1. Item 4 – Identification of main gaps in the EU instruments

2. CAP and Forest policy cluster

Josiane Masson

European Commission, DG ENV D1

EU Expert Group on Soil Protection

3rd meeting – 18-19 October 2016

Identification of main gaps Agriculture & Forest cluster

CAP does not cover all EU farms and agricultural land • Pillar 1 (75% CAP budget): 34% farmers - 11% agriculture land not covered

• Pillar 2 (xx% CAP budget): voluntary scheme

Direct aid beneficiaries (2014) 7.2M farmers (66%)

155 M ha (89% total EU)

Total EU-28 (ESTAT, FSS 2013) 10.8 M Agricultural holdings 174.6 M ha Agricultural land

118 RDPs

72% EU agricultural land – 2.5 M farmers subject to at

least one green direct payment

Soils in CAP instruments

• Soils directly addressed in CAP Pillars 1 and 2

• Cross-compliance - GAEC 4 Minimum Soil cover

- GAEC 5 Minimum land management reflecting site specific conditions to limit erosion

- GAEC 6 Maintenance of soil organic matter including ban on burning arable stubble

• Greening – new instrument CAP reform 2013 - Recital (41) Crop diversification… most notably with benefits on soil

quality

- Recital (42) Maintenance of permanent grassland with associated environmental benefits in particular carbon sequestration

• Rural Development - Art. 5(4)(c) Preventing soil erosion and improving soil management

- Art. 5(5)(e) Fostering Carbon conservation and sequestration in agriculture and forestry

• Some other measures not targeting soil may have positive impact (e.g. GAEC 7, Greening Ecological Focus Area...)

GAEC standards at EU and MS level

• All farmers receiving direct aid (Pillar 1) and area-based payment (Pillar 2) should comply to CAP cross-compliance. However the EU framework defines minimum standards for soil without quantifying them (in absence of EU soil policy targets)

- GAEC 4: Minimum soil coverage

- GAEC 5: Minimum land management reflecting site specific conditions

- GAEC 6: Maintenance of soil organic matter level through appropriate practices including ban on burning arable stubble except for plant health reasons

• MS can choose the minimum standard or define more demanding standards according to specific conditions. They should inform the Commission of their defined standard but it is not subject to formal approval

• Standards mostly relate to management practices not to results on erosion or organic matter

• Without precise targets and appropriate monitoring it is impossible to measure the real impact on soil (which takes more than 1 year)

GAEC standards

Percentage of minimum green soil cover

• Of the 39 MS+Regions analysed only 7 define a minimum standard for green soil cover (from 30% to 80%).

• Some restrictions apply related to specific cultivation e.g. BE-Flanders: minimum standard (80% apply only to fruits -except strawberries, ornamental plants, seed and planting material, and woody plants

Findings: Most of MS+R (82%) did not define the minimum percentage of soil cover

- It can be very coarse coverage with limited benefit on soil

GAEC 4 – Minimum soil coverage

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

BE - Flanders BG DK EE PL SK SV

80

30

50

30 30 40

50 (60)

Percen

tag

e

Member states (including their regions)

Percentage of soil cover

Compulsory percentage of soil cover presented under GAEC 4 standard in Member states including their regions in 2015 (source: DG ENV based on JRC database, 2015)

• Gradient (slope) restriction for soil cover establishment

Findings: 30 MS+R did not define gradient restrictions but in 9 MS soil cover is restricted to slopes over a given gradient. This restriction may apply to a limited period.

• Period of soil cover

Findings: only 8 MS+R (DK, DE, EL, HR, IT, LU, SL and UK-England) define all-year soil cover.

For others the benefit on soil is questionable: 4 MS+R did not present specific period. The major part (54%) set period during winter (usually 1st Jan-1st March). The others only during the growing period or a part of it. Some additional restrictions may apply e.g. IT on land with visible erosion or limitation of period to erosion risk (DE)

GAEC 4 – Minimum soil coverage

Gradient limitation and period of soil cover under GAEC 4 standard in Member states including their regions in 2015 (source: DG ENV based on JRC database, 2015)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

BE -Wallonia

CY CZ EL FR -Reunion

LV MT SK

Percen

tag

e o

f slo

pe

Member states (including their regions)

Gradient limitation

54%

2% 8% 8%

20%

8%

The winter period

The certain partof the winterperiod

The growingperiod

The certain partof the growingperiod

All year round

Not detailed data

Minimum land management reflecting site specific conditions to limit erosion:

• All MS declared land management specific conditions.

• The variability of measures reflects to some extend the specific condition criteria defined in EU regulation.

• Some MS defined only one type of measure, some others use a combination of several types of measures sometimes very specific.

Finding: some MS offer the possibility to combine different types of measures according to site specificities. Restrictions may apply to certain areas.

