Annex 3 Summary of ms assessments

Denmark

Denmark has a tradition of intensive agriculture production but is active in reducing impacts to the environment through measures to support extensification and pollution control. Development of the agriculture sector in Denmark to date is characterised by intensification and the ability to meet strict environmental standards. Only 1.1% of UAA is categorized as least favoured areas. Agriculture makes up 4% of total employment, and just half of the holdings are full-time farms. Average size of farm holdings was 58 ha in 2004, with the number of farms larger than 100 ha increasing. Out of the total cultivated area 7% is permanent pasture and 5% is perennial crops, with the remaining amount management with crop rotation. Organic farming represents 6% of UAA.

Denmark has little groundwater quality issues: 1% of controls found nitrogen levels exceeding drinking water quality standards and 6% of controls found pesticide limits exceeded. Surface water quality is a greater issue and is affected by excessive nutrient emissions. Lake and sea areas are adversely affected by phosphorus, while marine areas are mostly affected by excessive nitrogen (although much of DK’s marine pollution problems originate with its neighbours). While the use of nutrient and pesticide inputs has significantly decreased in the last years, water quality issues are still prevalent, with the entire country listed as a nitrate sensitive area and persisting eutrophication and overgrowth problems. Denmark has few water quantity problems (groundwater and surface water in abundance and relatively little flood-prone territory).

Share of public budget among the three axes

The focus of the Danish RDP is clearly on Axis 2, improving the environment and the countryside, with 63% of the public budget dedicated to this axis. Agri-environmental payments (CODE 214) under Axis 2 receive 45% of the total public budget and 72.6% of the public budget of Axis 2. However, AEMs with a clear focus on water quality and support of WFD implementation receive 20% of the public budget for Axis 2 and 12% of the whole RDP public budget.

Measures under Axis I do not directly focus on water quality. However, measure 121, which receives 6.5% of the total budget, supports new environmental technologies and states as a rationale the need to reduce the horticulture industry’s use of pesticides and nitrogen to remain competitive. Measure 126 also establishes flood prevention structures (dikes), which explicitly have to respect the provisions of the EU Water Framework Directive. The budget for this measure is negligible at 1000€.

Monitoring, control and review

The monitoring system set up for the RDP takes into account the EU’s strategic guidelines and the government’s national priorities and uses input-output indicators in line with the CMEF. The Danish RDP has also defined additional programme-specific indicators. Indicators chosen to measure the improvements and progress made are very specific and adapted to the objective of the measure in question. For example measure 214e mentions next to the generally applied indicators, the following specific indicator: “As a consequence of the national Aquatic Environment Plan III, the N surplus from agriculture of 128 kg/ha in 2004 should be reduced to 122 kg/ha in 2013. The total effect of AEP III in 2013 is expected to be 17305 tonnes of N. This measure should in combination with the Establishment of wetlands and Establishment of set-aside border strips (see separate measure fiches) lead to a reduction in leaching of Nitrogen from agriculture to the aquatic environment by 400 tonnes of N in 2010”.

The two main generally relevant indicators used to check effectiveness of the measures in the WFD context are ‘Surplus in Nitrogen’ (kg/ha) and ‘Gross Nutrient balances’. Each year these and the other indicators are compared to their baseline value to determine whether and how much progress was made. While the review process does not mention the WFD directly, water indicators aimed at improving water quality will be reviewed.

Spot controls to measure the progress of measures will be undertaken randomly throughout the year.

The Water Framework Directive is mentioned in different contexts, but concrete measures designed to contribute to and enhance the WFD’s implementation are not clearly articulated (this is also openly admitted in the RDP). Furthermore, the Art. 5 assessment was not taken into account in the SWOT. However, a number of specific sub-measures under Axis 2 and Axis 3 show a deep understanding of the link between the RDP’s measures and the aquatic environment, and the RDP mentions that its measures will implicitly help fulfil the obligations in the Water Framework Directive as well.

The focus on environmentally friendly land use under Axis 2 is expressed explicitly in one of the strengths (“Farmers take nature and the environmental factors into consideration, including the production of environmentally friendly raw materials and protecting drinking water”) and one of the opportunities (“Continued promotion of environmentally and naturally sustainable production through specific development projects and regulation”) identified in the current situation. The Danish RDP supports the objectives of a number of environmental plans. The most important ones in the context of the WFD that are mentioned in the RDP are:

• the National Aquatic Environment Plan 3 and

• the National Pesticide Plan 2004-2009.

Most of the AEMs under Axis 2 have the objective to reduce agriculture pressures on water quality (except for 214-f on plant genetics). Additionally, the RDP contains multiple measures across two Axes to maintain and establish wetlands (Measure 214-e, Measure 216b, Measure 323a), which have multi-objective benefits of reducing pollution to the aquatic environment and maintaining biodiversity. The agriculture specific AEM measures – organic farming, pesticide-free farming, extensive farming – also achieve multi-objective benefits by reducing water pollution, enhancing biodiversity and lowering the risk of soil erosion. While none of the water measures target “hotspots”, measure 214-e, which promotes border strips along water courses, clearly indicates that set aside land area adjacent to water bodies is especially beneficial to reduce nutrient leaching.

One weakness with regard to water is that while there are monitoring indicators in place to look at water quality, there is no indicator addressing reduction of phosphorus or pesticides leaching to water courses.

Axis 3 also addresses water quality through implementation of wetland projects (measure 323b), which is expected to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus in the aquatic environment.

Axis 1 measures do not explicitly address any water issues or issues related to the Water Framework Directive measures. However, both measure 111 and 121 are designed to promote and encourage a reduced consumption of pesticides and nitrogen, by informing farmers of its benefits (regarding competitiveness of products produced with fewer nitrogen and pesticides) and by supporting investments to be made into technologies that make the reduction actually possible.

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

While the Water Framework Directive is mentioned in a number of measures and water quality is mentioned as a major concern throughout the RDP, there is still room for improvement and for strengthening the link between both directives. In particular a revision of the Danish RDP should take into account the findings of the Art 5 WFD report outlines the pressures and impacts on Danish waters. However the measures provided so far represent a sound basis for achieving the WFD objectives.

Measure 126 establishing flood prevention structures, can be deleted from the RDP or should be strengthened massive as the current budget of 1000€ and will not have any impact.