4 Managing agricultural pressures on the aquatic environment

Key messages

• A wide variety of management measures exists to tackle agricultural pressures on the water environment. To date, most measures implemented have sought to improve water management and increase the efficiency of resource use in agriculture. This has resulted in significant improvements and, in some cases, a stabilization in the exponential growth in agricultural pressures observed in the 20^th
• There is significant room for additional environmental improvements from increased resource use efficiency. However, reaching WFD environmental targets will require more ambitious uptake of sustainable agricultural production to reduce total resource use. To achieve this transition, ambitious policies are needed as fundamental changes in the agricultural sector will be required.
• The EU has a comprehensive environmental policy framework, developed over decades, that has contributed to tackle agricultural pressures on the water environment. A lack of enforcement has however impeded their successful implementation. Gaps exist in the policy framework, especially regarding agricultural abstraction and hydromorphological pressures.
• Greater coherence is also needed between EU environmental policies and the sectoral EU policies supporting agricultural production. Recent decades have seen improved integration of water targets in the Common Agricultural Policies. However, future agricultural policies need to be more ambitious on the scale of change needed in production systems. More systematic attention is needed to the ways CAP regulatory and incentive instruments support transition in farming production coherent with environmental goals.

To achieve a sustainable transformation in the water and agriculture domain, decision-making must be supported by robust knowledge systems from the farm to the EU level. Significant opportunities exist to improve the exploitation of existing data and technologies, and vastly expand our capabilities in monitoring and reporting progress towards sustainability.

4.1       Introduction

Environmental pressures to water from agriculture occur as a consequence of the environmental resource demands of the agricultural productions.  This demand is regulated through a large number of no regret measures. Such  measures are implemented and being tested to tackle agricultural pressures on the water environment, for instance from nutrient (van Grinsven et al., 2012; Schoumans et al., 2014; Ibisch et al., 2016), pesticides (e.g., Carter, 2000; Reichenberger et al., 2007; Lamichhane et al., 2015), water use (e.g. OECD, 2010; Molden, 2007; Chartzoulakis and Bertaki, 2015), hydromorphological impacts (e.g. Flávio et al., 2017; Vartia et al., 2018), including in the context of climate change and the need to adapt and build resilience (e.g. OECD, 2014; EEA, 2019a; Lankoski et al., 2018; Smith et al., 2019). The breadth and variety of management measures, strategies and policies are wide and increases with ongoing research and innovations.

The chapter presents an overview of measures that can be taken at farm or landscape level, their importance for achieving a more balanced and resource efficient agricultural production, while maintaining the integrity of the natural catchment hydrology. Environmental improvements will, however, only be achieved if resource gains are turned into environmental benefits, rather than further increasing the production. Achieving environmental benefits also requires that those measures are implemented by farmers in their agricultural practices. A number of factors influence this uptake and are important to take into account when designing responses. The chapter also provides an overview of the present and upcoming changes to the European policy framework. Environmental policies are first presented, followed by agricultural and rural development policies.

Overall, the European policy framework to tackle diffuse pollution, abstraction and hydromorphological pressures from agriculture is well-developed. However, as will be seen, measures currently taken are not enough to tackle agricultural pressures contributing to the failure to achieve good ecological status.  Reasons for this failure includes lack of knowledge, time-lag involved in restoring environmental deterioration, and the need to improve measure uptake (EEA, 2018c; EC, 2019). Additional regulatory action, financial resources and stakeholder mobilisation are also needed to support a more fundamental transition towards sustainability in the agricultural sector. To achieve this, greater integration of water targets in sectoral policies, in particular agriculture, is necessary (EC, 2019a).

The European Green Deal provides a unique opportunity to improve the implementation of existing environmental legislation and raise ambitions on the future environmental performance of agriculture. With their targets on organic farming, high biodiversity landscape features, and reduction in fertiliser and pesticide use, the recently published Farm-to-Fork and Biodiversity Strategies provide the necessary impetus to intensify the transition of the agricultural sector towards sustainability. Reaching these targets will require significant financial and technical resources, and be further translated into existing and new implementing instruments, in particular the future CAP Strategic Plans. The current policy setting is discussed in this chapter, whereas needs for structural reforms of the agricultural value chains to support the uptake of more efficient and agro-ecological principles at the farm level are discussed in chapter 5.

4.2   Measures at farm and landscape level

4.2.1        Sustainable water management and farm practices

Table 4.1 presents a consolidated list of water management and agricultural practices that can be used at farm and landscape to reduce agricultural pressures on the water environment. It focuses on measures that are commonly considered more sustainable (Chapter 2.2.1), and offer the potential to increase the resilience of agriculture and rural areas as no-regret measures. They build on the notion that reducing pressures on the water environment should be primarily supported by strategies increasing the sustainability of farming in particular by applying agro-ecological techniques (Chapter 2.2.1). Guiding principles include the need to increase resource use efficiency, increase circularity (e.g. nutrient recycling) and build diversity in agroecosystems to increase resilience, and to exploit ecosystem dynamics and synergies (FAO, 2018a).

Three groups can be distinguished:

• One group aim to enhance the efficiency of resource use in agriculture in order to reduce the emission of nutrient and chemical pollutants and reduce abstraction pressure, while preserving agricultural productivity. Optimising the use of inputs, through e.g. precision farming, has a large potential to make European agriculture more resources efficient (see Chapter 2.2.1). More efficient resource use is an essential first step in decoupling production from resource use, and reduce agricultural pressures to more sustainable levels.
• A second group of measures involves altering the management of soils, crops and livestock in order to enhance biological synergies and functions and natural biogeochemical cycles, with the overall aim of reducing the dependence of the farm system on external inputs. This is at the core of agroecological practices (Chapter 2.2.1). Hence, the measures highlighted in this group have benefits not only for water management, but also for biodiversity and habitat preservation, as well as for climate adaptation and mitigation (Murrell, 2017; EEA, 2019a; Smith et al., 2019).
• A third group relate to broader landscape approaches contributing to restore a more natural catchment hydrology, creating barriers to nutrient leaching and soil erosion, and reduce hydromorphological impacts on the water environment. This includes landscape elements such as buffer strips and riparian buffers and hedgerows to reduce overland runoff, as well as green infrastructures such as constructed wetlands and sediments to capture subsurface flows and polluted agricultural drainage outflows.

These measures are further discussed in Chapter 4.2. However, efficient uptake of those measures will need to consider the rebound effect, specific contributions of soil and livestock management, and yield reduction.

First, attempts to increase resource efficiency need to avoid that saved resources are redirected to other uses, rather than to reduce pressure.  This rebound effect should be avoided if the environmental performance of agriculture is to increase (Box 4.1).

Box 4.1  Investments in water use efficiency in agriculture and the rebound effect

Increasing production efficiency is an important aim of European policies. Agricultural approaches such as precision farming and sustainable intensification promote more efficient natural resource use. However, resource efficiency improvements do not always translate into resource savings. Instead, some or all of the saved resource may be directed to other uses, offsetting savings and, in some cases, resulting in higher net resource consumption. This is known as the rebound effect or the Jevons’ paradox .

In agriculture, there is substantial evidence of rebound effects following investments in efficiency improvements in irrigation infrastructure. Saved water is often redirected to other uses, for instance more water consuming crops or an expansion of irrigated land. The rebound effect may also be led by changed consumer behaviour, resulting in higher demand and resource use.

Although less documented, the rebound effect may also exist for other resources consumed by agriculture, such as nutrients, pesticides or energy use.

Key tools to mitigate the impact of the rebound effect include adopting adequate accounting procedures of resource flows and putting clear limits to resource use at hydrologically relevant spatial scale (river basins).

Sources :Ward and Pulido-Velazquez, 2008; Dumont et al., 2013; Gómez and Pérez-Blanco, 2014; Berbel et al., 2015; Paul et al., 2019

Second, the contributions of specific soil, crop and livestock management measures to reduce agricultural pressures depend on local conditions in soils, climate, slope and other physical, technological, social or economic factors influencing farm management and field operations. Environmental trade-offs may exist. For instance, cover crops may reduce the risk of soil erosion, but they may increase water use and reduce groundwater recharge (OECD, 2014). No-tillage techniques may also reduce risks of soil erosion; however badly implemented, they can lead to soil compaction and encourage the use of herbicides to reduce costs associated with mechanical weeding (Giller et al., 2015). Other trade-offs are of relevance to the overall sustainability of the farm. For example, diversifying crop production at farm level can mitigate financial risks and improve environmental outcomes, but it can also induce higher costs to the farm (Bowman and Zilberman, 2013).

