment, rainfall, etc., to
see how water moves and is used. The use of the landscape needs to be examined
to identify where risky practices occur, e.g. arable practices. This enables the
identification of issues such as erosion risks. As a result it is possible to see that
some locations are more important than others. Therefore, working with stakeholders
can identify parts of a catchment to see if measures are delivering benefits.
There is a need to understand what farmers are legally required to do and cannot be
paid for and then there are win-win solutions for farmers to stimulate their own
behaviour change. Such win-wins allow the identification of beneficial actions for
farmers for changes that cannot be funded, but do stimulate behaviour change.
The West Country Rivers Trust works with farmers. As a charity it can give
confidential advice that is free. Such advice must be relevant – not generic, but tailor
made and linked to money that the farmer can save.
In working with farmers, it is important not to talk about ecology, but about food and
business success. It is necessary to get them to accept they are part of a problem
and part of the solution.
In looking at the impact of agriculture on the WFD it has been found that much of the
evidence is at the field scale, rather than the catchment scale. Therefore, it is
necessary to use modelling, etc., to examine the impacts of possible measures.
It is also important to note that measures can deliver more than just WFD objectives
– on drinking water, floods, biodiversity, food, etc. However, systems are not good at
looking at the whole picture. Instead society tends to produce lots of plans on
different issues. So there is a need to look at ecosystem services and use mapping
to bring issues together. This allows the identification of areas of low or high conflict
between environmental objectives and food production. This can help
communication with farmers and provide links to funding, etc.
Discussion on the presentation
The evidence generated in south west England has been used to unlock different
funding sources. These include EU projects and RD. However, the local private
water company, South West Water, has also funded farming measures. The
company undertook a cost benefit assessment of changes in catchment
management compared to the alternative of increasing water treatment. It found that
changing catchment management would be 60 times cheaper. It therefore applied to
raise funds from consumers (69p per consumer) to fund farmers to change
behaviour with measures such as peatland restoration, improvements in fencing,
slurry stores, etc. This was a business decision. In the next period the water
company is expected to spend around £40 million in this way. The company provides
50% funding. It has undertaken a reverse auction where farmers propose actions to
9
be funded. This allows for bids to be improved, including with better land
management proposals.
It was noted that in Bulgaria there are problems in implementing the WFD and it is
not clear if it is cost-effective to build collection systems for small agglomerations in
rural areas as the costs are high. In south west England there was a point source
group which noted problems, such as with septic tanks. This has been examined in
detail with modelling of phosphorus in water bodies, showing that septic tanks can
be an issue. The water company is looking at this, but solutions depend on the risk in
the catchment. It is important to note that solutions to such nutrients can take
different forms for different sources. A key issue is that the model inputs (e.g. risks)
are developed with stakeholders, including farmers, so that there is buy-in of the
outputs (e.g. solutions) from those models.
Working Sessions
The workshop included three working sessions with participants divided into four
working groups to discuss key issues. These were:



Getting water measures included within national RDPs.
Action by agencies to ensure effective delivery of measures within RDP.
Action by farmers their representatives and other stakeholders to ensure RDP
contributes to reaching water objectives.
Getting water measures included within national RDPs
Discussion focused on the following questions:
 Which ministries are responsible for determining the priorities within the
national (and or regional) RDP?
 How have WFD teams fed into these discussions/decision making and how
could they in the future (e.g. using information from the RBMPs)?
 What are the barriers to water measures being included in RDPs at national
government level? e.g. budget for water compared to other priorities
(biodiversity/ climate change/ competitiveness).
 How can these barriers be overcome? (e.g. by explaining the benefits and
synergies of water measures).
Regarding the ministries responsible for determining the priorities within the national
(and or regional) RDP, it is important to note that for some MS (Austria, Lithuania
and the UK), the same ministry is responsible for both agriculture and environment.
