Status box
WATER DIRECTORS MEETING – RIGA, 26-27 MAY 2015
Agenda item: 11d – Adopted Rural Development Programmes – implications
for second RBMPs
Document: WD/2015-1/7
Title: Integration of the WFD and FD into RDPs
Brief analysis of new RDPs (2015-2021) and short term opportunities for
improvement
Summary
When reviewing the draft RDPs the Commission expected to see integration
of WFD and FD objectives into the RDPs
COM looked for evidence of this within the SWOT, needs, strategy, measures
(and made observations as part of the negotiation process that precedes
adoption of final RDPs).
The degree to which integration was demonstrated differed vastly among MS.
All MS have the opportunity to improve the contribution RDPs play in
delivering the WFD and FD objectives, both in terms of how the new RDPs
are implemented and through modifications that can be made to RDPs.
During the negotiation /consultation on draft RDPs many MS remarked that
2nd RBMPs were not yet adopted and that once they were, more specific
measures to address agriculture pressures would be identified and these
could then be added to the RDPs.
Recommendations on actions that can be taken in the short term are set
out in a table at the end of this document
This note is provided to water directors at this time so its
recommendations can be taken into account in the finalization of 2nd
RBMPs.
Water Directors are invited to:

Take note of the information presented and inform the relevant
authorities accordingly.
Contact: Claire McCamphill (Claire.mccamphill@ec.europa.eu)
-1-
1. Introduction
When the first RBMPs were adopted in 2009, the Rural Development Programmes were
already in place for 2 years, making it difficult to ensure that RDPs meaningfully contributed
towards achieving WFD objectives. These limitations were clearly highlighted by the
assessment of the 2007-2013 Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) as regards water
management1. This assessment showed that RDPs could be significantly improved to deliver
coherence between agriculture and water policies and to ensure that CAP 2nd pillar funds
were delivering public goods. The assessment highlighted that the RDPs at that time did not
sufficiently address agricultural pressures on the water environment and did not clearly
establish safeguard mechanisms to ensure inappropriate developments were controlled. The
Court of Auditors (CoA) report2, published in 2014, came up with similar findings, highlighting
that Member States (MS) were not taking enough advantage of rural development funding to
aid the implementation of the WFD. To help improve this situation, prior to the MS drafting of
their 2015-2021 RDPs, two documents3 were published that provide guidance to the MS on
which articles of the 2013 Rural Development Regulation (RDR) could be used to benefit
water.
The updating of the WFD Art. 5 report and the preparation of the flood risk assessments prior
to the drafting of the RDPs presented for the first time a great opportunity to inform rural
development authorities on the significant pressures the agriculture sector is placing on
water management and to allow for the identification of targeted measures that improve the
water environment, protect against flooding and protect and improve the rural economy.
However, the RBMPs including the Programme of Measures under the WFD will not have
been finalized before the majority of MS have already finalized their rural development
programme(s). While hopefully coordination between water authorities, agriculture
authorities and rural development agencies took place, modifications to the RDPs due
to new information and new measures in the RBMP may be necessary.
Additionally, the finalized RBMPs and PoMs can and should provide important information
needed for rural development authorities to frame their implementing rules (e.g. selection
criteria, Art. 46) to ensure the RDPs contribute towards protecting the water environment.
1
Dworak, Berglund et al (2009): WFD and Agriculture Linkages at the EU Level. Summary report on an in-depth
assessment of RD-programmes 2007-2013 as regards water management. Available here:
http://www.ecologic.de/download/projekte/1900-1949/1937/final_report.pdf
2
Court of Auditors (2014): Integrated of EU water policy objectives with the CAP: a partial success. Available
here: http://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR14_04/SR14_04_EN.pdf
3
1) Dworak, T, Frelih Larsen, A, Berglund, M (2011) Legal proposals for the CAP after 2013 – a first assessment
from the water protection perspective. 2) European Commission (2014): “Assessment of opportunities for water
in greening and the Rural Development Programmes”. Both are available on CIRCABC, Working Group
Agriculture
-2-
This short note briefly describes a high level summary of the main findings from the adoption
of RDPs for the 2015-2021 period, and presents first recommendations targeted at the MS
as regards the process of finalizing the draft RBMPs and PoMs and improving the
contribution of RDPs for water management . A more extensive final report will be published
by the end of 2015 once the final RDPs have been approved. The results and
recommendations presented here will be further refined and expanded once the assessment
process has come to a close.