The impact on reduction of erosion depends on how the risk assessment is undertaken

GAEC 5 – Minimum land management reflecting site specific conditions to limit erosion

Most used measures and techniques to limit erosion under GAEC 5 in Member states including their regions in 2014 and 2015 (source: DG ENV based on JRC database, 2015)

0 10 20 30

Additional suitable measures

Avoid overgrazing, poaching,…

Plant and upkeep landscape features

Maintenance of amelioration system

Protection strips

Cultivation along the contour lines or…

Ridge planting methode

Lying of micro-dams

Minimized soil preparation and…

Conservation tillage

Realization of furrows

Untilled headland (along water…

Limits for growing erosive causing…

Measures based on site-specific…

Number of member states and their regions where the measure was applied

Ap

pli

ed

measu

res

2014

2015

• Minimum standard applied in all MS: prohibition to burn out harvest fields/plant reminders after harvesting

• Excepted some regions, e.g. South Italy (old agronomical practice)

• Some MS also use additional standards

• Prohibition to cultivate specific or identical crop on the same crop for certain period and crop rotation measures: benefit for soil organic matter

• 2 measures (monitoring SOM and soil analysis) refer to measurement of SOM

• 1 measure addressing also soil compaction

GAEC 6 – Maintenance of soil organic matter

Most used measures and techniques to maintain soil organic matter under GAEC 6 in Member states including their regions in 2014 and 2015 (source: DG ENV based on JRC database, 2015)

0 5 10 15

Other crop rotation or managingrequirements

Stubble management

To ensure the soil analysis (pH, C content,humus etc.)

Coverage with nitrogen binding crops

Monitoring of organic matter spreading

Application of green manure or soildorganic manure

Not to enter agricultural soil in time whenit can be compacted or mucked or frozen

Prohibition to cultivate specific or identicalcrop on the same place for certain period

Number of member states and their regions

where the measure was applied

Ap

pli

ed

measu

res

2014

2015

• the number of selected landscape feature is variable from 1 to 11

GAEC 7 – Retention of landscape features

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

AT

BE (

FL)

BE (

WL)

BG

CY

CZ

DK

EE FI

FR

FR (

GD

)

FR (

GY)

FR (

IM)

FR (

MA)

FR (

RE)

DE

EL

HR

HU IR IT LT

LU

LV

MT

NL

PL

PT

PT (

AZ)

PT (

MA)

RO

SK SI

SP

SV

UK (

EN

)

UK (

NI)

UK (

SC)

UK (

WA)

Nu

mb

er o

f p

ro

tecte

d

lan

dscap

e f

eatu

res

Member states and their regions

2014 2015

• The retention of some landscape features contribute to prevent further soil degradation at local level

Greening measures

Identification of main gaps - Greening

• Greening applies only to a portion of farms and farmland

• 72 % of EU agricultural land (106 M ha) but only 36% of direct payment beneficiaries (2.5 M farmers) are under greening obligations

• This proportion varies a lot from one MS to the other

• Exemptions

• Farms < 10 ha of arable land exempted – partly overlapping with Small Farmer Scheme (15 MS)

• Organic farms (1% EU farms and 4% of agricultural land) considered as 'green by definition'

• Areas under permanent crops (6% of total EU agricultural area) receive green direct payment without greening obligations -> those crops can have very negative impacts on soil (intensive practices)

EU average 72%

Identification of main gaps - Greening

EU average 36%

Identification of main gaps - Greening

Identification of main gaps - Greening

• General findings

• Large flexibility left to MS and to farmers for the identification and selection of measures

• Greening based on annual payments – benefits on soil take more than one year to be apparent

• No specific target on soil improvement (e.g. increase of organic matter, reduction of erosion)

• Good management practices for soil are not part of greening obligations – Would it be possible to introduce standards (eg based on GSP Voluntary guidelines for Soil Sustainable Management)?

• Or define targets – feasibility of results based approach (would require specific measurement and evaluation

– deserve an adaptation of current control methods)?

Greening – crop diversification

Greening – Crop diversification

• Crop diversification – highlights • 25% EU arable land not subject to crop diversification

• The crop diversification threshold [the main crop should not

represent more than 75% of farm's total area] fits with existing practices for the majority of farmers

- "the amount of land on which farmers have to change crops to be compliant with this thresholds is estimated to be around 1%" (source "Review of greening after one year", Commission SWD(2016)218, 22.6.2016)

- "… this greening requirement contributes to avoiding a further deterioration of the current situation" (SWD(2016)2108) …. But it does not contribute to restore already degraded soil

• Benefits for soil questionable

- Monoculture is allowed in the limit of 75% of farmland – soil degradation will continue for this farmland

- Compared to crop rotation (which was in the Commission's proposal but not accepted for control issues) crop diversification does not have the same benefit for soil

Identification of main gaps – Crop diversification

Source: Review of greening after one year", Commission SWD(2016)218, 22.6.2016)

Greening – maintenance of permanent grassland

• MS should designate Environmentally sensitive permanent grassland (ESPG) inside or outside Natura 2000 sites

• At EU level 75% of grassland in Natura2000 is designated as ESPG with large variation: >90% for 10 MS and less than 10% for 5 MS

• 5 MS/R decided to designate ESPG outside N2000

• Within the designated areas farmers concerned (benefiting from direct payment and not exempted from greening obligations) declare their grasslands

• The proportion of declared ESPG at EU level is only 16% of permanent grassland

• It represented a fraction of permanent grassland at EU level with significant variation btw MS

Identification of main gaps – Maintenance permanent grassland

Identification of main gaps – Maintenance permanent grassland

• Maintenance threshold of 95% applies (when more than 5% grassland conversion obligation of reconversion equivalent Area to grassland for compensation)

• At national level for 23 MS – possible compensation when grassland is reduced in one area

• Regional level BE, DE, FR and UK (Northern Ireland)

• High flexibility but Potential decreased protection of grassland in specific areas – only DE has a system or authorization before conversion at farm level

• Rules have been changed compared to previous period (2007-2015) from 10 to 5%

Identification of main gaps – Maintenance permanent grassland