Agrienvironment cross compliance requirements

1
Agri-environment cross compliance requirements

• S. Jacob Winther Nymand

2
Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December
1991 Nitrate Directive"

• The legislation in general !
• The idea is to encourage the farmers to improve
  the utilisation of nitrogen and phosphorus, and
  thereby prevent losses to the environment.
• A better utilisation will also result in a better
  economy for the farmers.
• That is common sense!!

3
The legislation in Denmark since 1985

• 1985 NPO action plan
• 1987 Aquatic Environmental Plan 1
• 1991 Action Plan for Sustainable Agriculture
• 1998 Aquatic Environmental Plan 2
• 2000 and 2003 Evaluation of Aquatic Environmental
  Plan 2
• 2000 Action Plan for ammonia evaporation
• 2004 Action Plan for phosphorus(EMP3)

4
Storage of manure Council Directive 91/676/EEC
Nitrate Directive"

• DK Normally 9 months storage capacity
• EE At least 8 months storage capacity
• DK Natural floating cover on slurry tanks
• EE No demands
• DK Manure storage without daily application must
  be covered with airtight material.
• EE No Demands
• Slurry tanks in areas close to nature reserve
  must be covered with airtight lit.
• EE No demands

5
Harmonisation rule
6
Utilisation of nitrogen in manure

• A minimum of the nitrogen must be utilised. An
  example
• Pig slurry
• 2000 55 first year 10 second year
• 2002 60 first year 10 second year
• 2003 65 first year 10 second year
• In cattle slurry the utilisation first year is 5
  lower

7
Spreading period

• Liquid manure
• DK Allowed from Feb. 1 to harvest only with
  trailing hoses and injection equipment. On grass
  and winter oilseed rape until Oct. 1
• EE Allowed from April 1. to October 31. Unless
  land is covered with snow, frozen or saturated
  with water.
• Solid manure
• DK From harvest to Oct. 20 only allowed on
  areas with crop the following winter. Must be
  plouged down within 6 hours.
• EE Allowed from April 1. to October 31. Unless
  land is covered with snow, frozen or saturated
  with water. Must be plouged down within 48 hours.

8
Cover in autumn

• DK 65 of the area must be covered with green
  cover
• EE 50 of the area must be covered with green
  cover from Nov. 1 to March 31. (1/3 of this
  demand could be ploughing down straw)
• 6 of the area must be covered with under sown
  grass
• EE No demands

9
Maximum levels for nitrogen supply

• Supply depending on
• Crop and previous crop
• Soil type
• Yield
• Amount of manure last year
• Possibility of irrigation
• Soil content of mineral nitrogen in spring
• Always 10 lower than economical optimum!!

10
Fertiliser plan
11
How does the farmer survive?

• The regulation costs him a lot of money for
• Slurry tanks
• New spreading equipment for manure
• New spraying equipment for pesticides
• Reduced yields
• Courses and advisory assistance
• BUT he has taken up the challenge, because the
  legislation often goes hand in hand with common
  sense. In the long run he will save money.

12
Conclusion

• We have a lot of complex rules, in which the
  farmers get lost
• Until now based on common sense (science and
  economical optimum)
• Until now the farmers have challenged the rules
  with great enthusiasm
• But how long will they?

13
Types of manure in Denmark
14
Farmers investments
15
Consumption of nitrogen in mineral fertiliser
16
Legislation according to EU-Nitrate Directive

• 9 months storage capacity of animal manure
• No spreading of liquid manure from harvest to
  Feb. 1.
• Maximum nitrogen in animal manure 170 kg per
  hectare

17
Legislation according toadditional Danish
regulation

• Maximum nitrogen in animal manure 140 kg per
  hectare (except cattle farms 170 kg)
• 65 green cover and 6 under sown grass in autumn
• Fixed maximum standards for nitrogen
• Minimum utilisation of animal manure
• Compulsory fertiliser plans and -accounts