Third, the extensification of agriculture and the adoption of agroecological practices are usually associated with reductions in yields, mainly due to the phasing out of mineral fertilisers (Seufert et al., 2012; De Ponti et al., 2012) and plant protection products (Popp et al., 2013). In Europe, estimates place observed organic farming yields at between 70% (northern Europe) and 81% (southern Europe) of conventional farming yields (De Ponti et al., 2012).

Yield gaps differ largely between regions and crops. The gap is larger for countries which rely on high levels of external inputs, such as the Netherlands and Denmark (De Ponti et al., 2012). Yield gap appears larger for olives, potatoes, leguminous crops and cereals, than for fruits and vegetables (Ponisio et al., 2015). Furthermore, the yield gap between conventional and more sustainable forms of agriculture can be mitigated with careful planning of crop rotations and multi-cropping patterns, and with the development of new crop varieties that perform better in lower intensity farms systems (Ponisio et al., 2015).

Successful implementation of more sustainable soil, crop and livestock management must account the complex and diverse agronomic reality of farming, and adapt practices strategically at farm and landscape level to maximise beneficial outcomes and minimise negative ones, taking into account not only the environmental context but also its social and economic dimensions (Giller et al., 2015).

Table 4.1 Consolidated list of water management and farm practices

4.2.2        Other relevant measures at farm and landscape level

Other farm and landscape measures can contribute to reducing pressures, such as “offline” storage, water harvesting, groundwater use and use of non conventional water resources. They are discussed separately here to highlight their potential contribution to enhance the sustainability of agriculture, if implemented with the right safeguards.

Some countries, such as France, are currently building “offline” storage schemes, i.e. reservoirs are built outside river beds in order to reduce their hydromorphological impacts. They are filled by pumping into water bodies during high flow season (winter) in rivers or shallow, unconfined groundwater, therefore lowering the direct impact of pumping on environmental flows. Storage is only used to substitute summer pumping and cannot result in an increase in irrigated areas. They must be accompanied with metering and the cancellation of the licence to abstract during seasonal low flows. Priority is given to projects regrouping several farmers and must be specifically designed to support WFD targets. Their implementation is widely debated, and further adoption will need to take into account their potentially large visual and environmental impact (i.e. affecting winter flow dynamics) (see Granjou and Garin, 2006).

Rainwater and runoff harvesting in small ponds and reservoirs (with storage capacities of 100–10,000 m³) is being promoted in many countries to increase farm resilience to droughts and reduce abstraction pressure. However, their multiplication in catchments can cumulatively lead to major modifications of hydrological regimes (Carluer et al., 2016b). Their impact on the overall water balance should be considered.

The second half of the 20^th century has also seen a major growth in the use of groundwater by agriculture, in particular in countries of southern Europe such as Spain but also in northern countries such as The Netherlands and the UK (Foster and Custodio, 2019), often contributing to increase water imbalances at catchment level (Llamas and Martínez-Santos, 2005; De Stefano et al., 2015).

There is a growing interest in more coordinated (“conjunctive”) use of surface water and groundwater, where surface water is used in wet years and groundwater in dry years, so as to maximise the availability of water during dry years (i.e. groundwater is used as an underground reservoir). Managed aquifer recharge may be used to maximise benefits from the storage capacities of groundwater bodies and better regulate groundwater–surface water exchanges. Managed aquifer recharge is increasingly used for improving supplies for drinking water purposes, but there is scope to expand use for across Europe (Sprenger et al., 2017) including by combining it with wastewater reuse schemes (Zuurbier et al., 2018). Although studies of conjunctive use have been done at local and regional level (e.g. Pulido-Velazquez et al., 2008; Guyennon et al., 2017), the potential at EU level is yet unknown.

The use of alternative water resources such as desalinated water and treated wastewater, is poorly documented, but limited available evidence suggest it is minor at European level (BIO by Deloitte, 2015). Some countries nevertheless have implemented reuse in a large scale, such as Cyprus which reuse up to 90% of its wastewater.

Greater use of non-conventional water face acceptability issues, design and technological challenges, and various financial, environmental and climate risks (Kirhensteine et al., 2016) . Furthermore, wastewater reuse should account for existing uses, including environmental needs, which have to date been dependent on the steady flow of wastewater discharges. Redirecting wastewater discharge towards reuse instead of receiving water bodies might negatively affect ecological conditions during low flow conditions; Hence not all wastewater is available for reuse and careful catchment balances are needed to assess real potential (Drewes et al., 2017).

4.2.3        Influencing uptake of more sustainable water management and farm practices

The uptake of more sustainable water management and farm practices run against established production models. Radically altering agricultural systems is likely to disrupt established investments, jobs, consumption patterns and behaviours, knowledge and values, inevitably provoking resistance from affected industries, regions or consumers (EEA, 2019g). There are thus strong economic, social and psychological barriers that can lock the agricultural sector existing production modes. Transforming farm practices and moving towards sustainability can be very costly at farm level. It was estimated that meeting WFD requirements relating to abstraction pressures in some agricultural dominated basins of Southern France could reduce up to 50% of gross margin of certain farms (Danel, 2011).

To achieve a transition, a deep understanding of farmers’ decision-making is needed. Farmers’ decisions are shaped by a complex array of biophysical, economic, technical, social, political and institutional factors (Dwyer et al., 2007; Blackstock et al., 2010; Mills et al., 2017). Figure 4.1 provides a schematic overview of factors influencing farmers’ decision-making commonly reported in the research literature. These system elements, and their evolution, creates both opportunities and barriers to change practices towards more sustainable solutions.

Public policies have a key role to exploit these factors and create the right institutional, political, technological, economic and social environment to facilitate the transition towards more sustainable agricultural production models. Decision-makers have a wide range of instruments at their hand to encourage uptake of more sustainable solutions. Given the wide range of factors influencing farmers’ decision-making, policy mixes combining different forms of interventions and policy interventions are more likely to be effective (Garforth and Rehman, 2006):

• Adoption can be triggered by raising awareness, building social capital and facilitating collective action (Blackstock et al., 2010). Effective uptake is not solely driven by scientific advice, but by more inclusive processes leading to the co-creation of knowledge with farmers that improve the applicability and relevance of scientific knowledge to the particular local conditions of the farms. In that sense, creating networks between farmers to share experience and spread innovations are essential tools, which are at the core of agroecological practices (FAO, 2018a; EIP-AGRI, 2020).
• When lack of financial resources, time or labour block adoption of measures, other instruments may be more effective, for example economic instruments, such as prices, taxes and market mechanisms, and regulatory instruments, such as limits and bans to the use of harmful inputs to the water environment, and broader sustainability standards.

Past policy emphasis has been on improving efficient use of resources, although more sustainable farm practices and production models have also been pro-actively adopted by the farming community, and are increasingly supported by the European policy framework. However, to move further towards sustainability, uptake needs to be wider and more profound. Two approaches to scale up can be contrasted:

• An incremental approach would support improved resource efficiency to increase the environmental performance of farms, and broaden approaches adopted in a limited range of farms and production systems to a wider set of farms and environments.
• A more transformative approach would encourage a wider and more systemic change, not only in agricultural production but also in the drivers of agricultural production, i.e. in the societal systems consuming agricultural commodities in the form of food, energy and other bio-products such as fiber for clothing and industrial processes.

The next sections in this Chapter 4 explores how the current EU policy framework has so supported an incremental approach, and how this approach can be strengthened with recent initiatives. A more transformative approach is explored in more depth in Chapter 5 when drivers in consumption systems are presented in more depth.

4.3      Implementation of environmental policies

The European Union has adopted several environmental legislations and regulations which requires tackling agricultural pressures on the water environment to achieve their objectives (Chapter 1). Each legislation has its own intervention logic and instruments, which together form a complex but comprehensive policy framework to tackle nutrient and chemical pollution, water abstraction and hydromorphological alterations from agriculture.

The WFD has been a key driver in the definition and implementation of measures tackling agricultural pressures. Under the WFD, RBMPs are the main instrument to support the reaching of good status in all of Europe’s surface water and groundwater. RBMPs provide a comprehensive planning approach to identify agricultural pressures and present an integrated set of measures, optimising the use of existing mandatory measures required by other EU legislation, and selecting supplementary measures to meet good status. Recent evaluations of RBMPs show that many measures have been adopted to tackle agricultural pressures from diffuse pollution, water abstraction and hydromorphological modifications (EC, 2019a).

The following sub-chapters focuses on the implementation of existing EU environmental policies, including recent ones under key instruments of the EU Green Deal. The enforcement of environmental policies are reinforced by sectoral policies, in particular the instruments under the Common Agricultural Polices. These are presented in Chapter 4.4.

