Draft minutes of the Workshop on Water and Agriculture

Enhancing cooperation between water and agriculture stakeholders to deliver sustainable agriculture and healthy waters

24th October 2016

(Hotel Bôrik, Bôrik, Bratislava, Slovak Republic)

1. OPENING

Workshop Moderator, Danka Thalmeinerova on behalf of the Slovak Presidency, welcomed participants. Participants represented a wide range of ministries, practitioners and stakeholders and the workshop provided a good opportunity to move towards more sustainable agriculture (see Annex I for the agenda of the workshop and Annex II for a list of participants).

Vladimír Novák, Slovak Water Director, also welcomed participants to the workshop hosted jointly by the Slovak Presidency and European Commission. Under the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) there has been much emphasis on agriculture and its relevance to water in the context of meeting WFD objectives in RBMPs. Climate change is an additional issue affecting both water and agriculture. Continuing co-operation with stakeholders is important to deliver sustainable agriculture for water. Water Directors identified the most significant topics facing water, which included agricultural pressures. It is hoped that the workshop will provide recommendations for future co-operation on water and agriculture to help deliver sustainable solutions. It is an issue that will be discussed by Water Directors at their meeting in Bratislava in November 2016.

Lanfranco Fanti, on behalf of Commissioner Vella, DG ENV, welcomed participants. DG ENV is working more closely than ever before with DG AGRI, which demonstrates the importance of sustainable agriculture. Good quality water is essential for many economic sectors and climate change will increase pressures on water. EU water policy has been in place for over 40 years, but in many areas of the EU water has unsustainable water quality and quantity due to pressures from agriculture. However, the agriculture sector needs water, so farmers need to be partners in delivering sustainable agriculture and water protection. Sometimes water managers are perceived as a nuisance by farmers, but does this conflict need to be this way? Thus the key question is how to make agriculture sustainable? This has to be around the concept of good status (quality and quantity), which is necessary for citizens and the economy (including the agriculture sector). This will need some new solutions – ones that deliver benefits to farmers, e.g. enabling them to produce crops of higher value. In discussing these issues, it is important to bring all sides together as this workshop does, but it is also important to focus on positive outcomes and not get stuck in conflict. The Commissioners for Agriculture and Environment have emphasised the need to work together in the Commission, breaking down barriers and establishing the Task Force on agriculture and water. However, it is also important for similar actions to be taken forward at MS level – water and agriculture officials need to talk together and work together. This is necessary to deliver sustainable agriculture and for effectively implementation of EU legislation. It is important for participants to express their views on key issues and this could feed into the future review of the WFD as well as the future review of the CAP.

1

2. SCENE-SETTING PRESENTATIONS BY THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Towards a common goal sustainable water management in the agriculture sector. Claire McCamphill, DG ENV.

The CIS under the WFD has proved positive in helping MS to discuss water issues. Early on it was recognised that a specific group on agriculture was needed and this was established in 2003. It produced a range of documents, e.g. a catalogue of measures, best practice and guidance on making measures operational at farm level (all available on CIRCABC).

However, it's important to take stock of where we are. In assessing the first RBMPs and Programmes of Measures, the Commission found many gaps in delivering basic measures to address pressures and heavy reliance on voluntary measures in RDPs at a scale unlikely to deliver the WFD. The most recent RDPs still show there is room for improvement.

One way to try and improve the inter-relationship between WFD and CAP was the inclusion of the ex-ante conditionality on water pricing into RDPs. This will be assessed and further discussed with MS that have not applied it, but already this appears to have facilitated constructive discussions between agriculture and water authorities programing irrigation measures.

We need to reflect now on what other issues can be aligned on in the future. And how the agriculture and water sectors can be brought together to develop a partnership to solve common issues. Last year Water Directors concluded there was an appetite for a joint discussion with Agriculture Directors to move these issues on and this workshop is part of developing the way forward.

EU Water and Agriculture: pressures, policies and challenges, Alfonso Gutierrez, DG AGRI.

The DG ENV and AGRI Taskforce on Water is an initiative of both Commissioners and aims to ensure the sustainable use of water in agriculture. The remit is to:

Identify challenges for sustainable water management for agriculture. Assess current policies in water and agriculture. Assess strengths and weaknesses of these frameworks. Identify options for improvement, needs for additional measures, etc.

