effects of cc standards on biodiversity and landscape

CROSS-COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT TOOLSpecific Targeted Research Project (STREP)EC contract number 44423-CCATProject duration: January 2007-December 2009

Effects of CC standards on Effects of CC standards on Biodiversity and LandscapeBiodiversity and Landscape

Juan J. Oñate & Patricia Martínez (UAM)Brussels, 30 March 2010

Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

StructureStructure

Potential effectiveness assessmentPotential effectiveness assessmentMethod.

Effects of SMRs on biodiversity. Different aggregation levels.

Effects of GAECs on biodiversity. Different aggregation levels.

Effects of SMRs on landscape.

Effects of GAECs on landscape.

Conclusions.

Intensity assessmentIntensity assessmentMethod.

Livestock intensity.

Land use intensity.

Conclusions.


Cross Compliance Assessment ToolCross Compliance Assessment Tool

Potential effectiveness - Potential effectiveness - MethodMethod

BD L Obligation characteristics

3 0 Obligations containing elements directly targeting the maintenance or survival of animal or plant species, and habitats listed in the Directives.

2 2 Obligations targeting habitat structure and landscape structural elements.

1 1 Obligations targeting non-structural characteristics of the habitat for species (i.e. pollution, erosion, water abstraction)

2 1 Other management prescriptions, e.g. stocking regimes, stubble management or time limits for harvesting, packaging, or grubbing of hedges.

1 0 Other management prescriptions, e.g. minimum height of cut or restrictions on treated seeds.

0 0 Obligations without effects on biodiversity and landscape.

00 00

Obligations for which effects cannot be assessed.

X X Obligations not in force or no data available

Assignment of scores to obligations in the coding database Assignment of scores to obligations in the coding database based onbased onthe type of impact and potential effectiveness level. the type of impact and potential effectiveness level.


Potential Potential effectiveneseffectivenesssofof

SMRsSMRs

ononBiodiversityBiodiversity


• Strongly varied among regions.• 6 Directives are included:

Birds Directive Highest: Sweden, Scotland, Finland, Germany and some Austrian regions.

Nitrates Directive Highest: Italy and Western France.

Habitat Directive Only important effects in some Austrian regions and Navarra (ES).

Groundwater Directive Low potential effect in most regions (only in Germany it has a higher effect)

Sewage Sludge Directive Highest in Italy and Germany.

Plant Protection Products Directive Low potential effect.

• Highest contribution from Birds and Nitrate Directives.


Biodiversity - Potential effectiveness - Biodiversity - Potential effectiveness - SMRsSMRs


Potential Potential effectiveneeffectivenessssofof

Birds Dir.Birds Dir.

ononBiodiversitBiodiversity y


Biodiversity - Potential effectiveness – Biodiversity - Potential effectiveness – Birds Dir.Birds Dir.

• Highest effect in Sweden and some Austrian regions.• Lowest in Mediterranean countries • Italy and some Spanish regions have not implemented• 3 measures are included:

Maintain all bird species population High in Sweden, Scotland, Denmark and Austria. Low in Mediterranean countries

Special protection areas Only implemented in Sweden, Spain, England, Northern Ireland and Austria

Prohibit killing/disturbance Generally low potential effect where implemented.

• Germany has quite a high score on the three measures.



Potential Potential effectiveness effectiveness

ofof

Nitrate Dir.Nitrate Dir.



Biodiversity - Potential effectiveness – Nitrate Dir.

• Highest effect in Italy and western France regions.• Lowest in Spain, Greece, Slovenia, England and Wales.• 11 measures are included:

Most of them with low potential effect or no obligation implemented: Crop specific application; Max 170KgN/ha; Limitations on sloping grounds; Appropriate application techniques; Growing winter crops; Land use management; Fertilizer use recording; Irrigation systems management; NVZ rules.

Periodical no fertiliser Higher effect in Belgium.

Prevent runoff, seepage Higher effect in Finland, Denmark, Germany and Navarra (ES).

Prevent leaching to specific zones Higher effect in western F.

• Countries with highest scores, such as France, Germany and Denmark, have implemented obligations related to most measures.