However, even where such combination occurs, getting water priorities into the RDP
requires effort. For example, one MS said that water priorities had been identified,
but this requires tough negotiation with other competing priorities before being fully
agreed for the RDP.
In many MS responsibilities for agriculture and environment are under separate
ministries. In some MS the impact of the environment on the last RDP was viewed
10
as minimal and it was viewed that the focus was on topping up farmers payments.
However, it is hoped this will change for the next RDP. In one MS there is a high
level decision making group which includes the Ministry of Environment. This has
helped to get water included to some extent, but there have been compromises. In
another MS there has been much discussion and consultation with ministries and
stakeholders, so that it is expected that there will be water measures, although these
are not yet agreed.
Implementation of measures can sometimes be the joint responsibility for agricultural
and environmental authorities.
WFD teams are involved in RDP development in all MS. In some they start by
providing targeting of issues or measures. In some there is a specific working group
on water, while in others they are within working groups on specific articles. As a
result, it is important to ensure knowledge transfer between these processes. In the
Netherlands presentation it explained the bottom-up process where the water boards
offer measures to be included in the RDP.
In a number of MS those responsible for water have been asked to provide much
evidence of the benefits to water quality, etc., and on the effects on the
competitiveness of farms as there is a strong political link to the growth agenda. For
the last RDP this level of analysis of what measures to tackle what pressures and
where in the river basin was lacking as RBMPs were only just being developed. This
evidence gap should be progressively filled and MS will have to use as many lines of
evidence to convince finance and agricultural monstries to invest in water measures.
It is still viewed as a significant challenge to convince the agricultural sector of the
need for action,.
In one MS the experience of the whole MS being an NVZ under the Nitrates
Directive is positive in defining the baseline and stimulating interaction at national
level. Issues arise at the interaction between the federal and regional level and a
further issue is that there will be a major cut in funding under the next RDP. In
another MS the whole territory is also an NVZ, but this measure is old and is not
viewed as so helpful in developing the RDP. Thus consideration is being given to a
review.
A number of barriers to water measures being included in RDPs are seen in the MS.
These include:



Conflicts between environmental and agricultural priorities.
Budgetary issues, both limits and cuts.
The conflict between water quality and food production, which can be
addressed by linking measures to growth and by better targeting of measures.
In one MS RBMPs cover more than one region, but RDPs cover each region (which
are also responsible for co-financing) – so there is an issue of matching measures at
these different spatial scales. Furthermore, the legal status of river basin authorities
varies, complicating issues, although it is important to note that regions are
represented within river basin authorities.
11
In another MS there are also difficulties between the definition of regions and river
basins as regions have competencies for RD and provide the co-finance. For
example, there are 25 river basins. Some are in one region, but some cross many
regions. As a result, this MS is looking to address the governance issues by
combining regional programmes with a national programme.
Evidence on whether a measure works is needed to justify its inclusion in the RDP,
as well as evidence to the farmer that the problem is theirs, such as on the relative
role of fertilisers and waste water treatment works in causing nutrient enrichment. In
one MS the monitoring network enables the identification of specific nitrate problems
from agriculture and this provides evidence. In another MS water companies monitor
nitrate levels in water abstracted for drinking water. This has resulted in farmers
contacting the companies when they apply fertilisers to see if any leaches into to
water and, therefore, if there is wastage of fertilisers. The monitoring, therefore,
provides a business opportunity for farmers.
In conclusion, the following points are highlighted:







While it might be a little easier to bring water into an RDP with a combined
water and agriculture ministry, there will always be conflicts of priorities. There
is a need to balance the objectives of food production and the environment.
Therefore, measures should be win-win and/or deliver multiple benefits where
possible and be targeted to where they will really deliver benefits to society
(e.g. WFD protected areas) .
There needs to be improved links between RBMPs and RDPs. Many RBMPs
refer to payment by RDPs, but there are a limited number of plans that detail
the types of measures and funding available to deliver WFD outcomes.