4.3.1        Tackling diffuse pollution

Nutrient diffuse pollution from nitrates and phosphorous is the main reported pressure from agriculture followed by chemical pollution from pesticides; other pollutants include sediments, microbiological/bacteriological and other pollutants such as vetenriary products (Chapter 3.1). However, diffuse pollution has been notoriously difficult to address due to the number of actors (farmers) to involve in order to have a noticeable impact on water quality.

Tackling nutrient pollution

Action on nutrient pollution has a long history in Europe, starting in the 1970s with several major international conventions tackling the issue of air pollution and eutrophication of freshwater and marine waters. Nutrient diffuse pollution is the most extensively covered agricultural pressure in the RBMPs since many water bodies across Europe do not meet nutrient conditions consistent with good status. The main instrument to tackle agricultural nutrient diffuse pollution in the EU is the Nitrates Directive (EU, 1991), although Member States and river basin authorities have also adopted their own national and river basin measures to meet good status.

Under the Nitrates Directive, Member states must establish codes of good agricultural practices, which specify periods when the application of fertilizers and animal manure is prohibited and the conditions for fertiliser application, minimum storage capacity for animal manure, and beneficial crop management practices (rotations, soil winter cover, catch crops). Member States must also monitor water quality, identify waters polluted by nitrates, designate nitrate vulnerable zones (NVZs) and develop action programs which outline compulsory measures in NVZs. In NVZs, the codes of good agricultural practices become compulsory together with additional measures relating to limitations on fertilizer application (mineral and organic) and all nitrogen inputs onto soils, and maximum amount of livestock manure.  

There has been a net improvement in the EU towards reduced nitrogen surplus on farmland (Chapter 3.1), which is usually attributed the adoption of the Nitrates Directive. Restrictions on fertiliser application and stricter application standards have contributed significantly to these improvements, together with improved manure application and storage (Webb et al., 2010; van Grinsven et al., 2012). Landscape features such as buffer strips, constructed wetlands and sediment ponds, have also helped reduced the risk of leaching and runoff. Manure surplus management has been used to export excess nitrogen and phosphorous to areas with manure deficits and where they can work as a substitute from mineral fertiliser. Increased use of manure can be supported with adequate definition of nitrogen fertiliser equivalencies (van Grinsven et al., 2012).

More could be done to improve efficient nutrient use. The New Circular Economy Action Plan (EC, 2020b) and the Farm to Fork Strategy (EC, 2020c) call for integrated nutrient management action plan to tackle nutrient pollution at source, in particular in the livestock sector. The Farm-To-Fork Strategy (EC, 2020c) sets an ambitious target of reducing nutrient losses by at least 50%, without deterioration to soil fertility. It calls for better implementation of existing legislation, but also the identification of nutrient load reduction needed, wider application of balanced fertilisation and sustainable nutrient management ,and better management of nitrogen and phosphorus throughout their lifecycle.

Full implementation of the ND is certainly needed in the future to support the achievement of WFD objectives (EC, 2019b). Up to 30% of infringements have been observed following site controls, in particular regarding manure storage and fertilisation near rivers. Derogations have been applied to the ND requirements on maximum manure application at farm level (170kg/ha) in six countries (EC, 2018). Furthermore, not all measures have been used fully. For example, to date, only half Member States apply nutrient balance assessments under the RBMP planning process (EC, 2019a), despite evidence of their effective contribution in optimising nutrient use (Cherry et al., 2012; Wu and Ma, 2015).

NVZs now cover 61% of the EU’s agricultural area (EC, 2018). Some MS (i.e. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, and Slovenia) have opted to designate their whole territories as vulnerable zones, thereby opting for the same approach to all their farmers. Other Member States have opted for designating particular areas, which may, in some cases, not include sufficiently all the area draining into waters where they cause pollution to ensure effective action programmes (EC, 2018). With some regions in Europe reporting 1% uptake of good agricultural practices amongst farmers outside NVZs (EC, 2018), environmental gains may be possible if their uptake were generalised.

Precision farming has a major role in balanced nutrient management, as well as uptake of innovative solutions, such as improved feeding through more balanced nitrogen and phosphorus levels in livestock diet to decrease total phosphorus emission in manure (Klootwijk et al., 2016b) and slurry injection to improve the assimilation of nutrients in soils, as required in The Netherlands.

Despite improvements, fertilization rates in Europe remain high in global perspective (Erisman et al., 2011) and fertiliser use has remained generally stable at European level in recent years (see Chapter 2). Additional policy instruments may be designed into policy mixes that combine incentives together with regulatory and voluntary schemes, as implemented in Baden-Wüttemberg (Germany) (Möller-Gulland et al., 2015).

Stricter restrictions on the use of fertilisers and manure may be required to achieve environmental objectives, for instance as a total cap on fertiliser and manure use, or livestock density, on hydrologically relevant scales. However, to be effective, the cap should be assessed against transparent and measurable nutrient load reduction targets (Box 4.3). As restrictions become more costly and may affect yield, more targeted approaches may be needed to reduce total cost of reaching nutrient reduction goals.

Box 4.2 Danish action on nutrient pollution

Around 60% of the territory of Denmark is arable land and permanent crops (Figure 2.2). A significant reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus input to surface waters and groundwater is crucial to reach objectives of the WFD. Based on 2^nd RBMP, 28% of all surface waters and 78% of all groundwater bodies reach the WFD good status objectives. Status of coastal waters is worse with only 2 % of water bodies in good ecological status. High nitrogen use in agriculture is a major cause of pollution in Danish coastal waters.

Denmark has been addressing nutrient pollution with national policies starting in 1987 with the first Action Plan on the Aquatic Environment aims with a 50% reduction goal for nitrogen discharges from point sources and leaching from diffuse sources and an 80% reduction of phosphorus discharges from point sources. The Plans for Sustainable Agriculture and the National Action Plan II and III for the Aquatic Environment was adopted according to obligations of Nitrates Directive. The third update of the Action Plan for the Aquatic Environment for the period 2005 to 2015 aims at halving phosphorus surplus in soils and reduce nitrogen leaching significantly.

The Green Growth Agreement, adopted in 2009, sets annual nitrogen load reduction targets in coastal waters of 19 000 tonnes. Those targets were also adopted in the 1^st RBMP 2014 (6 600 t N), the Food and Agriculture Agreement 2016 (8,000 t N), and the 2^nd RBMP (2016). The upcoming 3^rd RBMP plan a reduction of 6,200 t N in coastal waters. Those targets have also progressively provided the Danish contribution to the Batic Sea Action Plan.

Source : Maar et al., 2016; Carter and Cherrier, 2013; Christensen, 2017; Kronvang et al., 2017; Miljø- og Fødevareministeriet, 2019

Tackling pollution from pesticides, metals, and veterinary medicines

Contamination caused by chemical pollutants from agricultural activities is very varied and a major concern in many European countries (Chapter 3.1). The WFD requires the adoption of measures to control the discharges, emissions and losses of priority and priority hazardous substances into the aquatic environment. Emissions of priority substances should be reduced while emissions priority substances should be cessed or phased out. The list of priority and hazardous substances includes several pesticides and heavy metals, and pollution from veterinary products are an emerging concern. As pesticides and heavy metals are persistent in the environment and can bio-accumulate, it is essential that management is primarily about reducing or avoiding use altogether.

Regarding the management heavy metals from agriculture, threshold limits for key substances in sludge applied to agricultural land have been set by the Sewage Sludge Directive. Monitoring is required on the sludge and the receiving soil to take into account cumulative concentrations. The Directive bans the spreading of sewage sludge when the concentration of certain substances in the soil exceeds these values. In addition, the directive sets time restrictions for sludge application in order to provide protection against potential health risks from residual pathogens.

Reduction in the total amount of metals in sludge has been observed for regulated metals, with the largest decrease for cadmium, chrome and mercury (Fijalkowski et al., 2017). Member States have added other substances for control than those contained in the Directive, and implemented stricter limit values. However, improvements is warranted to achieve better environmental outcomes. For instance, total content may not be a reliable indicator to assess the availability and toxicity for living organisms (Fijalkowski et al., 2017). Furthermore, a wider spectrum may need to be monitored as sewage sludge contains organic and inorganic contaminants not yet regulated by law, such as many pharmaceuticals, personal care products, nanoparticles and pathogens (Fijalkowski et al., 2017). These issues are of relevance also for the reuse of wastewater in irrigated areas (Chapter 4.3.5).