Potential Potential effectiveness effectiveness

ofof

Habitat Dir.Habitat Dir.



Biodiversity - Potential effectiveness – Biodiversity - Potential effectiveness – Habitat DirHabitat Dir..

• Generalized low effect.• Highest in Austrian regions and Navarra (ES).• 2 measures are included:

Special Conservation Areas Important differences between regions. Higher effect in Navarra and Austrian regions.

Preserve plant species in Annex IV Lower in Sweden, Finland, UK, Germany, Netherlands, some Austrian and Spanish regions and Portugal), and slightly higher in Luxembourg, Navarra, La Rioja, Baleares and Salzburg.



Potential Potential effectiveneeffectiveness ss ofof

GAECsGAECs



Biodiversity - Potential effectiveness - GAECs.

• Highest effect in England and some Spanish regions (Cantabria, País Vasco, Cataluña and C. Valenciana).

• Lowest in Italy, Slovenia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Czech Republic and Slovakia.

• 5 issues are included:

Soil erosion and Minimum level of maintenance issues have more potential effect on biodiversity than Soil organic matter, Soil structure and the Additional obligations.



Biodiversity - Potential effectiveness - GAECs.

• Main conclusions of GAEC issues:

– Overall highest effectiveness from minimum level of maintenance and soil erosion issues

– Soil structure and additional farmer’s obligations issues lowest overall effectiveness:

• Only Finland, France, England, Wales, Ireland, Belgium, Spain (except Madrid and Murcia), Portugal and Austria have implemented additional obligations.



Potential Potential effectiveneeffectivenessssof of

SMRsSMRs

ononLandscapeLandscape


Landscape- Potential effectiveness - Landscape- Potential effectiveness - SMRs.SMRs.

• Strongly varied effects among regions.• 6 Directives are included:

Birds Directive: Generally zero or low effect where it has been implemented, except in Austria and Denmark.

Groundwater Directive: Low and homogeneous across regions (slightly higher in Germany)

Sewage Sludge Directive: Higher in Italy and Germany.

Nitrate Directive: Particularly high in Italy and Western France.

Habitat Directive: Varies strongly among regions.

Plant Protection Products Directive: Low effect / not assessable.



Landscape- Potential effectiveness - GAECs.


Potential Potential effectiveneeffectivenessssof of

GAECsGAECs

ononLandscapeLandscape


Landscape- Potential effectiveness - Landscape- Potential effectiveness - GAECs.GAECs.

• Highest effect in Spain (specially in Cantabria and Comunidad Valenciana) and England.

• Lowest in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Italy, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia and Austria.

• 5 issues are included:

Soil erosion: Highest in Spain. Not implemented in France, Estonia and Latvia.

Soil organic matter: Highest in Germany. Not implemented in some Italian regions, Denmark, Netherlands and North Ireland.

Soil structure: Highest in Wales (only implemented in UK, Spain, France, Greece, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Slovenia and Austria).

Minimum level of maintenance: Generally high. Highest in UK, Germany and two Spanish regions (Cantabria and C. Valenciana)

Additional farmers obligations: Highest in England and Wales (only implemented in Spain, Austria, France, Finland, Belgium and UK)



Effectiveness assessment.Effectiveness assessment. Conclusions.Conclusions.

• Generalized positive potential effects.• Effects on biodiversity and landscape of Birds,

Habitat, Nitrate and Sewage Sludge Dirs. are highly varied among regions.

• Effects on biodiversity and landscape of PPP and Groundwater Dirs. are more homogeneous.

• Effects of GAECs on biodiversity and landscape are highly varied among regions, specially for issues Soil erosion and Minimum level of maintenance.

• This method, although highly dependent on the scores defined, seems useful to explore patterns of potential effectiveness of CC on biodiversity and landscape in the EU at regional level.



Intensity assessment- Intensity assessment- MethodMethod


• Changes in intensive and extensive land use and livestock (in absolute and relative figures) per region due to CC measures

• Assessment includes: Nitrates, Animal registration, Sewage sludge, Groundwater, Plant Protection Products, Food Law and Calves, Pigs and Animal welfare Directives.