Some MS have timing difficulties, e.g. RBMPs not being ready, so there is a
moving target to link with RDPs, but this shouldn’t prevent proposals being
prepared..
Communication involves not only officials, but all parties. However, achieving
this range of communication has proved to be difficult as a common language
needs to be developed. The type of communication can add value, especially
if this is not a one-way process.
Communication and co-operation with farmers is important so they
understand the measures and why they are needed. In promoting the
measures with sectors who may not be so interested in environmental
protection, it is important to focus on business and economic benefits, e.g.
protecting lakes and fisheries for tourism in rural areas. Arguing for Good
Ecological Status is unlikely to have resonance with farmers! Working with
farmers can also examine sustainability and certification issues – they may be
willing to go down this route if it confers them an economic advantage also.
There are difficulties in some cases to split mandatory measures from nonmandatory measures and which can qualify for funding or not.
Better evidence makes this easier - on the particular problems facing water
bodies, the specific pressures from agriculture and on the cost-effectiveness
of measures, such as the benefits of improved water efficiency. This is
particularly the case where environmental objectives are presented as
needing more money.
12




With regard to evidence, there is a need for strong data to demonstrate
current issues, but there is a challenge when trying to prove the nature of
future problems or the effectiveness of future measures. Examples of
developing evidence include the Netherlands WFD model or targeting in
Scotland based on evidence.
Where much responsibility for agriculture is at regional level, and this does not
match RBD boundaries, a national plan helps provide a structure.
It is important to target measures in the RDP. This not only delivers maximum
benefits, but addresses problems where there are budget limitations or cuts.
Linking RDPs with other funding or issues (multiple benefits) may be an
opportunity.
Tools from the EU were recognised as helping to overcome barriers.
Action by agencies to ensure effective delivery of measures within RDP
Discussion focused on the following questions:
 Which issues will the measures in your RDP address? (water quantity, water
quality, hydromorphology, restoring ecosystem function).
 How will you ensure the right measure is taken up in the right location, by :
o Using data (e.g. WFD reasons for failure data, GIS) to identify and
target hot spots?
o Increasing payment rates for certain measures in priority parts of
catchments?
o Training advisers to promote water measures in the right/restricted
locations?
 Under the RDR the need for an advisory service is very explicit, how will MS
implement this?
Discussion found that in most MS measures identified for RDPs commonly focus on
water quality and, where it is an issue (scarcity or flooding), water quantity. In a few
limited cases there are some ecosystem measures (e.g. wetlands and fish passes).
Measures on hydromorphology seem to be lacking except in Denmark under Article
31. It is also important to note that there are differences between surface and ground
waters.
Overall, many considered that water measures will be more represented in the next
RDP due to greater awareness, development of RBMPs, etc.
Ideally there should be targeting of measures. For example, much of the agricultural
pollution problem may occur on a small proportion of land. Targeting not only
focuses action (and support work such as advice) on the most important locations for
water improvements, but also obtains the largest outcomes with a limited budget.
However, there are limits to this. For example, such an approach requires good data
and in some cases there are problems getting institutions to share the necessary
data. Data sharing between agencies is important to understand uptake and
effectiveness of measures. Problems arise with different levels of detail, etc. The EU
INSPIRE initiative is trying to address some of these issues. This also links with the
need to monitor RDPs, which is insufficient in some cases. Other issues noted
included the scaling of data in some processes, e.g. whether RBMPs are too large a
13
scale to deliver the spatial resolution needed for targeting of measures. Some MS
suggested, Catchment of more local level plans would be needed to allow effective
targeting.