18
CONCLUSION

• More than 20 of EU groundwaters are facing
  excessive nitrates concentrations.
• This is due to a continuous increasing trend in
  the most intensive areas of livestock breeding
  and fertiliser consumption

19
CONCLUSION

• At least 30-40 of rivers and lakes show
  eutrophication symptoms or bring high nitrogen
  fluxes to coastal waters and seas.
• The agricultural origin of these N fluxes
  accounts for 50 to 80 of total N inputs to EU
  waters.
• Be, Dk, D, Fr, Irl reports to the EC, and EEA
  report n 4 "nutrients in European ecosystems"
  1999.

20
CONCLUSION

• A delay of 5 years or more by Member States to
  fulfill their commitments for implementation of
  the Nitrate Directive and an effective reduction
  of N losses from agriculture to water.
• Improvement can be pointed out in the
  sensibilisation of Member States during recent
  years.

21
CONCLUSION

• All M. S. have now transposed the nitrate
  directive.
• Set up a comprehensive monitoring network.
• Established a code of good practice, and
  designated at least partially their vulnerable
  zones (except Ireland).
• Indeed the effects of action programmes, often
  published only in 1997-1999, will be significant
  only after some years.
• Success stories can already be noticed in regions
  where intense field controls, including soil
  analysis, have accompanied dissemination of good
  practice advice ( Denmark, some German Länder,
  East of France, Algarve).

22
CONCLUSION

• Orientation of the Common Agricultural Policy to
  take greater account of environmental issues
  contributes to the purposes of the Nitrates
  directive.
• A CAP more oriented towards quality rather than
  quantity.
• Encouraging extensive cropping or breeding.
• "buffer" natural areas and accurate balanced
  fertilisation, can further contribute to these
  purposes.

23
CONCLUSION

• The failure of a proper application of the
  "Nitrate" directive in some Member States cannot
  be rectified only through CAP measures.
• Controlling nitrate emission is still primarily
  the task of transposition and implementation of
  the "Nitrate" Directive.
• Cost-efficiency studies on preventive measu-res
  should also be encouraged, to focus action
  programmes and practice changes towards the most
  efficient one.

24
CONCLUSION

• Financial support for a more environmental-friendl
  y agriculture.
• Dissemination of knowledge, experience collected
  in MS 15 must be used in MS25.
• It is necessary that all Member States arrive at
  a full implementation of the Nitrate Directive.
• Reinforce surveys and controls at field level
  (including checking of fertilisation plans and
  records, manure storage and handling, soil
  analysis, natural buffer strips, etc.)
• Introduce dissuasive penalties for the producers
  who do not ensure eco-compliance.

25
CONCLUSION

• Nitrates Directive is now 14 years old, and
  Member States have shown a real willingness to
  improve implementation.
• They realise that costs induced by drinking water
  treatment for nitrates excess, or by
  eutrophication damages in dams or coastal waters
  will still increase.
• The investments dedicated to urban waste-water
  treatment will be inefficient regarding
  nutrients.
• A parallel effort is devoted to an effective
  reduction of agricultural nutrients losses.

26
CONCLUSION

• The Nitrate Directive maintains its full
  topicality without any need of short term
  revision.
• This was pointed out by the European Parliament
  in its resolution (A5-0386/2000), and recognised
  by the new Water Framework Directive (WFD), which
  does not introduce any change to its process or
  deadlines.

27
FUTURE EU

• Nitrogen and Phosphorus will certainly appear as
  priority polluters in many E.U. watersheds, as
  promoting cyanophytes (blue algae) problems in
  lakes and dams, macrophytes and dinoflagellates
  impairing tourism or aquaculture in coastal
  waters, etc.
• Efficiency of investment in preventive measures,
  on agricultural pressures and practices.
• Domestic and industrial discharges, will have to
  be evaluated and compared.
• Pilot applications and research are urgently
  needed.

28
Tallinn, March 2005. Thank you