Annex 3 Summary of ms assessments

Slovenia

The agricultural sector in Slovenia is characterized by small average holding size (6.3ha of UAA per holding), relatively low labour productivity, and unfavourable natural conditions (72.5% of UAA is classified as less favoured mountainous areas). 99.8% of total agricultural holdings are family farms. In total there are 211,245 full-time jobs in the agriculture sector, a 17.73% decrease from 2000; no absolute numbers are provided regarding part-time and seasonal employment. Pastures and meadows make up nearly 2/3 of UAA and agriculture is dominated by dairy and livestock production. Farm structure is predominantly mixed production: 15.5% is mixed plant and livestock production; 21.7% is mixed livestock production; and 19.2% is mixed plant production. Organic farming covered 4.16% of UAA in 2006, an increase of 3.06% since 2000.

The main drivers for environmental problems in agriculture are the abandonment of production on marginal land and intensification of production on more productive and accessible land. Current agriculture trends point towards continued increase in intensification and specialisation of agriculture holdings. The loss of biodiversity and of cultural landscape features is the main environmental concern in the RDP, whereas water issues receive less attention. Water quality is stressed as a problem mostly as localized groundwater pollution by nitrates and phytosanitary substances in three hot spots in the Northeast. However, the whole country is designated as a nitrate vulnerable zone. Water quantity is flagged as a localized concern in the Northeast. The environmental analysis does not consider issues of water quantity (abstraction) in any detail and does not discuss hydro-morphological concerns.

Share of public budget among the three axis

The sustainable management of the environment and the countryside is the main priority of Slovenian RDP along with increased competitiveness and productivity of agriculture. The public budget allocates 50.7% of funds to axis 2 and 34.5% of the budget to axis 1. Agri-environment measure (214) receives 26% of the total budget and half of axis 2 funding. Axis 2, and agri-environment measures specifically, concentrate on biodiversity conservation and the maintenance of extensive production supporting cultural landscape. Water quality is addressed primarily through agri-environment measures that aim to reduce negative environmental impacts by following an integrated farming approach: preservation of crop rotation, greening of arable land, integrated production, organic farming, and permanent green cover in water protection areas. In addition, measures 121/125 under axis 1 support irrigation, including the construction of new irrigation, but they receive fewer funds with 10.8% of the entire RDP budget. Additionally, measures 121 supports mechanisation, including purchasing machinery that optimise fertiliser and pesticide application, which will reduce residues leaching into water bodies. Measures under axis 3 and axis 4 are not related to water.

Only measure 125 has an explicit budget for water (€26,200,000), but it is not clear how much budget would be allocated to reducing water use from existing irrigation systems. The anticipated area to be covered by specific AEM sub-measures suggest that improved water quality would be achieved on 132,200ha. Moreover, the programme does not provide any geographic targeting of water measures except for sub-measure ‘permanent green cover in water protection areas’ which has a very limited target area (1,000ha). Thus, it is not certain if the hot spots of groundwater pollution will obtain adequate financial support.

Monitoring, control and review

The monitoring system sets indicators for agri-environment measures (input, output indicators) in line with the CMEF. Impact indicators to measure effects on water quality for agri-environment sub-measures focus on surface and groundwater and do not appear to include surface waters, although environmental analysis identifies 30% of surface waters on agricultural land as affected by nitrate pollution. The water quality indicators also focus more on nitrogen; the indicator “land application of nutrients” may include phosphates but it is unclear which nutrients are included. For pesticides a very general indicator is used where pollution by pesticides should decrease; no quantitative value is given. The water quality indicators envisage a reduction in land application of nutrients from 129 kg/ha (baseline) to 115 kg /ha (2013) and reduction in the gross nutrient balance of nitrogen from 40kg/ha (baseline) to ≤40kg/ha (baseline). Water quantity (savings) indicators are not. In addition to the indicators set by the CMEF, further national indicators will be used to monitor changes in the environment status. With respect to water management, Annex 2 of the RDP mentions additional national impact indicators for monitoring the land application of nutrients.

Annual progress reports are carried out by the Managing Authority contain, among other elements, programme progress based on the results of the output indicators. While the review process does not mention the WFD directly, water indicators aimed at improving water quality will be reviewed.

Main strengths and weakness of the RD program as regards to water

The link between the RDP and WFD is not clearly developed. Currently, WFD objectives are pursued through cross compliance (including Nitrates directive standards) and requirements for good farming practices in water protection areas (covering 20% of the territory). The RDP contributes to WFD through mostly agri-environment sub-measures (but also Axis 1 as mentioned above) without applying measure 213, but no direct link is made with WFD objectives or priorities. Furthermore, the Art. 5 WFD assessment was not taken into account in the SWOT.

Although WFD objectives are not specifically mentioned in the RDP, measures are related to water and seek to reduce impacts to water quality. Through promotion of environmentally friendly agriculture, future water quality issues may be prevented. None of the measures target a specific “hotpot”. To address water impacts from all production, AEM measures are split up according to different production types: integrated vine production, integrated fruit production, integrated horticulture and organic farming. A strength of the measures contained in the Programme is that they contain multi-objective benefits (e.g. integrated farming improves water quality, increases biodiversity and reduces erosion risk).

Compliance with the WFD is specifically mentioned with regard to construction of new irrigation schemes and technical upgrades to existing irrigation systems. There is a clear statement in the Programme that investments in irrigation systems need to obtain mandatory permissions as well as take “consistent consideration of requirements under the Water Framework Directive and Habitat Directive” (p.114). Furthermore, activities that constitute a ‘spatial intervention’ require a construction license and need to undertake an assessment of impacts on the environment. For irrigation schemes a construction license also needs water permission, which requires an analysis of water source availability by considering requirements on the application of advanced water related technologies.

The Slovenian Rural Development program has a clear focus on environmental issues and agri environmental measures play a central role in it. The measures provided under this scheme, follow a multi-objective approach, with the overall aim to reduce negative effects of agriculture on the environment. A key thereby are integrated farming practices which also allows to take water pollution into account from a more holistic approach. In Slovenia only a small percentage of agricultural land is irrigated and so the construction of new irrigation systems is also in focus of the RDP under Axis 1. However it remains unclear how these developments are taking place in the context of the WFD. This link should be made more clearly.