2. Aim and Methodology of the Assessment
1.1. Aim of the Assessment
Whereas the assessment in 2009 provided an ex-post analysis of the place of water
management in the rural development programme, for this programme cycle DG
Environment commissioned a study to analyse the draft rural development programmes to
ensure a sufficient consideration of WFD and coherency of water issues throughout the
programmes. By assessing the draft programmes, the objective was to highlight potential
issues to allow MS to revise their programmes and better account for water management.
The main aims of the assessment were:
•
To ensure the description of the programme area and the main strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) aligns with SWMIs identified under
the WFD;
•
To ensure WFD and FD objectives are prominent in the needs, objectives and
strategy of the programme;
•
To ensure the measures offered address the pressures identified in the SWOT and
are clearly targeted to priority areas identified under the WFD and FD;
•
To ensure all Ex-ante Conditionalities (EAC) are met, especially EAC 5.2 requiring
implementation of Art. 9 on water pricing if irrigation is to be supported
•
To ensure agri-environment measures were not paying for normal agriculture practice
and were beyond a clearly defined baseline (eg measures for nutrients, pesticides)
•
To assess whether indicators used will allow a sufficient assessment of the
effectiveness of water measures under the RDP
•
To assess budget to identify the priority given to water issues in the RDP.
-3-
1.2. Methodology
The draft RDPs (totalling 105 programmes4) were analysed using a template focussing on
how water management was taken into account in key chapters of the RDP and the extent to
which a proper intervention logic (from identifying pressures in the SWOT to setting
measures) supporting the implementation of the WFD could be identified. The baseline for
the template was the recommendations from the previously mentioned 2009 report and the
2014 report from the Court of Auditors.
These observations were added to the Observation Letter sent to the individual MS or
Region explaining which improvements they should make to the draft RDPs. The final RDPs
will be assessed in a final round once they have been approved to assess the final
contribution towards sustainable water management.
3. Results of the Analysis
The assessment of the 105 RDPs for 2016-2020 is still on-going; however, the assessments
already carried out enable an initial summary of the results found thus far. The results are
grouped into five main questions, which are based on the 2014 CoA recommendations:
Have pressures on water been sufficiently included in the RDP?
The recommendation by the 2013 CoA report indicated that the MS need to better integrate
pressures on water into the RDP and recommended that the RDPs better align their SWOT
analysis by taking advantage of the information gathered under the WFD.
In the draft RDPs, published Summer 2014, it was clear that some RDPs had taken up this
recommendation and provided clear information on the percentage of water bodies not
achieving good status due to particular agriculture activities. However, almost none of the
SWOTs consistently gave information on all aspects of agriculture pressures, often
associating ecological status only with nutrient pollution and failing to account for
morphological alterations stemming from agriculture activities, e.g. livestock eroding water
banks or channelization for irrigation purposes. In some cases clear statistics on water body
status were provided but there were not sufficient links between agriculture practices
and pressures; e.g. nutrient pollution identified but not linked to arable or livestock activities,
thus not providing a clear picture of what type of measure was needed. In most cases,
unfortunately, the SWOTs failed to provide any information as regards the status of water
bodies, despite repeated requests for such revisions during the consultation with the member
states on the RDPs. Additionally, in many cases the SWOT did not indicate which river basin
districts were covered by the programme or provide information on where pressures were
greatest within the programme area, thus providing limited useful information to allow for
targeting of measures. Finally, very few MS made specific references to the 2013
updated WFD Art. 5 report, often using outdated information from 2009 or earlier
4
Excluding the overseas territories
-4-
Have the EU’s water policy objectives and the MS needs in relation to water
management been properly taken into account?
The CoA report found that MS plans for rural development spending do not always take
account of the EU’s water policy objectives and MS needs in relation to water. Based on the
analysis of the RDPs, many MS are continuing to fail to properly integrate WFD and FD
objectives into the RDP’s strategy. The needs section often developed very generic
statements and the strategies for Priority 4b (Improving Water Management) did not
address all the agriculture pressures on water. The overall strategy of the programmes,
which was set out in Chapter 5 of the RDP, largely focused on economic improvements with
little to no references to the WFD or FD. It was often unclear why certain pressures that were
identified in the SWOT failed to then be addressed by the measures in the programme.
Following the 2nd consultation, some MS transparently indicated how morphological
pressures were being addressed by other national/regional programmes.
Do the measures in the RDPs ensure water pressures are addressed and negative
side-effects on water are avoided?