There is joint work on water resources, assessing pressures from agriculture, current measures and identified gaps and challenges. Good practices have also been identified.

Across Europe, water availability varies and agriculture is a major user (varying across the EU). Water demand is expected to increase in the future. 90% of RBMPs found that agriculture is a significant source of pressure. Agriculture also has benefits for the environment and it has improved its environmental performance on several issues (nutrients, pesticides, abstraction). The work of the Task Force currently is focusing on three key pressures – nutrients, pesticides, abstraction.

There are several relevant EU policies. Under water policy there is the WFD, Nitrates Directive and Floods Directive. For pesticides there is the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive (SUPD) and Regulation on plant protection products (PPP) on the market.

2

The CAP includes measures under Pillar I and II providing a multi-layer approach. Pillar I includes provisions on cross-compliance and green direct payment. Pillar II includes a variety of measures under rural development support.

Overall, the following issues need to be addressed: Challenges of delayed implementation of RBMPs and NAPs. Better co-ordination of RBMPs with RDPs, NAPs. Financial support is insufficient (potential EU funds are not used). The problems are diffuse and widespread with many actors, which present issues for

defining individual needs, raising awareness for farmers and transferring knowledge of good practice and techniques.

The view that there is an unavoidable confrontation of economic vs environmental goals for agriculture is fallacious and needs to be challenged.

The current EU legal framework provides a wide variety of tools to address problems and also to support farmers. Addressing the challenges would contribute to the long term objective of keeping European agriculture sustainable, as well as protecting European waters. There is a significant pool of good practices to draw on. Therefore, improved co-operation is needed to take this forward.

Presentation by Alberto Pistocchi, DG JRC

A few examples were shown of pan-European models developed and applied by DG JRC, providing spatially explicit assessments of nutrient pollution, availability and demand of water resources Water exploitation is projected to worsen significantly across much of Europe (especially the south) in the future. Nitrogen loss from agriculture is also significant across many regions of Europe. These messages are familiar, but what can be done?

It is important to optimise farming practices. For nutrients, models show that addressing other nutrient sources (waste water, detergents, etc.) is not as effective as tackling agriculture as a source. The aim should be to reduce nutrient use to that necessary for crop use, thus reducing its loss to soils and water. If fertilisation is optimised, this would deliver important benefits. Another example of optimisation is irrigation. For example, in Crete an analysis of different crop types compared to water use shows that value for farmers can be increased while reducing water use. More widely, alternatives to green water use are important opportunities to reduce impacts on water. Wastewater reuse is also an option, as long as health and environment is protected.

Good landscape management is important as this contributes to good water management. It can deliver biodiversity benefits, buffer nutrients/sediments and pesticides and help regulate water flow. Natural water retention measures contribute to this and they are supported under the CAP. In conclusion, it is possible to deliver much by optimising existing practices (nutrients and irrigation) and by improving landscape management overall.

Discussion

In discussion it was clarified that the examples given in the presentations were for illustration, not for setting specific targets. Individual issues, such as nutrients (WFD, Nitrates Directive, etc.) should be discussed by the relevant experts. It is important for both water and

3

agriculture managers that there is an agreed understanding of the objectives of individual water bodies.

Discussion highlighted the importance of the ongoing evaluation of chemicals legislation and the need to avoid silos in thinking and practical decision making with other areas, such as risk management approaches, including the water safety plan approach for drinking water. It was noted that there is a strong interaction with pesticide issues and that conceptually there are parallels between water safety plans and RBMPs.

Discussion clarified that some of the figures presented do just show a general overview. In individual areas problems become very acute. This is seen for abstraction and nutrient pollution. However, it was stressed that a joint process does require a joint and transparent evidence base and, therefore, for DG ENV and DG AGRI it is important to work with DG JRC as the scientific and knowledge management service of the Commission. The diversity across the EU also presents challenges in communication, so it is important to be clear what messages need to be made at EU level and which at the local level, where individual pressures are able to be understood in their context.

3. PRESENTATION OF FOUR EXAMPLES OF CO-OPERATION BETWEEN WATER AND AGRICULTURE SECTOR

1. Development of land management strategy for Northern Ireland agriculture: positioning water quality improvement at its coreJohn Gilliland, Northern Irish Farmer, Chair of Northern Ireland’s Expert Working Group, challenged with creating Northern Ireland’s first Sustainable Land Management Strategy for the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs.

