General overview of the situation in Rural Areas in the MS

France

The area of France is 54% agricultural land and 28% forest. The livestock density is 0.82 livestock units (LSU) per ha, which is very close to the EU-27 level (0.80 LSU/ha). Two-thirds of the utilised agricultural land (UAA) is arable, while one third is pasture. Crop output accounts for around 60% of total agricultural output, while animal output accounts for the remaining 40%.

Least favoured areas are widespread in France (44% of agricultural land), so it is not surprising that environmental issues play a prominent role within the French RDP. A decrease in biodiversity, high nutrient emissions (particularly nitrates) and increasing soil erosion represent the main environmental pressures from agriculture. The amount and rate of water abstraction is an issue in the south of the country.

Agricultural intensification particularly occurs in the northwest region of France, resulting in poor water quality and soil erosion. Organic farming is practiced on only 1.6% of the agricultural land.

LEADER is used to enhance and support local governance issues.

Share of public budget among the three axes

The fact that the French RDP emphasizes environmental issues is clearly shown in the breakdown of the public budget, as measures under Axis II receive 52% of the total public budget. The strategic objective of Axis II is to preserve natural resources through sustainable land use, in particular to achieve the objectives of Natura 2000 and of the Water Framework Directive (WFD). Its operational objective is to improve agricultural practices with the aim to reach an overall positive effect on the conservation of biodiversity and the condition of water resources. In comparison, 36% of the total public expenditure is devoted to measures under Axis I, 6.4% to Axis III and 4.8% to Axis IV.

A number of national and regional agencies are responsible for monitoring and control. No information is given concerning the number of staff or budget devoted to control issues. Control rates and sanctions complying with EC regulations: EC 1975/2006, EC 1848/2006 and EC 1290/2005. Indicators are developed for the programme as a whole and at farm level based on the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (CMEF). Individual farms will be controlled using document checks, visual inspection of the plots and book keeping. No reference is made to additional water indicators to monitor changes in quality or quantity of ground or surface waters.

A significant amount of public expenditure is aimed at reducing environmental pressures on the water system. There are 12 measures (including several agri-environmental sub-measures) that aim to reduce pesticide and fertilizer use, optimize manure disposal, support water purification, stimulate extensive livestock rearing and support organic farming. Concerning water quantity issues, there are measures to support investments to improve collective water reservoirs and modernise water distribution systems to and within farms. A specific revision is foreseen to include measures in river basins identified as a priority according to the WFD.

There are a number of measures that support improvements in land and water management. Water quality is the most important environmental issue since it is problematical in all regions of continental France. Measures aim to reduce pesticide and fertilizer use, optimize manure disposal, support water purification, stimulate extensive livestock rearing, and support organic farming. Water quantity issues are particularly important in southern regions. Measures are set up to support investments to develop collective water reservoirs and modernise water distribution systems from these reservoirs. Since the measure for advisory services (code 114) is currently not applied in France, it is recommended to do so in the future to make measures to improve water supply efficiency more efficient and to ensure the optimum application rates of water on crops.

In addition, care also needs to be taken that improvements in water infrastructure do not result in unsustainable intensification of agriculture. It is positive to note that revisions in the RD programme could include measures in river basins identified as a priority according to the WFD.

Germany

The Rural Development Programme (RDP) of the federal republic of Germany consists of a national strategy plan for rural development 2007-2013 as well as fourteen regional RDPs from the German federal States. Although differences exist in the intensity of agriculture and relevant environmental impacts from state to state, it can be stated that for Germany as a whole, the degradation of water quality due to agriculture is the main issue. Excessive nutrient loads are detected in several water bodies from agricultural land use (both plant and livestock production) as well as pollution from plant protection substances.

Around 18,700 organic farms are managing about 865,000 ha in Germany. Compared to the previous year, the number of organic farms increased and the organic area is now covering about 5.1 % of the total agricultural land.

Water scarcity due to irrigation is a minor issue compared to other regions of Europe since most agriculture in Germany is rain-fed. However, in Northern Germany there are regions facing water scarcity due to agricultural land use and this trend may be intensified in the near future due to climate change. Hydro-morphological impacts of surface waters are mentioned in some but not all German RDPs where they could possibly be relevant. In most of these cases hydro-morphology is related to flood protection. The least favoured areas (LFA) approved by the European Commission in Germany are 9.425 Mio ha. This corresponds to 55.4 % of the utilised agricultural area. Due to the different priorities set within the federal states, the compensation payments for the LFA sum up to 4.6 Mio ha.