In one MS targeting is currently being undertaken using spatial mapping and it is
expected that this will help to identify where measures could be targeted to deliver
multiple benefits. However, results can be complex and this presents a
communication challenge. Targeting also presents political challenges as it would
mean removing funds from some farmers – or not making all funds open to all
farmers. Variable payment rates are also politically difficult. In one region, for
example, there has been a drive to keep the payment system simple, so that there is
no consideration of variable payments, just payment or non-payment. Incentivisation
could be an approach, e.g. using different intervention rates for priority areas and
priority measures. However, there has been little exploration of this to date.
In some MS targeting arises from other processes. For example, the highly variable
topography in one MS means that some crops, e.g. vineyards, are limited in
distribution, so this results in targeting of measures. In one region tobacco and maize
is grown. A model has been developed to identify the optimum timing of irrigation,
which reduces water use by 25%. It is hoped that this measure will be adopted in the
new RDP, funding farmers to have the model, with advice and training. A similar
approach for other crops, etc., could be used in other MS.
Ultimately, a primary consideration for farmers is the attractiveness of a measure. In
some cases even if a measure is 100% funded, farmers are not interested. The
variable uptake of measures can reflect different MS approaches. In one MS there is
a bottom-up approach, where farmers can come up with ideas to discuss with
authorities and measures can be prioritised on that basis. In another there is a top
down approach where farmers were told which measures would be mandatory. This
obligatory system has caused problems with the farming sector accepting the
measures. A level of consensus was reached on a combination between top down
and bottom up - that the scale of the problem should be identified to farmers by WFD
authorities and that farmers should be involved in designing measures that fill the
gap.
There is a strong need to communicate effectively with farmers. One to one working
is highly effective, but expensive. However, this does not need to be done with all
farmers, but authorities should target this advisory work to where measures will be
most effective in delivering water outcomes. Advice for RDP is different to that under
cross-compliance, as it is more targeted.
In many MS training for farmers is provided by chambers of agriculture, but others
can also be involved. In federal countries, advice is often provided at regional level.
In some MS advisors may have limited experience of environmental issues. It was
noted that there can be resistance in some MS for allowing in industry providing
advice (e.g. pesticide manufacturers), even though they might have detailed
knowledge of the best management practises for their products
14
In one region advice is privately organised and farmers have some scepticism, but
consideration is being given to rearrange this to look at wider issues such as nutrient
management plans. In one MS a review was undertaken on different types of advice
given to farmers and it was concluded that it would be beneficial for the farmers to
bring together the different types of advice. However, this requires a wide range of
knowledge and skills to be found in each individual advisor. In one MS, advice on
irrigation also includes support for IT tools for farmers. This helps to engage farmers
in considering appropriate measures. In one MS, farmers are required to undertake a
diagnostic to form the basis for subsequent discussion with advisors. In one region, a
scheme is part funded by RDP and has advisors going on to farms to give advice
and get voluntary measures taken up with the support of a grant scheme (50%
funded) to fund some issues like fencing. Combining targeted farm specific advice
and small grants in this way works well.
Training for advisors is also important. In one MS there is one to one training for
advisors and farmers. Training of advisors can be paid for under Article 16.
Accreditation for advisors may be beneficial.
Action by farmers their representatives and other stakeholders to ensure RDP
contributes to reaching water objectives
Discussion focused on the following questions:
 Are farmers and other stakeholders involved in the preparatory phase of the
RDP and design of water measures and how?
 Do river basin authorities communicate directly with farmers on measures and
how does this relate to communication with agricultural authorities (how can
this be aligned by both parties to give one clearer message to farmers?)
 How can you ensure enough farmers take up the measures to get catchment
coverage required to achieve objectives?
 How can farmer representatives encourage uptake of the right measures –
(e.g. can they explain to farmers that good progress on voluntary action may
negate the need for further regulatory action)?
All countries have a consultation process, such as workshops, but it was noted from
some that these might be too focused on farming organisations rather than farmers.