A key driver across Ireland (north and south) has been the economic recession and the repositioning of the agri-food industry as an engine of growth in the economy (as in the 2013 report “Going for Growth”). This led to a strategy for Sustainable Agricultural Land Management, launched on 21 October 2016.

In NI, the N balance is down 10% and the P balance down 32%. However, NI has a significant problem with P. 62% of water bodies fail good status. Research has shown that 80% of P enters water by over-land flow, not through the soil, i.e. during rainfall events. There is also a legacy problem, e.g. Lough Neagh P levels are rising even as inputs decrease, due to increasing mobilising from sediments. So a wider land management approach is needed.

95% of land-use in NI is grass-based livestock production, but 30% of land is rented on a short-term basis, so there is no incentive for these farmers to invest in long-term improvements.

The key approach should be one of “measuring and managing” – starting with water quality. So the NI strategy proposes real time water quality monitoring to provide the lever for behavioural change. In talking to farmers it is necessary to have information about the water quality for their local water course. The strategy also recommends the use of aerial LIDAR surveys as these enable overland flows to be determined very accurately as, if land is to be taken out of production, this needs to be precisely determined. This will also be used to

4

measure above ground carbon, linking hedges and trees with livestock production, which also could provide a means to audit greening. Thirdly, there will be a one-off GPS sampling for soil analysis across NI to provide a good knowledge of soils. These data will then be integrated with other existing databases, e.g. on priority habitats, weather, etc. into a single database, so that information for the individual farmer can be provided to enable engagement on specific issues of relevance to them and not their neighbour.

Delivering behavioural change needs: revision of environmental governance (incentives and penalties); creating an on-farm nutrient recycling scheme and increasing farm profits by raising grass utilisation (including by mining legacy P); making rented land deliver better for environment and production; accelerate succession to educated farmers as this leads to improved performance; manage soils more effectively; prioritise and implement multi-functional technologies (e.g. use of clover, riparian strips, woody biosecurity corridors, pasture agro-forestry); and identify knowledge gaps and areas needing further research (soil moisture and impacts on nutrients).

Behavioural change must be measured transparently and credibly. A cross-sector working group was established two years ago which is industry led with people picked for their ability, not who they represented. It has a motto: “led by farmers – for farmers who want a future”. It is merging two different cultures and should help deliver a properly sustainable agri-food industry.

In discussion, the issue of manure management with high stocking rates was raised. In response it was stated that in NI it has been shown that there is not a simple relationship between water quality and manure levels. It all depends on the route to individual water bodies. So some farmers do farm intensively and may not have adequate land at appropriate P indices on which to spread their slurries and manure. For these there is a proposal to capital grant centrifuges to precipitate the P and then export this.

2. Agriculture and drinking water protection in France Emmanuel Steinmann, Agriculture and Environment Ministry, France

10% of drinking water catchment points in France are at risk to nitrates and/or pesticides, so there is a need to prevent pollution as this is more cost effective than subsequent treatment. This approach is also in line with Art. 7 WFD. There is legislation in place to protect drinking water sources, including the Health Law, but this has been more relevant to controlling point sources than diffuse sources. There are regulations on nitrates and pesticides, but the measures adopted are at national/regional scale – these cannot consider specific measures tailored for local agricultural/soil/climate and economic circumstances.

Therefore, a policy on agriculture and drinking water protection was developed to address these challenges and launched in 2009. This involves developing action plans at local level to tailor measures suited to local conditions and to engage with farmers. Nationally a methodological framework was developed and a national target was set.

The methodology requires a hydrological study to be undertaken, along with an assessment of pressures (including, but not limited to, agriculture). From this an action plan is developed with farmers and local authorities. This is voluntary at first, with farmers obtaining financial support. However, the regulation allows that if voluntary measures are not taken forward,

5

they can be made compulsory. There is also support for developing markets for crops that have less impact on water.

The case of the urban area of Rennes was presented. The catchment is responsible for delivering drinking water to 0.5 million people and it includes much agricultural land. The concentration of nitrates has grown over decades, but has recently decreased due to Nitrates Directive action, but it is still at 48mg/l, so only just under the threshold. Measures were not sufficient to go further. So a plan was adopted to make additional progress. Measures included purchase of land and renting to farmers with conditions which limit their activities so reducing N inputs. Additional actions included a land exchange scheme for farmers to have more land for the same number of animals and to develop local economic opportunities for low impact production (e.g. by supplying to local restaurants).