Since 1991, EU action against pesticide pollution has gradually strengthened over the years, first by establishing greater control on the authorisation of active substances on the EU market, then by establishing provisions for the safe collection and disposal of waste, and more recently by targeting consumption levels. The use of pesticides is regulated through the Sustainable Use of Pesticide (SUP) Directive (EU, 2009a), which sets out a framework to achieve sustainable use. It promotes integrated pest management (IPM) (Box 4.4), and foresees mandatory inspection of pesticide application equipment, training of users, advisors and distributors of pesticides, prohibition of aerial spraying, limitation of pesticide use in sensitive areas, and mitigation of risks through improved spray technology and application of buffer zones, and proper management and cleaning of equipment after spraying.

At Member States level, national action plan must be developed to show how risks and impacts of pesticide use will be reduced. To date, measures have focused to date on establishing systems for the training and certification of operators, a range of measures for the safe handling and storage of pesticides, and technological improvements for the efficient spraying of pesticides (EC, 2020f). Initiatives exist on increasing awareness of IPM amongst farmers, such as the Lithuanian labelling system on pesticide, as well as its monitoring and reporting by farmers (ECA, 2020).

Progress in reducing pesticides use has nevertheless been very limited (Chapter 2). The Farm to Fork Strategy (EC, 2020c) and Biodiversity Strategy (2020) (EC, 2020d) have put renewed attention on pesticides use, and aim to reduce overall use and risk of chemical pesticides at European level by 50% and the use of more hazardous pesticides by 2030. In addition, the Farm to Fork Strategy has set a goal to reduce overall EU sales of antimicrobials for farmed animals and in aquaculture by 50% by 2030. To achieve these ambitious objectives, significant changes in farm practices need to occur.

For example, implementation of IPM has been slow, with little evidence of widespread application by farmers (Lefebvre et al., 2015). Practical and measurable guidelines and criteria at farm level should be developed to improve monitoring of progress and increase awareness (ECA, 2020). Although farmers are required to apply IPM, they are not always required to keep records of how they applied it and there are weak penalties for non-compliance. Evidence also suggests that systemic change is required not only at farm level, but also across the actors of the whole value chain – including pesticide retailers, farm advisory bodies, and the food industry - to move away from existing standards and requirements locking farmers into current practices. This lack of broader value chain support was a major factor explaining the lack of progress in ambitious national policies, such as the First Ecophyto Plan in France (Guichard et al., 2017).

Full implementation of IPM principles of the SUD is necessary, but also other measures. The definition of non-chemical and low-risk plant protection product could be clarified, as is the recording and reporting in the use plant protection product at national and European level to better measure progress (ECA, 2020). Given the continuous emergence of new chemicals, methods of detections must be strengthened as are authorisation procedures supported by scientific evidence. Cumulative risks must be considered. Adoption of precision farming and further innovations in pesticide application techniques can also improve fertiliser use efficiency (Dean et al., 2011). More ambitious measures are also warranted, such as the use of quantitative reduction targets in pesticide use (Skevas et al., 2013) and the wider use of ambitious pesticides tax schemes (Pedersen et al., 2015; Böcker and Finger, 2016).

Box 4.3 Integrated Pest Management (IPM)

IPM encourages first pest prevention through adequate crop and livestock management practices. In cropping systems, it promotes crop diversification through spatial diversity (e.g. intercropping) and temporal diversity (e.g. longer crop rotations) to break pest and disease cycles. Improved tillage practices and avoidance of soil compaction can reduce erosion and support healthy soils, increasing chemical breakdown before leaching and runoff into surface water and groundwater bodies. Preserving and supporting important beneficial organisms fighting pests and diseases, but not damaging crops or livestock, are encouraged, as is the development of more resistant seed and crop varieties and animal breeds. In livestock systems, appropriate hygiene and housing can reduce risks, as well as lower livestock densities. Crop and livestock management should be complemented by an efficient monitoring of pest and disease development. Biological methods together with physical handling should first be used, and, when necessary, suitable chemical methods may be adopted to protect crops and livestock. 

Sources: Meissle et al., 2009; Lamichhane et al., 2015; FAO, 2018a 

4.3.2        Tackling pressures from agricultural water use

Agriculture is a major driver of abstraction pressure in EU’s water bodies (Chapter 3.2). The EU’s response to abstraction pressures has been mostly cross-sectoral, formalised through the EU Action on Water Scarcity and Droughts 2007 and consolidated through the Blueprint for Safeguarding Europe’s Waters 2012. At river basin level, the implementation of RBMP has led to the uptake of a wide variety of management measures on agricultural irrigation (EC, 2019a).

Prior-authorisation and abstraction control

Under the WFD, significant abstraction points in surface water and groundwater should be registered and subject to prior-authorisation through e.g. a permit system. Member States should inspect and enforce penalties on non-authorised users who does not comply with the specification of the permit requirements.

Recent evaluations indicate that member states have adopted various mechanisms to better control agricultural abstraction. Authorisation procedures are generally in place in all Member States and the majority of countries and RBDs have also conducted assessments of water balances (Buchanan et al., 2019). Water balances provide an overview of the volume and flow of water in the various components of the hydrological cycle within a specified hydrological unit (e.g. a river catchment or river basin), occurring both naturally and as a result of the human induced water abstractions and returns. Water balances are seen as essential components of sound quantitative management of water resources under the WFD (EC, 2015).

Some countries have gone further by limiting water abstraction and issuing volumetric allocations that take into account the renewable freshwater resources and environmental flow requirements. France for instance has adopted volumetric management where capped agricultural allocations are managed by agricultural user groups, while some river basin authorities and user groups in Spain have established sophisticated controls on capped abstraction (Box 4.3).

Despite progress, there remains significant implementation issues regarding abstraction control. Illegal abstraction in the form of unauthorised, unregistered, unmeasured or unmetered abstraction, also continues to be a major challenge (Schmidt et al., 2020). Half of the wells in European Mediterranean countries may be unregistered or illegal (EASAC, 2010). Not all abstraction points are reported, and volumes are not systematically metered. The multitude of abstraction points makes it particularly difficult for authorities to regulate water use. However, river basin authorities are developing sophisticated strategies to improve the recording of agricultural abstraction and its monitoring (Schmidt et al., 2020).

Most Member States apply exemptions to permitting and the registration of small abstractions, and the analysis of abstraction may not consider the cumulative impact of abstraction points. This is a major concern for groundwater but also surface water bodies where farmers abstract water through individual pumping systems. The lack of consideration of, and control over, small abstraction points in some Member States lead to an underestimation of abstraction levels from agriculture.

Finally, further work is needed to harmonise the use of water balances across river basins. To realise their full potential, water balances must give careful consideration to system interconnectivity between surface water and groundwater bodies, the relationship between water flow, quality and ecological status, the consideration of climate change and assumptions regarding consumptive use and return flows. Further guidance is planned in the recent Biodiversity Strategy 2030 (EC, 2020d) regarding how to better link the review of abstraction permits with the aim of restoring ecological flows under the WFD.

Box 4.4 Volumetric control on abstraction of agricultural irrigation

Limits on total agricultural abstraction have been adopted in some river basins in Europe. In France, the Water Law in 2006 requires abstraction caps in priority catchments and aquifers, where resources are deemed overallocated. Once the cap is set by authorities, together with users, the portion allocated to agriculture is managed by an agricultural collective management organisations called “Organismes Uniques de Gestion Collective” (OUGC). The OUGC is conceived as administrative (relay) institution to improve local knowledge of agricultural abstraction, pool individual water demands annually, define allocations between farmers and report use after the irrigation season. Policing and compliance remain in the control of public administrations. This comanagement between authorities and agricultural users has contributed to improve knowledge of agricultural abstraction in basins and aquifers and to reinforce local control on agricultural abstraction.

In Spain, user associations have also been created to manage overexploited aquifers. The management of some aquifers, such as the Mancha Oriental, present some elaborate forms of monitoring and controls on abstraction based on Earth Observation information. Farmers are required to prepare an irrigation plan specifying which crops will be irrigated and where. Based on this, the user association performs continuous earth observation to detect potential cases of over-abstraction and target field inspections. This is assisted with calibrated flowmeters on wells. This has significantly improved controls and the water table level has been stabilized.

While the French and Spanish case present advanced experiences on controlling abstraction, there are many challenges in implementation. Ideally, water permits should be reviewed to reduce the overallocation. However, historical water use rights and entitlements pre-dating the WFD may persist, and authorities usually face significant legal and political constraints in modifying them. In France for example, the definition of abstraction caps imply that agricultural extractions have to be reduced by 10 to 20% compared to historical use in most priority catchments and by over 50% in some cases. Reductions are to be achieved with no financial compensation. Ambitious reforms are needed to overcome these barriers and engage in a full and wide ranging review of existing permits.

