1 / 55

Demonstration, Contents and Results End User Meeting 30 March 2010

Demonstration, Contents and Results End User Meeting 30 March 2010. Expected compliance based on: - Actual implementation - If available: National / regional legislation - Else: EU regulations (2005-2009). Baseline Implementation of directives and GAECs 2005 - 2009.

tyler-hopkins
Download Presentation

Demonstration, Contents and Results End User Meeting 30 March 2010

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Demonstration, Contents and ResultsEnd User Meeting 30 March 2010

  2. Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  3. Expected compliance based on: - Actual implementation - If available: National / regional legislation - Else: EU regulations (2005-2009) Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  4. Baseline Implementation of directives and GAECs 2005 - 2009 Expected compliance based on: - Actual implementation - If available: National / regional legislation - Else: EU regulations (2005-2009) Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  5. Expected compliance based on: - Actual implementation - If available: National / regional legislation - Else: EU regulations (2005-2009) Voluntary compliance level (range from 0-100%) + actual implementation Halve way between baseline and 100% compliance + actual implementation 100% compliance level + actual implementation 100% compliance and implementation based on availablenational / regional legislation specifications only Hypothetical: also all non mandatory SMRs and GAECs are fully implemented (test). All mandatory SMRs and GAECs are fully implemented according to the EU regulations Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  6. Implementation national/regional legislation Contains: SMRs: 160 measures and 66 specifications GAECs: 35 different standards (relating to 5 issues) A total of 2680 national SMRs and 590 national GAECs Characterise the national standards (for assessing potential impacts) Help translate SMRs/GAECs to potential practices and costs (as input for modelling) Represent ‘national diversity’ in EU as a manageable set of categories. Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  7. Implementation national/regional legislation • 1) Characterise the national standards (for assessing potential impacts) • 2) Help translate SMRs / GAECs to potential practices and costs (as input for modelling) • 3) Represent ‘national diversity’ in EU as a manageable set of categories Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  8. Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  9. Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  10. Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  11. Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  12. Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  13. Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  14. Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  15. How do we translate the implementation specifications at EU, national and regional level into input for the models? Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  16. Obliga-tory? Imple-mented? NO (data) NO YES YES No assessment CAPRI Per region + activity (per crop, animal type) Input data indicators Cost level Compliance level/scenario Miterra Input data indicators Translation of the implementation specifications into indicators EU Regulation On SMR & GAEC National / regional SMR & GAEC obligations To be transposed into national/regional legislation Pot. effect Biodiv & Lands Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  17. Models in CCAT Animal Welfare Index / scenarioEconomic indicators (Market, Income) / scenario Market response / scenario:1) Changes in cropping shares 2) Change in livestock type/number Biodiversity indicators / scenario: Environmental indicators / scenario- Air : NH3, N2O, CH4, GHG emissions- Water: N leaching, runoff, NO3concentration- Soil : C stock, N, P and metal balances Per region + activity (per crop, animal type) Cost level Compliance level/scenario DNDCmetamodel EPIC metamodel N leaching, runoff, N2O emissionsBarley & Maize N leaching, runoff, erosionBarley & Maize CAPRI Miterra Comparison Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  18. Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  19. Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  20. Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  21. Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  22. Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  23. 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. Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  24. Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  25. Overall highest effectiveness from minimum level of maintenance and soil erosion issues • Soil structure and additional farmer’s obbligations issues lowest overall effectiveness: • Only Finland, France, England, Wales, Ireland, Belgium, Spain (except Madrid and Murcia), Portugal and Austria have implemented additional obligations. Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  26. Modelled results Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  27. Cost of compliance Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  28. Cost Implication at EU level Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  29. Regional Cost Implication Total cost per UAA Animal related cost per LU Crop related cost per UAA Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  30. Regional Cost Implication Total cost per UAA Animal related cost per LU Crop related cost per UAA • Animal production more affected than crops • Dir 4 (crops and animals) and Dir16-18 (only animals) major cost drivers • Significant regional difference in cost effects (especially for animals) Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  31. Income effect Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  32. Income Effects (EU27) Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  33. Regional Income Effects Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  34. Regional Income Effects • Agricultural Income decreases compared to a situation without regulation ( ~ -3%) • No significant difference in income change between animal and crop sector • Minor effect on income of additional compliance (baseline (+90%) to 100% compliance) • Output value of animal products goes up with increasing cost • (market effects can partially compensate) • Output value of crops slightly decreasing (at most stable) Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  35. Production effect Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  36. Market effects for selected activities/products Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  37. Market effects for selected activities/products • Animals: • Overall decrease in herds; • Increasing prices almost compensate CC cost (… but not loss of production) • Crops: • Cereal production increasing (“best alternative”); • Cereal prices go down due decreasing (feed) demand and increasing acreage • Additional cereal production is processed to bio fuels (at lower prices) • “demanding” crops go down (costs can be partially compensated by price effects) • Set aside and fallow land decrease (due GAEC enforcing minimum maintenance) Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  38. Environmental and biodiversity effects Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  39. Intensity effects Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  40. % Change in share of extensive & intensive livestock: Compliance gap 0-100% Extensive Intensive • Increases in intensive livestock group mostly in regions in UK, central France, Spain, • Southern Italy, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania going together with loss of extensive group. Cross Compliance Assessment Tool Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  41. Share of land use Intensive Compliance gap between 0 and 100% Relative differences Extensive Medium Cross Compliance Assessment Tool Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  42. Share of land use Intensive Compliance gap between 0 and 100% Relative differences Extensive Medium Landuse intensity  Extensification in Mediterranean, Scandinavian and Eastern countries vs. Intensification in Central European countries. Cross Compliance Assessment Tool Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  43. Environmental effects:changes in emissions Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  44. Comparison scenarios Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  45. NO3 concentration groundwater baseline % diff. baselinevs 0-compl. Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  46. N2O emission baseline % diff. baselinevs 0-compl. Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  47. Critical N load exceedance Exceedance CL baseline % diff. baselinevs 0-compl. Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  48. Soil organic carbon stocks baseline abs diff. baselinevs 0-compl. Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  49. Main conclusion on emissions • Changes in agricultural emissions due to cross compliance obligations range between 1%-6% (0-100% compliance) • Largest decrease in N-leaching • Nitrate Directive clearly improved environmental quality • Balanced fertilization can significantly reduce N emissions • Overall regional effects are positive with some exceptions for certain regions (e.g. Poland, Bulgaria, Romania) and Mediterranean (Alpes-Mediteranee) for different emissions. Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

  50. Overall initial conclusionsand recommendations Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

More Related