The policy allows for a territorial approach to apply different tools for different local circumstances. Local authorities are important as they supply drinking water and have engineering skills. Farmers need to be engaged and using a local approach can achieve this. However, more action plans need to be put in place. The economic crisis has made the challenges more difficult. Further, financing tools (e.g. under the CAP) are not always well designed for local needs. Finally, it is hard, when developing a local market, to take account of developments in the international market to which farmers and consumers are exposed. However, bringing all parties around the table is critical for success.

In discussion it was clarified that it is the representative of the state authority at the local level who decides if actions move from being voluntary to compulsory. It was noted that the legal basis for action is the WFD. In fact it could be used for other aspects of environmental protection, such as for wetlands and soil erosion, but is mainly used for drinking water protection.

3. Achieving a sustainable water demand for the agriculture sectorManuel Sapiano, Chief Technical officer, Sustainable Energy and Conservation Unit, Office of the Prime Minister, Malta

Malta has low rainfall, high evapotranspiration and a high population density – all leading to a high pressure on the available water resources. Local agriculture is characterised by multi-cropping seasons, with rain-fed winter crops and a summer crop that needs irrigation. Most agricultural holdings are very small (less than 0.5 ha), so the sector is highly fragmented, which affects how it is managed.

Total water demand is 58 million m3 per year. Irrigation water demand is estimated at 21 million m3/year and currently around 85% of this demand is from groundwater sources which are used exclusively by agriculture.

The 2nd RBMP adopted a broad approach aimed at reducing uncertainty; improved abstraction management; increased efficiency of water use, including use of alternative sources; increased control capacity; and increased stakeholder participation:

Reducing uncertainty: the objective was to increase the reliability in the assessment of the sustainable yield of groundwater, e.g. by looking at numerical modelling for aquifers and issues of specific discharges at the coast which are of high importance in a coastal aquifer context.

6

Abstraction management: metering of private groundwater abstraction sources has been expanded and this shows that most users are abstracting small total volumes.

Increased efficiency: through use of technology as well as traditional rain water harvesting techniques, including support via EAFRD. There is a National Water Conservation Campaign to help promote this. Specific approaches are needed for the small field sizes, e.g. small (100m3) below ground concrete reservoirs (so as not to reduce the land area for agriculture). However, o a one size fits all approach which requires the metering of such small structures (which do not even have a fixed pump) on the same level as required for by far larger structures can hamper their adoption by farmers. Alternative sources of water are being expanded, with membrane polishing of treated waste water for irrigation accompanied by an information campaign. The challenge is to ensure that there is a high potential for its uptake during the summer months. The excess could then be used for aquifer management.

Control capacity: satellite data are being analysed to examine crop coverage and water demand, whilst comparing this data with volumes recorded by meters.

Stakeholder engagement: the 2nd RBMP relied heavily on engaging with stakeholders, including with farmers in small groups. These proved fruitful in providing a sincere level of discussion. There is also an inter-ministerial committee overseeing the implementation of the 2nd RBMP, and the committee includes representatives from the Ministry responsible for the agricultural sector.. This allows for a common understanding and a common approach to be presented.

Malta has low rainfall, high evapotranspiration and a high population density – all leading to a high pressure on water resources. Local agriculture is multi-cropping, with rain-fed winter crops and a summer crop that needs irrigation. Most agricultural holdings are very small (less than 0.5 ha), so the sector is highly fragmented, which affects how it is managed.

Total water demand is 58 million m3 per year. Irrigation water demand is 21 million m3/year and 40% of this demand is from groundwater sources which are used exclusively by agriculture.

The 2nd RBMP adopted a broad approach aimed at reducing uncertainty; improved abstraction management; increased efficiency of water use, including use of alternative sources; increased control capacity; and increased stakeholder participation:

Reducing uncertainty: this has considered what is sustainable yield, e.g. looking at numerical modelling for aquifers and issues of specific discharges on the coast.

Abstraction management: metering has been expanded and this shows that most users are abstracting small total volumes.