Sources: Playán et al., 2018; Ortega et al., 2019; Rouillard and Rinaudo, 2020; Arnaud, 2020; Schmidt et al., 2020

Restrictions during droughts

River basin authorities have improved the use of drought management plans, which dictate measures when precipitation is significantly below normal recorded levels. To ensure sufficient water flows reaches downstream ecosystems and water users, river basin authorities have set target minimum flows across river basins and established emergency controls where water users, including irrigated agriculture, undergo increasing restrictions on their water use as these target river flows and aquifer levels reach minimum thresholds.

In Europe, authorities typically consider agriculture as a non-priority use compared to drinking water services. Hence, agriculture often bear most of the restrictions on water abstraction during drought conditions and most of the reduction in allocations to meet sustainable abstraction limits. The agricultural sector faces major challenges to minimise economic losses, especially as Europe is facing more frequent and intense droughts in the future.

Drought forecasting and preparedness should alleviate the problem, while sophisticated mechanisms to optimise water allocations in agriculture during droughts, while meeting environmental flows, are being developed in several countries (Kampragou et al., 2011; Rey et al., 2017). This includes for example real-time monitoring of river flows and abstraction, as well as intra-annual water reallocation between users. Some countries such as Spain use water market mechanisms to reallocate water (Garrido et al., 2012).

Water use efficiency and crop productivity

European policies aims to promote water use efficiency in agriculture, an approach reinforced by the EU Green Deal (EC, 2019c) goal towards a resource efficient economy. At global level, Europe is usually considered to be more efficient in irrigation water use (e.g. Jägermeyr et al., 2015). However, studies have suggested that up to 43% of agricultural water use could be saved in Europe (Dworak et al., 2007).

Implementing incentive pricing for the use of water and increasing the cost recovery of abstracting, storing and delivering irrigation water is part of the WFD (Box 4.4)). It is expected that cost recovery and incentive pricing can support greater efficiency in water use, and encourage a shift to crops, irrigation technologies and practices that reduce wastage and ensure an efficient use of water. Cost recovery and volumetric pricing in irrigated agriculture have been more widely adopted in recent years, although many Member State do not yet implement it fully for several social, economic and political reasons (Giannakis et al., 2016; Expósito, 2018; EC, 2019a). It is important to note that incentive pricing does not necessarily result in water savings. Case studies have shown that low water prices limit its impact, but also other factors, such as fertiliser or energy costs, have a stronger impact on water use (Bogaert et al., 2012).

Box 4.5 Cost recovery and incentive pricing on agriculture under the WFD

Cost recovery of water services is a general principles in the Directive, which Member States should apply except where it does not compromise the purposes and achievement of the objectives of the WFD (ECJ, 2014). Cost recovery and incentive pricing principles under the WFD on agriculture can be outlined in the following way:

Element 1 – there is an incentive pricing policy to use water resources efficiently.

Element 2 – there is adequate contribution of the agriculture sector (including self-abstraction for irrigation) to the recovery of the costs of water services, including environmental and resource costs reflected in pricing policy.

• For MS/Regions to demonstrate full compliance with Article 9 of the WFD, the following conditions would be met:
• All abstractions from surface and ground waters (and reservoirs) for agricultural use are subject to a permit and are regulated by water meters.
• There is an inspection system and fines/penalties for a farmer who does not comply with the volume defined in the permit requirements.
• All abstractions from surface and ground waters (and reservoirs) by farmers are subject to a fee (i.e. price).
• The price paid for water is based on the volume of water abstracted by individual agricultural uses. The volume of water (paid for) is calculated by an individual farm level meter.
• There is a clear government commitment (i.e. regulation) to apply volumetric pricing policy for all agricultural users. The pricing policy provides incentives for the agriculture sector to shift to crops, irrigation technologies and practices that ensure efficient use of water or, in water-scarce areas, to less-water consuming crops.
• The price paid for water internalises environmental and resource costs, i.e. the water price charge to farmers goes beyond costs linked to infrastructure such as maintenance, energy, distribution, etc.

Source: Berglund et al., 2017

Member States have made significant investments into efficiency programs, including improved irrigation scheduling and advice provision, reduction in water loss conveyance, and water saving irrigation technologies (Giannakis et al., 2016). Drip and sprinkler irrigation, which have the highest water efficiency (respectively 85-95% and 70-85%), generally prevail in Europe, while many gravity-fed and surface irrigation systems of lower efficiency (40-60%) remain across Europe, in particular amongst small farm holders in the Mediterranean where surface irrigation has traditionally been used. Moving to more efficient irrigation, for instance by improving the lining of canals or switching to pressured and drip irrigation systems, could further save water.

can be estimated through the water intensity of crop production, which relates the amount of water used to produce a crop to its economic value. The water intensity of crop production in Europe has reduced by 12% between 2005 and 2016 (EEA, 2020b). The strongest reduction occurred in Eastern Europe (nearly 32%) due to increases in the gross added value generated by crops and a reduction in abstraction per ha. Southern Europe countries also reduced its water intensity (about 10%), although some countries such as Cyprus, Greece, Italy and Malta experienced in an increase due to an increase of abstraction per ha and a decline in added value linked to lower crop yields, possibly as a result of climate change.

The idea that moving to more efficient use in irrigation systems and increasing water intensity (productivity) is always beneficial in environmental, social and economic terms warrants some words of caution (Zoebl, 2006; Berbel et al., 2018). More efficient irrigation infrastructures require large investments and have higher operational and running costs, placing additional burden on farm finances (Dumont et al., 2013; Masseroni et al., 2017). Furthermore, return flows resulting from highly inefficient irrigation systems can contribute to base flows beneficial to downstream uses and sensitive ecosystems, which may have developed over centuries and have high cultural values. Higher efficiency lead to reduced percolation losses, thereby impacting return flows.

Investments in water efficiency programs should therefore be accompanied by a careful consideration of water balances at farm, basin and aquifer level, including consideration of surface-groundwater exchanges and dynamics and impact on groundwater-dependent ecosystems (EC, 2015; Expósito and Berbel, 2017). Attention needs to be given to potential rebound effects (see Textbox 4.1) and ensure that the saved water is reallocated to environmental needs.

Reducing demand and enhancing rainfed agriculture

As river basins adopt more water efficient irrigation, further gains will be limited and technological improvements may reach their capacity to deliver new value and reduce water use. Findings suggest that productivity gains may have reached a ceiling in some southern European river basins as various innovations, such as new crops, deficit irrigation, and water‐saving and conservation technologies, have reached their full capacity (Expósito and Berbel, 2017). Hence, other measures may be needed to match total water demand with water availability.

As river basin progress towards total resource limitations, the full impact of agriculture on the basins’ hydrology should be accounted for, including both its use of blue and green water. This would require managing water in rainfed and irrigated systems in an integrated way, looking at ways to maximize water savings by managing evapotranspiration and crop water demand, enhancing soil water retention capacity, and increasing the productivity of rainfed agriculture (Rockström et al., 2010; Molden et al., 2007b). This would also contribute to increase farms’ resilience to water scarcity and droughts.

Soil preservation and crop diversification practices promoted in conservation farming and agro-ecology contribute to these objectives, with evidence that farms practicing organic farming have shown greater resiliency to droughts by maintaining higher yields than non-organic farms (e.g. Milestad and Darnhofer, 2003; Altieri et al., 2015). Healthy, carbon-rich soils have higher water retention capacities (Adhikari and Hartemink, 2016). Various techniques can be used to increase the capacity to reduce crop water demand, including the use of modified crop calendars to benefit from higher rainfall and soil moisture content during wetter season, modified crop rotation and rotational fallowing, developing more water resistant varieties and adopting more water-stress resistant crops (Debaeke and Aboudrare, 2004; EIP-AGRI, 2016, 2020). Deficit irrigation has large potential in permanent cropping systems to optimize and reduce water use during drought conditions (Fereres and Soriano, 2006). Combining crops or pastures with trees in agroforestry systems can also buffer exposure to climate change extreme such as storm damage, heatwaves and droughts (OECD, 2014).

It is also important to acknowledge that a total switch to rainfed agriculture can reduce costs to farmers, but it also increases exposure to lower yields and crop failure during droughts. A coherent strategy on supplemental irrigation or adequate crop insurance for rainfed agriculture may be needed to mitigate risk.