The measure packages of the RDP showed considerable improvement from the previous
programming period but significant progress is still needed. The final assessment focussed
on four measures: M4 on agriculture investments (Art. 17 RDR), M5 on agriculture disasters
like floods (Art. 1), M10 on agri-environmental measures (Art. 28) and M12 on payments
under the WFD (Art. 30). Following the CoA recommendations to ensure negative impacts
from investments are avoided, to earmark funds for water-related measures and to wisely
use funding by targeting measures, it is clear that considerable improvements are still
necessary.
In terms of measures selected, in many cases not all pressures identified in the SWOT
were sufficiently addressed by the measures or measures were completely missing.
For example, water scarcity and drought were mostly addressed through financing irrigation
systems without the RDP considering measures to switch to less water intensive or drought
resistant crops. Pressures were mainly addressed by one or two measures without full
consideration of all ways of addressing a problem. While there appeared to be an increase in
natural water retention measures, there is still a lot of support for hard defence measures.
Overall, the measures found in the draft RDPs were largely in line with the measures offered
in 2007-2013, with little evidence of innovation or consideration given to lessons learned.
An initial concern was the lack of clarity on how article 46 would be implemented in a way
that was consistent with the regulation and consistent with the WFD. Problems encountered
included: - MS with sufficient gaps in water body status assessment not setting out how they
would fill the gaps before irrigation projects commenced - MS not requiring abstraction
permits to be reviewed to be WFD compliant before irrigation projects were commenced lack of methodology to determine how water savings would be calculated/ their return to the
water body measured. Following the consultation rounds the references to Art. 46 improved;
though for some MS concerns remain that negative impacts from investments will not be
avoided. Art. 46 calls for between 5-25% water savings. Unfortunately, many programmes
only applied the minimum 5%, thus the hope for improvements in quantitative status through
-5-
this measure is limited. As such it is vital that the second RBMPs include a proper review of
abstraction permits bring them progressively in line with good status requirements.
Overall, the RDPs did not provide extensive information on the GAECs and SMRs laying the
foundation for measure implementation. Some RDPs provided very clear information on
which GAECs and SMRs were relevant for which measures, but often this information was
not officially submitted for review. Moreover, the lack of attention to restrictions on
phosphorus is widespread. MS also failed to indicate how far along they were with
implementing the Pesticides Directive, not including any information on their action plans.
This adds further support to the need to identify WFD and SUD measures for inclusion in
cross-compliance.
Drainage measures for the most part only included brief references to the WFD without
indicating that drainage investments would undergo an Art. 4 (7) analysis; this was largely
rectified, however, during the negotiations on the prpgrammes.
A Targeting methodology of measures was lacking in many RDPs. Some MS targeted
measures quite well, e.g. only financing winter cover where groundwater bodies are failing
good status. Overall, however, it is clear that selection criteria need to be further developed,
taking advantage of areas identified by the WFD or FD, e.g. using flood risk maps to decided
where measures for flooding will be financed.
Completely missing from all the RDPs was the use of M12 (Art. 30) on payments due to
implementation of WFD mandatory measures. Some of the draft RDPs applied M12 –
approximately 5 programme – but after the 2nd consultation not a single programme offered
M12.
Do the monitoring and evaluation system enable a clear assessment of impacts of
programme on water pressures?
The Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (CMEF) of the RDP establishes the
means for allowing an assessment on the achievement of established objectives. The CoA
report found that the CAP monitoring and evaluation systems are of limited use as regards
water-related information, as the result indicator (‘area under successful land management
contributing to water quality’) is not sufficiently precise and the impact indicator
(‘improvement in water quality’) refers only to nitrates and phosphorus and there is notwater
quantity indicator. The review of the RDPs found no changes to the CMEF to take on
board the CoA recommendations. Indicators have remained the same, thus water quantity
and morphology cannot be assessed, nor have the RDPs indicated how they link their RDP
monitoring with the WFD and FD monitoring systems.
None of the MS used the opportunity to go beyond the CMEF on the national level,
using the detailed water monitoring system for assessing the effectiveness of the RDP
measures (in terms of targeting and types of measures) and preparing the ground for the
next cycle of RDPs.
-6-
Have rural development funds been used sufficiently to respond to water concerns?
The financing of measures and determining the share of the budget going towards water
issues is not possible as the RDPs have indicated that all agri-environmental measures are
multi-objective and cannot be solely linked to one priority. Despite this, the majority of
Member States are allocating more money to Priority 4 than to Priority 2 (on economic
competiveness).