Increased efficiency: through use of technology as well as traditional rain water harvesting techniques, including support via EAFRD. There is a National Water Conservation Campaign to help promote this. Specific approaches are needed for the small field sizes, e.g. small below ground concrete reservoirs (so they do not reduce the land area for agriculture). However, there is an obligation to meter their use, but this is a potential barrier to their uptake and these small reservoirs should not be treated the same way as large reservoirs. Alternative supplies are being expanded, with repolishing of waste water for irrigation accompanied by an information campaign. The challenge is to ensure that there is a high potential for its uptake in summer months. The excess could then be used for aquifer management.

Control capacity: satellite data are being analysed to examine crop coverage and water demand, comparing this with volumes recorded by meters.

7

Stakeholder engagement: the 2nd RBMP had much engagement with stakeholders, including with farmers in small groups. These proved fruitful in providing a sincere level of discussion. There is also an inter-ministerial committee overseeing its implementation, including from agriculture. This allows for a common understanding and a common approach to be presented.

4. Towards sustainable plant protection while reaching water quality goals Anja van Gemerden, Ministry of Economic Affairs Netherlands

First some facts. In the Netherlands in 2014 10 million kg of plant protection products (PPP) were sold. Most PPP are used for flower bulb production. There are many surface water bodies, e.g. ditches, and agriculture is situated near to those. As a result there are still exceedences for water quality standards of PPP.

In 2013 a policy note (lasting till 2023) was produced that aims also at improving water quality (reducing exceedences by 50% in 2018 and 90% by in 2023; the reference year being 2013). To get there several instruments will be used, including (not limited to):

• National dialogue with relevant stakeholders on sustainable plant protection – with the central question of ‘what can you do?’. Outcomes include pilots by farmers to reduce impacts.

• Green deal: co-operation between stakeholders and government. Two examples: 1) "green plant protection", which aims at extending the toolbox for farmers with lower risk products and 2) "non professional use", the aim is to stimulate consumers to apply integrated pest management. This is done by communication and training.

• Legislation: Act on plant protection products and biocides, including inspection requirements, prohibit professional use of PPP on hardened surfaces. Action on environmental control, e.g. reduce spray drift, cultivation free zones, obligation to use purification techniques.

• Monitoring: one is a specific monitoring network for agricultural PPP and the second is the pesticides atlas. With both networks one can examine progress towards goals and see if there is a relationship between water concentrations and sources. There will be a new network of monitoring of PPP in groundwater. If exceedences in water are found, manufacturers can be asked to make an emission reduction plan (e.g. emission limiting measures, awareness raising, etc.).

• Delta approach: aiming to improve water quality focusing on fertilisers, PPP and medicines. For PPP this includes implementation of the policy note and working with farmers to follow rules and ensure inspectors enforce these.

• Other initiatives: provincial level working with farmers to improve water quality; and toolbox on water for farmers to reduce emissions.

In 2018 the policy note will be mid-term evaluated. If the targets are not reached, additional measures will be considered to reach the targets in 2023.

During the discussion, the issue of supporting lower risk products was raised. The Netherlands had during their EU-Presidency an expert group started to examine this as onze of the main aims of the group. In an implementation plan actions have been identified to get lower risk products quicker on the market. There is also the national dialogue en the green deal. However, this is not an easy task to achieve.

8

It was also noted that it is not a simple matter to restrict the sale of PPP in the context of the single market, as users can simply buy them in another MS. If restriction on use is needed, this needs EU level agreement on specific substances.

General discussion on all the issues raised in the presentations

It was noted that there are issues beyond nutrients, pesticides and water use. For example, in Germany the production of biogas creates residues and different types of waste end up on land (with not just nutrients and pesticides, but also POPs and other organic contaminants).

The issue of the interpretation of the water hierarchy was raised, which emphasises the importance of efficiency measures before using new water sources and how was this addressed in Malta. In response it was emphasised that in Malta demand remains high even at high efficiency and the domestic sector is already very efficient compared to other MS. However, water reuse is different to new sources like desalination – it is not a pure water supply augmentation measure. It is also about making more efficient use of the water already in the system and reduces the pressure on natural water resources, therefore it is unfair to think of it simply as a new supply.

The issue of the need to work with all stakeholders was raised. In response, it was stated that in Malta it is very important as the perspective of different views is needed. Measures need to be just and to be seen by people to be just. This can be achieved by having local discussions and getting stakeholders on board during the measure development process. Without this implementation problems will arise. In NI it was noted that the retail sector has a major role, not least in creating markets. The information gathered provides retailers with the information necessary to build a narrative for consumers. To achieve positive behavioural change, it is necessary to engage with the private sector. For farmers, a key opportunity is to engage with those who have economic difficulties and identify new opportunities for them to improve incomes.