4.3.3        Tackling hydromorphological pressures from agriculture

Agriculture leads to a variety of hydromorphological pressures (Chapter 3.3). Under the WFD, authorities have established controls to avoid further deterioration typically by requiring prior-authorisation (licensing) of land drainage and for building infrastructure such as water storage for irrigation purposes. Fencing of watercourses has also been implemented in livestock areas to prevent morphological deterioration. Restoration action is also required where pressures impact the good status of surface water bodies. For agriculture, much restoration focus on drainage impacts (Vartia et al., 2018).

A variety of other policy initiatives support the restoration of water bodies from agricultural pressures, notably the EU note on Better Environmental Options for Flood risk management (EC, 2011b), the Green Infrastructure Strategy (EC, 2013) and the concept of Natural Water Retention Measures ( Box 4.7). More recently, the Biodiversity Strategy 2030 established a goal to restore the longitudinal connectivity of water bodies by 25000 km, which may affect various irrigation storage infrastructure.

European-wide overview of measures tackling hydromorphological pressures from agriculture is complicated due to lack of data. Evidence exists of countries implementing river restoration measures to remeander river courses, enhance riparian habitat, remove embankments, weirs and barriers (e.g. reservoirs) and reconnect rivers and floodplains. Other measures target agricultural land to promote a landscape-wide restoration of hydrological processes and reduce sediment flow, for example via changes in crop and soil management to reduce erosion.

By removing storage capacity for irrigation water, flood protection and restoring groundwater tables, hydromorphological pressures can impact the productivity of agricultural land. To further enable restoration programs, a comprehensive framework may be needed, such as the planned EU Nature Restoration Plan.

Box 4.6  Natural water retention measures and agriculture

Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM) are multi-functional measures that aim to protect and manage water resources using natural means and processes, for example, by restoring ecosystems and changing land use. Their main focus is to enhance and preserve the water retention capacity of aquifers, soil and ecosystems with a view to improving their status. The European platform on NWRM (http://nwrm.eu/) offers an overview of these solutions, with technical specifications and case studies on their application across Europe.

A wide diversity of measures are classified as NWRM. In areas affected by agriculture, such measures may include on-farm measures (e.g. buffer strips, soil conservation practices like crop rotation, intercropping, conservation tillage) as well as landscape-wide measures (e.g. floodplain and wetland restoration).

NWRM have the potential to provide multiple benefits, including flood risk reduction, water quality improvement, groundwater recharge and habitat improvement. For example, riparian buffer zones in agricultural areas primarily aim at reducing nutrient losses and/or increase biodiversity, but they may also reduce peak flooding. However, as the area covered by NWRM is generally small with respect to managed (agricultural or forest) land area, their individual impact on downstream flooding is usually relatively minor. 

Overall, NWRM are still far from being applied in all cases in which they would be an option or the best option and there is a need for a change of thinking to ensure NWRM are duly considered in planning processes. Enhanced knowledge is required for supporting the optimisation of NWRM and their combination with other measures, for quantifying their impacts at large scale, and for estimating all their benefits.

The effectiveness of NWRM for different objectives including flood risk reduction and the reduction of hydromorphological pressures from agricultural use could be enhanced, if they were implemented at larger scale. If many farms adopt these type of measures such as riparian buffers or soil conservation practices at the same time in the same catchment, the effect could be larger compared to single applications on few farms.

Source: EC, 2014; Saukkonen, 2016; Collentine and Futter, 2018 

4.3.4        Other water, biodiversity, marine and climate adaptation policies

Other environmental policies can contribute to tackling agricultural pressures on the water environment. For example, the Drinking Water Directive (EU, 1998)establishes quality standards at EU level on several substances emitted by agriculture (e.g. nitrates) and requires establishing drinking water protected areas, in which human activities are subject to more stringent controls. The protection of drinking water protected areas has been reinforced through the WFD, and it has since driven restorative action by authorities on agricultural land. For example, the uptake of organic farming reduction on drinking water areas in the viscinity of Leipzig has led to a reduction of nitrate concentration from 40mg/L to 20mg/L in groundwater (Grüne Liga, 2007).

Drinking water utilities and bottle water companies increasingly value the cost-effectiveness of tackling agricultural drivers at the source by changing farming operations to reduce the use of nutrients and pesticides loads through more efficient use of inputs or changing practices towards more agroecological practices. However, they have faced legal and operational constraints and most action on diffuse pollution is focused on mitigation and remediation actions such as displacing drinking water wells (EC, 2016). The Directive is currently undergoing revisions to allow further prevention and mitigation measures to protect drinking water sources, and will extend a range of emerging pollutants, including from agriculture such as additional endocrine disruptors and pesticides.

The Nature Directives do not state any direct relevance to agriculture and water; however, the conservation measures which must be put into place for terrestrial ecosystems may involve actions that concern this area. For example, reduced input of chemical fertilisers and plant protection products as well as reduced habitat pollution or fragmentation contribute positively to water quality, reducing erosion, contamination and compaction. In addition, the Birds Directive promotes the protection of wetlands, which have a positive impact on the water household.

The recent Biodiversity Strategy illustrates well these important linkages, with ambitious targets relating to the reduction of the emission of chemical pesticide by 50% by 2030, the expansion of organic farming to 25% of agricultural utilised land, the restoration of the longitudinal connectivity of water bodies by 25000 km and the better control of water abstraction affecting environmental flows.

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive promotes the protection and restoration of environmental status in marine waters. Some of the pressures on the marine environment originate from agricultural activities, in particular nutrient pollution and eutrophication. The coordination of marine and water policies can result in more effective responses.

The EU Adaptation strategy on adaptation to climate change (COM/2013/0216 final) aims at making Europe more climate-resilient. Taking a coherent approach by complementing the activities of Member States, it supports action by promoting greater coordination and information-sharing, and by ensuring that adaptation considerations are addressed in all relevant EU policies and funding programmes. The new adaptation strategy (to be published 2021) will also have a focus on the water and agriculture nexus ensuring that both can withstand the changing climate as this is critical reaching many objectives, including preserving ecosystem services.

4.4             Coherence between EU water and agricultural policies

The transition to more sustainable forms of agricultural production to reduce pressures on the water environment require close integration of the implementation of environmental policies with sectoral policies driving agricultural activities and rural development. The Common Agricultural Policy is the main policy that influences the development of the agriculture sector in the EU. It influences how individual farmers choose to manage their land, crops and livestock. In its preamble paragraph, the WFD already highlighted the importance of close integration with the CAP, and RBMPs heavily rely on funding from rural development policies to implement measures on agricultural land (Buchanan et al., 2019).

The current CAP (2014-2020) aims to ensure a stable supply of affordable food, to enable farmers to make a reasonable living and to address climate change and sustainable management of natural resources. The CAP consists in several regulations which are organised around two “pillars”:

• The “first pillar”, financed via the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), supports agricultural income by delivering yearly direct payments worth 72% of the CAP total budget to 6.7 million farmers (out of 10.5 million), and by intervening on agricultural commodity markets, accounting for 5% of the total budget.
• The “second pillar”, financed under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), aims to support more broadly the competitiveness, social cohesion and environmental performance of agriculture and the rural economy. It covers the remaining 23% of the CAP budget.

According to the legal proposals presented by the European Commission, the next Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) will continue to be financed through these two funds, but a new delivery model based on greater subsidiarity is proposed (EU, 2018b)

Over the time of existence of the CAP and other sectoral policies, considerable progress has been made to streamline environmental objectives. Yet, there is a need for much more ambitious and far-reaching integration given the slow progress towards good status and continued pressure from agriculture on the water environment (ECA, 2014; EEA, 2018d; EC, 2019a).

4.4.1        Avoiding policy incentives leading to pressures on water

The CAP is one of the oldest policies, launched in 1962, and a core building block of the European Union. Some of its initial goals were to stabilize agricultural markets, guarantee minimum commodity prices to farmers, and support investment in the modernization of agriculture, with the overall objective to increase food production.

Thanks to this favorable policy framework, European agricultural output increased tremendously, increasing food security in Europe and vastly expanding exports on international markets (Chapter 2). However, at the same time, the used of inputs such as fertilisers, pesticides and irrigation water has increased and agricultural pressures on the European water environment have become more intense (Chapter 3).

In the last 30 years, successive reforms of the CAP have changed significantly the intervention logic of the CAP and the resulting incentive structure on farmers. Under Pillar I, the budget for market interventions which initially determined the market price have mostly transitioned to providing a market safety net. Some market mechanisms still exist in Pillar I under the Common Market Organisation, for example in the form of sector specific aid schemes to support the competitiveness and modernisation of agricultural holdings. This instrument is often used to support investments (e.g. in irrigation) in sectors such as fruit and vegetables, apiculture, wine, hops, cotton and olives.