4. Initial Recommendations
These Recommendations have been formulated to underscore how the RBMPs and PoMs
can help MS improve the implementation and programme design of their RDPs. The basis
for column 1 is Annex 7 of the WFD, which clearly lays out the information MS must include
in their RBMPs. Column 2 highlights the 2015 Commission Communication on the WFD and
FD5 and its recommendations for improvements on Member States’ implementation of the
WFD6. These documents form the baseline of the expectation of the progress delivered to
improve the RBMPs and PoMs in the second management cycle of the WFD. Column 3
indicates how the individual finalized aspects of the WFD can aid MS in developing
implementation rules for their measures under the RDPs, whereas column 4 clarifies what
potential programme modification MS may need to carry out due to revisions to water-related
directives that make up the baseline for measures under the RDP.
5
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/pdf/4th_report/COM_2015_120_en.pdf
6
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/waterframework/pdf/4th_report/CSWD%20Report%20on%20WFD%20PoMs.pdf
-7-
Table 1 Recommendations to the MS
Elements needed
for RBMPs (Annex
7 WFD) related to
agriculture
pressures
Recommendations
made in the CSWD for
WFD implementation
Recommendations for
RDP Implementation
Map
of
the
monitoring
networks
established under
Art. 8 including
results in terms of
status
Finalize
monitoring
network to close the
gaps on “unknown”
status of WBs in the
RBMPs and finalized
update on the status of
WBs
(qualitative,
chemical quantitative)
- Information
General description
of characteristics, a
summary
of
significant
pressures
and
impact of human
activity on status of
water
bodies
including
estimations of point
source and diffuse
pollution
and
abstractions (Art. 5)
Clear
link
between
pressures and impacts
- Revised SWOT clearly
Gap
analysis
on
assessing
the
quantitative contribution
of basic measures for
reducing
agriculture
pressures is finalized
and
supplementary
needed to fill the gap
are included in the
PoMs
- Programme
Finalized RBMPs and
FRMPs present a clear
indication of needs and
areas to be targeted
A report on the
practical steps and
measures taken to
apply principles of
recovery of costs of
water
use
in
accordance
with
Art. 9
Pricing
policy
for agriculture applied to
ensure WFD objectives
can be met
Recommendations for
potential RDP
modifications
on
quantitative
pressures/status
should
inform
the
application of Art. 46 for
irrigation works
presenting the situation
of
how
agriculture
activities affect good
status of WBs
modification to fund the
supplementary
measures needed to
address
agriculture
pressures identified in
the finalized PoM
- Develop
selection
criteria using the areas
targeted in the RMBPs
and FRMPs as a basis
for
water
related
measures
where EAC 5.2 is not
yet met, changes to the
pricing policy should be
applied in the 2nd
RBMP to ensure there
is an incentive function
for sustainable use of
water . These changes
should then be applied
in the implementation
of the RDP.
-8-
- Programme
modification to include
funding for M12 (Art.
30) in areas where the
RBMP has identified
that
basic
and
supplementary
measures will not be
enough to achieve
good status
Table 1 Recommendations to the MS
A summary of the
controls
on
abstraction of water
in line with Art. 11
(3)e
All MS to have in place Abstraction Permits that
are compatible with the
achievement of WFD
objectives
WFD compliant
Abstraction Permits
provide the basis for
controlling/monitoring
irrigation works
financed under the
RDP
A summary of the Revisions to national
controls for diffuse implementation of the
source
in Nitrates Directive are
accordance
with made to address diffuse
Art. 11 (3)h
nutrient pollution
- Art. 46 rules should be
revised when changes
are made to the
permitting regime
- Programme
modification to remove
measures that are now
part of the baseline
under
the
Nitrates
Directive
- Include more ambitious
new measures (eg M10
or 12
A summary of the
controls for point
source and diffuse
pollution
in
accordance
with
Art. 11 (3)g and h
A
list
of
environmental
objectives
established under
Article
4
and
identification of the
application of Art 4
(4), (5), (6) and (7)
Review of regulation on
the use of pesticides is
finalized along with the
development of the
National
Action
Programme to fulfil the
requirement to have
controls on pesticide
pollution
- Programme
Finalize
review
regarding
the
designation of HMWBs,
in particular taking into
account
restoration
measures that would
make it possible for
water bodies to achieve
good status
- On the basis of the
modification to remove
measures that are now
part of the baseline
under the Sustainable
Use
of
Pesticides
Directive
- Include more ambitious
measures to address
pesticide pollution (e.g.
M4
spraying
equipment,
PPP
storage),
M10
(reduction/ban
pesticides)
needs identified in the
finalized RBMPs and
the PoM, programme
modification for M4.4,
M10, M7 or M10 to
finance Natural Water
Retention Measures as
necessary
to
fulfil
Community obligations
to achieve good status
in WBs and to provide
soft flood control.
-9-