In many cases face to face engagement currently happens through regulatory
inspections which can be a problem in seeking to discuss voluntary/incentivised
measures. In Scotland catchment walks have been undertaken to avoid this. Some
MS do engage in one to one discussions, e.g. in one MS this is done for all farms
over a certain size. The differences between top-down and bottom-up approaches
noted earlier also affect the degree and type of interaction with farmers. It was also
questioned whether bottom-up approaches can raise expectations unduly,
particularly where the budget is limited. A number of MS have dedicated websites to
share information with farmers.
The requirements for consultation under Article 14 of the WFD can be interpreted in
variety of ways. In some areas there has been detailed interaction, but not in others.
Furthermore, NGOs could also host engagement (as seen in the earlier
15
presentation). However, once the information and views have been collected, the
tough task is to translate this into a management plan.
It was stressed that consultation with farmers is not necessarily about identifying new
measures, but getting buy-in for existing measures. Success cannot also be
guaranteed in one stage. Some farmers may take-up a measure and through
informal discussion others may apply at a later stage. Farmers can be involved in
developing measures – locally for technical measures and nationally for strategic
measures. However, it is not clear if the incentives for co-operation under the new
RDP are sufficient to get farmers to work together. It is easier to get uptake and
involvement if the focus is on results, but it can sometimes be difficult to demonstrate
the link between specific agricultural measures and changes in water outcomes. This
is particularly the case if farmers are strongly focused on business success and have
little interest in the environment.
In one MS it was noted that a key factor for a high rate of participation is the issue of
tourism as well as the demand for organic food due to take-up by supermarkets.
There is, therefore, a driver from urban areas. Furthermore, there is also a social
pressure in the farming community if one farmer steps out of line. In one region it
was noted that organic conversion in a drinking water protected area was supported
on top of RD support. However, this has slowed down as costs are high.
A particular challenge arises from some hydromorphological measures. For
example, such measures may require farmers to surrender land to re-naturalise
water courses and this is deemed very difficult to achieve with the payment rates
under RDP.
In one MS for the last RDP water was introduced at a late stage. However, it is
important to note that farmers were involved as stakeholders in the discussion on the
programmes of measures in the RBMP. This consultation can form a better basis for
discussion on measures in the next RDP.
The importance of buy-in from farmers across a catchment was noted. There could
be situations, for example, where unless 75% of farmers apply a measure, the
impacts would be minimal and not deliver WFD requirements. However, as RD is a
voluntary measure, it is not possible to compel farmers or take away funding from
some if others do not adopt the measure.
Farm organisations have an important role. They can help to explain measures to
farmers in simple, result-focused and economic terms. In the Baltic region there has
been a project for the past 1.5 years – ‘Baltic Deal’. This is supported by farmers
organisations around the Baltic as part of the EU Baltic Sea Strategy. However, it is
not financed under RD, but under the regional funds. However, it is looking to the
next RDP to take measures forward. Part of the project has included exchange of
farmers between MS to show best practice.
Concern was expressed that if a scheme ends, farmers will revert. It was considered
that this depends on value of land. If it is marginal, the farmer may not be bothered
to revert, but if it is high value there will be a strong economic pressure to revert.
16
It was stressed that RD is a voluntary approach and this provides an opportunity to
farmers to seek win-win solutions now. As the WFD continues to be implemented,
mandatory measures will be needed and this will be more the case if voluntary
measures are not taken up now.
Wrap up and next steps
It was noted that exchange of information on specific issues was useful and further
exchange on how MS provide advice to farmers, such as the role of farmer advisory
services for water issues could be useful. Participants were asked to share this
information by providing a short one-page summary to the Commission for
distribution.
Some participants asked whether particular measures could be included in an RDP.
The Commission stated that it could collect such questions and supply them to DG
AGRI to get their view.
Finally, some participants would like to learn more about how others are looking to
implement Article 31 and a suggestion was also made to consider how other EU
funds (eg structural) could be targeted to address water issues
The Commission will reflect on what additional work would be most useful under the
CIS process, after the way forward on CAP is clarified.
17