Due to different possibilities of co-financing to the EFRAD budget there are large differences between the Laender (German Federal Land) in terms of budget per area. Three of the Laender (Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria and Lower Saxony) account for 46,3% of all public funding available for rural development. This clearly sets limits in addressing agricultural pressures in the other Länder.

In average German Laender allocate 26,5% to Axis 1 and 41,8% to Axis 2 from the public budget. As far as the balance between the different axes is concerned, there are considerable differences between the individual RDPs. Axis 2, with emphasis on environmental issues, is considerably higher than axis 1 in 5 of 14 RDPs evaluated (Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria, North-Rhine-Westphalia, Saarland and Thuringia). In most of these cases, Axis 2 has almost double the budget of Axis 1. In the remaining German RDPs, there is a quite equal budget distribution between axis 1, 2 and 3, while in 3 RDPs (Hamburg, Hessia and Lower Saxony & Bremen) axis 1 has almost double the budget of axis 2. In certain federal States, the highest budget is dedicated to axis 3.

Monitoring, control and review

Indicators are set for the monitoring and evaluation of agri-environmental measures. In specific, input, output, outcome and effect indicators are used, as recommended, for the drafting of RDPs in general. Input indicators usually consider the financial support of each measure. The output indicators consider the supported area (ha) and the number of applications. The outcome indicators of measures with relevance to water resources (e.g. AEM) refer simply to the surface (ha) for which the proposed measures are expected to contribute to water quality improvement. In several Laender’s RDPs, the effect indicator of “water quality improvement” is only a qualitative description of expected effects that can be given because it is ex ante and it is not completely possible to quantify the exact targets of the interventions. For this reason, in most cases, effect indicators also simply refer to the surface of areas receiving support with the target of water quality improvement.

The German RDP follows an indicator-based evaluation and review scheme with annual interim reports, a mid-term evaluation planned for 2010, and an ex-post evaluation for 2015 (or 2016 in some federal States). On the basis of this evaluation, the quality, efficiency and effectiveness of the RDP implementation is to be improved. It cannot be judged from information reported whether the review process is clear and transparent.

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

Several RDPs make explicit reference to the Water Framework Directive (WFD) when describing key environmental problems and some make an explicit link to the failure of achievement of the WFD environmental objectives (link to the Art. 5 characterisation report).

Water quality issues are the key water problem addressed in the RDPs both in terms of surface water and groundwater. In addition, hydro-morphological quality problems are to some extent addressed with some linkage to agricultural activities. However, these problems are mainly addresses with linkages to flood protection activities that have an effect on the natural structure of water bodies. Water scarcity issues are not addressed to a great extent because they are not relevant in most RDPs. However, some RDPs mention that even in German Laender where water quantity is not yet an issue, this could soon change due to climatic change. To the contrary, flood protection is addressed frequently in several federal States.

The main measures addressing water issues are included in axis 2 with environmental emphasis. Water-related measures under axis 2 principally target the improvement of water quality in terms of nutrient and pesticide reduction (especially via agri-environmental payments). Some measures under axis 1, which in other countries mainly support investments in irrigation, have a different water focus in Germany. Water-related investments under axis 1 relate to flood protection activities as well as activities that can have an indirect contribution to the improvement of water quality, e.g. facilities for better livestock manure storage and management. Under axis 3, the measure code 323 is frequently used in the German RDPs to support measures for renaturation and hydro-morphological improvements of surface water bodies.

The proper implementation of RDP measures is reviewed by administrative controls, spot controls as well as ex-post controls. In general, the frequency of controls is not explicitly mentioned in the RDPs. For further details, relevant regulations of the federal states usually are the reference. Only few RDPs make specific statements on the issue of control for Agi-environmental measures (AEM) and their different sub-measures (e.g. in Baden-Württemberg and Schleswig-Holstein). For instance, in Baden-Württemberg, contract-related and result-oriented spot controls will be carried out by personnel of the nature protection or agriculture authorities. Controls will be used to check not only whether measures were implemented but also whether the targets were reached. This is to take place especially by controlling the status of the area, by checking certain plant or animal species in the area or checking whether certain habitat structures are existing. Such controls are to take place visually; when there is suspicion of non-compliance, plant and soil samples will be taken and checked in the laboratory for plant protection substances’ presence and concentration.

Conclusions and options for further improvements of the RD as regards to water

Even if there were national guidelines for the implementation of the RDPs on the Laender level, it remains unclear to which extend the different programmes are coordinated among each other. While the River Basin programmes are coordinated between the different Laender sharing the same basin, this seems not to be the case when it comes to RD. Such coordination could also become beneficial in order to address environmental pressures effectively from a global perspective. However, this might also require a change in the allocation of money among the Laender, which is politically not feasible.