Most of the Pillar I CAP budget has now been re-oriented towards direct payments to farmers in the form of income support. Direct payments consisted in the 2014-2020 programming period of several schemes, the main one being a basic income support scheme. Others direct payment schemes have more specific objectives, such as supporting young farmers, smaller farms, and specific sectors facing economic difficulties. The “greening” direct payment specifically aims at encouraging the uptake of some sustainable farming practices (Section 4.4.2).

The influence of the current CAP Pillar I on production and use of inputs (e.g. fertilisers, pesticides, irrigation water), and the resulting impact on the water environment, is subject to debate:

• One the one hand, direct payments can represent a substantial share of income of farming systems with a lower impact on water, for example diversified farmers in grass-fed livestock production or extensive farms in areas of natural constraints. This may maintain their economic viability and prevent their conversion to more specialist arable farming systems.
• On the other hand, direct payments may benefit historical beneficiaries with intensive forms of production, and sector-specific support (under the remaining coupled direct payments or under the market intervention instrument) may encourage further intensification. Some Member States have nevertheless set additional conditions on payments to benefiting farms, such as maximum livestock density and water saving targets (Devot et al., 2020).

It is important to note that the impact of direct payments and sectoral market intervention on farming practices and pressures on the water environment is dependent on many factors, varying with the implementation choice of Member States, characteristics and location of the farm, market conditions, and choices by farmers themselves.

The share of the CAP support in the overall farm income also has an influence. Where payments represent a smaller share of a farmers’ income (e.g. fruits, wine, vegetable sectors), the CAP will have less relevance on farmers’ choices, and market forces will likely be the predominant factor in the evolution of the farm operations. To prevent intensification in such cases, a more global response is needed, for example via interventions on the broader consumption system to induce the right signal on the evolution of agricultural practices (see Chapter 5).

4.4.2        Supporting the transition to sustainable farming

The CAP reforms have resulted in establishing a complex “green” architecture composed of various instruments for promoting environmental and climate friendly farming practices. They can be separated between:

• Instruments mainstreaming environmental standards, i.e. “cross-compliance” in the current programming period and “conditionalities” in the new CAP
• Instruments incentivizing the uptake of more sustainable farming practices, i.e. “greening” measures in the current programming (to be included as environmental standards in the conditionalities in the upcoming period) and “eco-schemes” in the new CAP
• Instruments providing financial assistance to the transition towards sustainable farming, i.e. rural development payments.

Linking payments to environmental standards

The 2003 CAP reform established a series of “cross-compliance” rules on environmental protection, food safety, animal and plant health and animal welfare, which farmers must comply with across Europe. Statutory Management Requirements (SMR) apply to all European farmers, and relate to existing environmental legislation. Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) are additional requirements attached to most direct and rural development payments, and therefore only apply to farmers involved in these CAP support schemes.

In the CAP period 2014-2020, two SMRs (i.e. SMRs 1 and 10) integrated the requirements of the Nitrates Directive and the Sustainable Use of Pesticide Directive, as well as several GAECs are also relevant to water targets, directly and indirectly, including those requiring the establishment of buffer strips along watercourses, groundwater protection measures, soil and land management practices to limit erosion and maintain soil organic matter, and retention of landscape features such as hedgerows. One GAEC required compliance with authorization procedures for abstraction for irrigation purposes.

It is generally acknowledged that cross-compliance offered large potential for tackling pressures on the water environment because they reinforce the widespread enforcement of minimum environmental standards in agriculture. However, evaluations of cross-compliance has regularly highlighted some pertaining weaknesses, which can hinder their environmental effectiveness (ECA, 2009, 2016; Devot et al., 2020).

One common reported issue relates to the generic nature of crops-compliance requirements and their lack of spatial targeting. Under the current system, CAP management authorities set out standards following an approach that can be applied across a region or a country uniformly, so as to minimise administrative burden in compliance-checking. Two notable exceptions include the SMR related to the Nitrates Directive, which accounts for nitrate vulnerable zones, and the GAEC on land management to limit erosion, which integrates the need to account for site-specific conditions. Both support a reduction in nutrient pollution pressures.

There are issues relating to varying level of ambition. For instance:

• The specification of GAEC on buffer strips vary widely across Europe, including minimum width, obligations and restrictions regarding the use of fertilizer and pesticide input, and the type of vegetation cover that can constitute a buffer strip. The most ambitious buffer strip requirements more closely follow scientific recommendations regarding adequate consideration of factors, such as slope of the upstream land, vegetative cover type and maintenance operations, to enhance their effectiveness in tackling nutrient and pesticide pollution (Hickey and Doran, 2004).
• Cross-compliance relating to the use of pesticides was so far been limited to respecting procedures regarding the buying of products, their handling and application (ECA, 2020). Reducing pesticide pressure will require going beyond and implementing an integrated approach to managing pest and diseases, that considers alternative methods and reducing the application rate and frequency, as set out under the Directive on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides.
• Abstraction pressures were tackled by GAEC 2, which requires that the farmer comply with authorisation procedures. Considering the large number of unreported abstraction points, this GAEC has large potential to improve monitoring of water use. A requirement to install a water meter and report water use could improve further the GAEC. Potential additional measures could include the uptake of water saving measures and efficient irrigation systems.

Finally, cross-compliance requirements did not apply to sectoral market interventions and not all direct payments. This exempted certain polluting sectors such as cotton production, wine and vegetables, from meeting these standards when receiving these payments. In the current proposals for the CAP post-2021, some of these payments will remain under different environmental requirements as direct and rural development payments.

The new CAP green architecture proposes to integrate cross-compliance requirements and greening measures (see below) into a set of “conditionalities” on all Pillar I payments. In addition to integrating pre-existing cross-compliance and greening requirements (leaving some flexibility to member states on setting exact levels of ambition), new proposed standards include controls on diffuse phosphate pollution, new Farm Sustainability Tool for Nutrients, and the protection of wetland and peatland would contribute to tackle pressures from agriculture on water.

No conditionality requirement has yet been proposed regarding the mitigation of the impact of hydromorphological changes from drainage schemes and irrigation infrastructure, or measures tackling emerging chemical pollution such as pharmaceutical and cleaning products used in livestock rearing.

Incentivising sustainable farm practices

Under the CAP 2014-2020, farmers could receive a “green payment” for implementing three types of measures: (i) crop diversification, (ii) maintenance of permanent grassland and (iii) Ecological Focus Areas (EFA). Member States and farmers had significant leeway in implementing greening measures.

Experience indicates that farmers preferably implemented “productive” EFAs, including nitrogen-fixing crops and catch crops, which are deemed beneficial for water. Some countries have also banned the use of fertilizer and pesticides in these productive EFAs, further enhancing their potential benefits to water. Other relevant EFAs were offered, such as landscape elements (e.g. hedgerows and wood strips), afforested areas, agroforestry and maintenance of permanent grassland, but they were less popular amongst farmers.

Recent evaluations indicate that conditions attached to greening measures were also often not ambitious enough. Many EFAs for instance did not always go much beyond existing cross-compliance requirements (ECA, 2020; Devot et al., 2020). The European Court of Auditors (ECA, 2017) concluded that Member States used the flexibility in greening rules to limit the burden on farmers and themselves, rather than to maximise the expected environmental and climate benefit. Hence, no major changes at the farm level were required to receive the payment (Chartier et al., 2016; EC, 2017). Furthermore, their full potential were not always achieved because of lack of targeted advice to position them optimally at the farm and landscape level (BIOGEA, 2020)

The new green architecture proposes a Pillar I payment in the form of an “eco-scheme” to incentivise more sustainable land management through direct payments. This intervention is planned to be mandatory for all member states, but will be voluntary to the farmer. Because Eco-schemes tap into CAP Pillar I budget, Member States can mobilise more funding for incentivising sustainable farm practices and reach a much larger number of farmers (Lampkin et al., 2020).

Financing the transition to sustainable farming

In addition to the compulsory elements of its green architecture, the CAP includes funding to support a range of rural development and agri-environment-climate measures under its Pillar II. Because of the high cost involved in transforming whole production systems, rural development has been a pivotal instrument in supporting the adoption of sustainable farm practices, from the adoption of new technologies to soil conservation practices, crop diversification, organic farming and agroforestry.

Under the WFD planning process, authorities have largely relied on RDP funding for the implementation of measures reducing pressures from the agricultural sector (EC, 2019a). Assessments of the inclusion of water measures into RDPs indicate that that Member States have progressively increased their level of support over time (Mohaupt et al., 2007; Rouillard and Berglund, 2017). Box 4.7presents the level of integration of water issues in the current RDPs 2014-2020.