• Post model calculation using the output of CAPRI model.

• Different scenarios are assessed by the CCAT tool: 2005 baseline year, 0%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% compliance, and 50% gap closure.




Livestock intensityLivestock intensity

• Indicator: Share of LU in a NUTS2 region classified as extensive or intensive according to a combination of two indexes: Stocking density (SD) and Concentrate feed and maize consumption (CFM).

• Calculation:

Pigs and poultry automatically included in the intensive group. Classification of ruminant animal types, combining two indexes:

1. Stocking density adding up all LU of dairy, other cattle, sheep and goats, and dividing this number by the fodder area.

2. Concentrated feed index relative share of energy intake per type of ruminant, estimated to come from concentrate feed and maize.

Combination of classes of the three input-related indexes:

CFM-extensive CFM-Medium CFM-intensiveSD-extensive E E ISD-medium intensive E E ISD-intensive I I I


% Change in share of extensive & % Change in share of extensive & intensive livestock: intensive livestock: Compliance gap 0-Compliance gap 0-

100%100%


Extensive Intensive


Intensity assessment - Intensity assessment - Share of extensive / Share of extensive / intensive livestockintensive livestock


ExtensiveExtensive

• Extensification is higher in Estonia, regions in North Germany and Belgium, Slovakia, Greece and Northwest Iberian Peninsula regions.

• Intensification is higher in some regions in Poland, Czech Republic, Austria, Greece, Italy and Navarra.

IntensiveIntensive• Extensification is higher in Estonia, Latvia,

Lithuania, some regions in Poland, Greece, Slovakia, France, Portugal and Spain.

• Intensification is higher in Wales, País Vasco and some regions in Belgium, Hungary and Finland.




Land use intensityLand use intensity

• Indicator: Regional UAA classified as extensive/medium/intensive, (share or absolute ha) according to an indicator that combines 1) organic N application, 2) mineral N application, and 3) crop protection products spending (CPS) for the main crops in the region.

• Calculation: Integration of the 3 indexes into 1 combined indicator

1. Sum of N-organic and N-mineral kilograms.

2. Classification of the combined N index and the CPS index in 3 intensity classes (30% below and upper threshold values of the EU weighted average limits).

3. Combination of classess of the three input-related indexes

N-manure+mineral extensive

N-manure+mineral medium

N-manure+mineral intensive

CPS-extensive E M ICPS-Medium M M I CPS-Intensive I I I


ExtensiveExtensive

MediumMedium

IntensiveIntensive

Compliance Compliance gap between 0 gap between 0 and 100%and 100%Relative Relative differencesdifferences

% Change % Change in share of in share of land useland use


Intensity assessment - Intensity assessment - Share of extensive, Share of extensive, medium and intensive land uses.medium and intensive land uses.

• General decrease in % of intensive UAA, mainly in the Mediterranean countries and East European countries and some regions in Central Europe, Finland and Scotland.

• No general trend in the % of extensive UAA. Increases in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, Scotland and some Mediterranean regions. Constant in Central European regions.

• Changes in the % UAA classified as medium to be analysed regionally to identify directions of change (extensification or intensification).



Intensity assessment -Intensity assessment - ConclusionsConclusions

• Intensity changes due to CC are quite small.

• Regional results obtained with this assessment should be further analysed separately.

• However some general trends emerge:

Livestock intensity: Extensification in Scandinavian and Eastern European countries and North Western Iberian Peninsula regions vs. Intensification in Central European Countries and Mediterranean regions (except Italy)

Landuse intensity Extensification in Mediterranean, Scandinavian and Eastern countries vs. Intensification in Central European countries.


CROSS-COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT TOOLSpecific Targeted Research Project (STREP)EC contract number 44423-CCATProject duration: January 2007-December 2009

Effects of CC standards on Effects of CC standards on Biodiversity and LandscapeBiodiversity and Landscape

Juan J. Oñate & Patricia Martínez (UAM)Brussels, 30 March 2010

effects of cc standards on biodiversity and landscape

Documents

highest effect

potential effectiveness

birds directive highest

austrian regions

habitat directive

effects of smrs

effects of gaecs

nitrates directive highest