The new CAP architecture proposes to keep this instrument, and rural development payments will remain an important mechanism to increase the adoption of sustainable farming practices. Drawing on the lessons from the current programming period, a number of observations on good practice can be made (Berglund et al., 2017):

• Some RDPs such as the one from North-Rhine Wesphalia in Germany, prepared an in-depth initial “gap assessment” synthesizing water challenges, drawing on the latest data and information from the RBMPs and FRMPs. This provided a good basis for selecting relevant priorities and measures in the RDP.
• Some RDPs financed innovative approaches to dealing with agricultural pressures. For instance, the Norther Ireland RDP in the United Kingdom financed the modernization of manure storage as well as nature-based solutions such as constructed farm wetlands, which can reduce the need for storage.
• When drafting their measures, some RDPs have gone further than the minimum legal requirements. More ambitious requirements include for example the requirement to save at least 25% of water if receiving support for improving irrigation efficiency (in Croatia), the establishment of buffer strips of 20m wider, or the prohibition of pesticide application in targeted areas.
• Some countries includes explicit criteria for preventing harmful investments for water bodies. For example, Latvia funds in its RDP drainage schemes if they show compliance with the procedures of the WFD for assessing and preventing the deterioration of water bodies. Furthermore, it priorities projects that include mitigation measures such as sedimentation ponds and wetlands.
• Some RDPs integrate climate adaptation and the need to build resilience in farming systems through appropriate crop diversification (e.g. Greek RDP) and adoption of drought resistant crops (Romanian RDP).

Safeguards are particular important to avoid counterproductive RDP investments in areas of greatest pressure. For instance, it was still possible in the current RDP planning period to fund irrigation investments that could lead to an increase in irrigated areas or the uptake of more water intensive crops – resulting in increased consumption and lower return flows ( Chapter 4.2.2) - in catchments with water bodies failing good status (Devot et al., 2020). Similar checks are needed on other investments such as drainage, the construction of reservoirs, and flood risk prevention measures.

The use of more water-relevant indicators in the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework could support a better assessment of the contribution of RDPs to water policy objectives – a task that was challenging under the current monitoring approach (Devot et al., 2020). Such indicators could track progress in nutrient and pesticide load reduction, improvements in morphological conditions, reducing water imbalances and meeting environmental flows.

The EU Biodiversity Strategy 2030 (EC, 2020d) calls for increase the area of organic farming to 25% of UAA by 2030. Organic farming is undergoing a significant growth, but total area remains at 7% of UAA in Europe. In January 2021 a new EU Basic Regulation on organic farming will come into effect and replace the existing legislation. The main benefit of the new regulation will be a further alignment of rules of production and control for goods produced in the EU and those which are imported. While this will further protect the standards held in Europe, greater policy support will be needed if the ambitious objectives of the Biodiversity Strategy is to be realized.

Box 4.7 Planned water measures under the rural development plans 2014-2020

The latest programming of the CAP Rural Development Plans offered a wide choice of measures to farmers wanting to reduce the pressures of their farm operations on the water environment. These included for example investments in assets (e.g. modernization of manure storage, water saving technologies, wetland and river restoration), agroforestry, agro-environment and climate operations (e.g. soil conservation technique, conversion of arable land into grassland) and organic farming. In addition, some Member States, such as France, used compensation schemes for the compulsory uptake of measures supporting water policy (e.g. WFD, drinking water) objectives.

At European level, the RDPs 2014-2020 planned the following:

• 46% of RDPs’ budget on Priority 4 was planned on Priority 4 “Restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems related to agriculture and forestry”
• 8% of RDPs budget on Priority 5 "Promoting resource efficiency and a low carbon and climate resilient economy
• 15% of the agricultural land within their RDP area, equivalent to 21 million ha, was planned to under land management contracts to improve water management during the planning period. This varied greatly between Member States, with some planning to contract up to 80% of agricultural land under contract.
• 9% of irrigated land, equivalent to 776,842 ha, were planned to be switched to more efficient irrigation system.
• 36% of the budget of RDPs was to fund agro-environment and climate operations, with some RDPs going up to 83% of their budget.
• Almost most RDPs planned to fund organic farming.

Overall, the issue of water pollution from agriculture is well covered, and to a less extent abstraction and hydromorphological pressures. Most measures tackling water pollution from crops focused on more efficient use of fertilisers and pesticides through improved product application. Some measures put a limit on total use, sometimes targeting specific crop types such as fruit and vegetable crops, olive orchards and vineyards. More ambitious measures ban the use of pesticides. Measures on livestock focused on improve fertilization practices on grassland and feed crops, improved manure storage and wastewater treatment on farms. More ambitious measures, proposed in few RDPs, aimed to reduce stocking density.

RDPs planned to reduce abstraction pressures predominantly by improving efficient water use in irrigation systems and increased rainwater harvesting. However, this was rarely accompanied with ambitious targets for water saving, running the potential that most saved water would serve to irrigate more crops or more water-intensive but more valuable crops. Few RDPs supported the conversion to less water consumptive crops, selection of crops or varieties/hybrids with a lower water demand and more resistant to droughts, and application of water saving crop and soil management, which are important for adapting to climate change.

Less than half of RDPs supported changes in crop and soil management practices, such as crop rotation and low and no till agriculture. Few promoted more profound changes in land use, such as flood management, wetland creation, remeandering or conversion to agro-forestry – although these measures could have multiple benefits to reduce pollution, abstraction and hydromorphological pressures.

Source: Rouillard and Berglund, 2017

Achieving uptake at basin levels

The targeting of CAP payments towards areas of greater needs for improving the water stature has generally been limited until now. Direct payments were not targeted while farmers were free to choose their greening measures and their spatial implementation. RDP measures were voluntary and fewer farmers participated. However, to achieve a successful and environmentally effective transition, changes in land management need to targeted to areas creating pressure, and, where necessary, should occur in a coordinated way across whole basins. Although good practice in spatial targeting do exist (Box 4.9), incoherence and overlaps were observed in the types, ambition and targeting of measures under Pillar I and Pillar II instruments (Devot et al., 2020).

The new delivery model of the CAP provides an opportunity to improve the targeting of Pillar I payments, through the eco-scheme (Lampkin et al., 2020), and with better synergies between conditionality, eco-schemes, and RDPs instruments. This may be effectively reinforced thanks to the obligation to involve competent authorities for the environment and climate and the obligation to show greater ambition than at present with regard to care for the environment and climate (EC, 2020a). Using a results-based approach to eco-schemes and rural development payments where controls are made based on results instead of whether particular management actions have been implemented, would also enhance transparency in the delivery of objectives and encourage farmers to be more innovative in the processes that they use (Lampkin et al., 2020).

Collection action and multi actor approaches are supported under RDPs, and Member States have supported them in various ways, sometimes going beyond cooperation between farmers by integrating research actors and value chain operations (ENRD, 2018). The importance of integrating value chain actors is increasingly highlighted as a critical success factor in sustained uptake of crop diversification leading to reduced water pressures (Menet et al., 2018; Zakeossian et al., 2018). In Slovenia for example, beneficiaries of collective action measures include producer groups and agricultural cooperatives aiming to tackle to diffuse pollution in catchments where water bodies fail WFD objectives (Berglund et al., 2017). Chapter 5 examines in more detail the role of the value chain in the transformation of agricultural towards more sustainable practices.

Box 4.8 Spatial targeting in Rural Development Programme in France

The agri-environment-climate measure in France is established at national level supplemented by strategies at regional (RDP level). The national framework requires that the regional agri-environment-climate strategy is coordinated with other regional and local plans, including RBMPs and other water management related plans in France (e.g. catchment management plans, territorial contracts of the water agency). One main mechanism to increase this coordination is through spatial targeting. Spatial targeting of M10 sub-measures occurs through two mechanisms.

A first prioritisation is presented in the RDP through the M10 agri-environment strategy. For example, in the Midi-Pyrenees RDP the M10 agri-environment-climate strategy targets the following water priority areas: 1) catchments experiencing water scarcity resulting in not reaching ecological flow targets, 2) drinking water protected areas, 3) water bodies in bad ecological status identified according to the characterization report from 2013, and strategic zones for future water use (drinking water, bathing water, wetlands).

The second level of spatial targeting occurs through “agri-environment-climate projects” (PAEC). Any M10 sub-measure (MAEC) must be implemented in the areas identified in the RDP (above) and covered by a PAEC. PAECs are sub-regional plans that aim to implement M10 sub-measures in a coordinated way in pre-defined sub-regions of the RDP region (e.g. a catchment).

The PAEC presents a valuable mechanism to improve the spatial targeting of RDP measures at landscape level.

Source: Berglund et al., 2017