4. BREAK OUT GROUP DISCUSSION

Participants discussed issues of nutrients, pesticides and water use in three break-out groups. Each group was asked to consider:

The extent to which is there is cooperation between agriculture and water authorities to address the three water issues associated with agriculture in their MS or region.

The most important steps to enable a joint approach to address these issues. The key challenges/barriers to be overcome. The environmental and economic opportunities that exist to address these challenges.

The following sections summarise the reports each group subsequently provided to the plenary.

Optimising agricultural nutrient managementModerators: Oscar Schoumans (NL) and Pavel Misiga (DG ENV)

The group discussed three main questions: How well are current nutrient losses known and is there the same understanding for

water and agriculture?

9

Is the current legislation and the options in the CAP sufficient? What good examples are there and what lessons can be learned from failures?

At the national level there is a lot of information. The problem is translating this to a local scale to show to farmers what needs to be done. It is important to stress that this is a two-way dialogue, which requires appropriate means of co-operation and appropriate language. Early co-operation is needed. In some countries one department has responsibilities for both agriculture and environment, so this makes the process easier.

On legislation, the law is sufficient, but the problem is implementation. There is a need for better integration between the WFD and ND. CAP, greening and RDPs should be key means to deliver positive behavioural change. It should be easier to use RDPs to address water quality issues. Reporting cycles for ND and WFD should be streamlined.

On additional initiatives, good examples and lessons learned, co-operation with farmers is vital. Voluntary initiatives should be the starting point and then move to mandatory measures if these do not work. There is a need to show farmers that approaches will help water quality and that there is help for farm incomes. There are good examples across Europe, but the problem is up-scaling. For example, manures should be treated as an asset, not a waste (as per the circular economy). There is also a need for support from the market and retailers.

In the future there is a need to focus on the real target (good status) and use the full suite of measures available to deliver this.

Other elements discussed in the breakout session were:Some examples proposed by the member states as good examples.

- Ireland: Agricultural Catchments Programme is an excellent example of a success story- 300 farms in 6 catchments, improved nutrient use and milk solids per hectare. Integrated research and advisory programme whilst monitoring on a voluntary basis.

- Sweden: Farming in Balance and Catch the Nutrients. Farming in Balance of model farms. Catch the Nutrient advisory programme.

- Germany: in Munich, water suppliers make contracts with farmers to move to organic farming .Mineral fertiliser is decreasing and farmers using more manure.

- Northern Ireland: Ballinderry Water Catchment. Voluntary sector mentored farmers to implement agri-env measures. Farmer peer pressure can be influential. Agri-Catchment Programme informs farmers of the water quality impact of their land management.

- Spain: Rural Development Programme have led to updating of irrigation systems which will allow a water pricing system.

- Netherlands: mandatory manure processing in order to address surplus manure and allow it to be transported to other areas with a nutrient need. Manure is not treated like a waste anymore but more as an asset.

- Romania: ICPDR as an example in Romania to help farmers to manage pollution. Famers built storage systems at the municipal level. Measured the impact over 3 years on water quality in the area and spread knowledge into the farming community. Project from 2002 / 2004 did well. Currently in third phase. Implemented Action Programme, built a lot of storage capacity. 100 million Euro invested.

10

- United Kingdom: Catchment Sensitive Farming- targeted one to one advice to farmers in England. It is on a voluntary basis, targeted at specific farms. If advice is not taken, additional regulatory action can be taken.

Optimising agricultural water use Moderators: Manuel Sapiano (MT) and Alfonso Gutierrez (DG AGRI)

Three main messages brought to the plenary from the discussion were: Application of Art 46 of the Rural Development Regulation. Consideration of cost recovery. Due consideration of droughts and their impacts.

Art 46 addresses the efficient use of water at an activity level, but it is important to ensure it does not lead to increases in total water use. As a result, it is a good tool to increase efficiency at the farm level, but there is a need to look at water stress at the catchment level, which should be provided by RBMPs.

On cost recovery principles, it was acknowledged it was an important concept and tool that needs to be used to enable more efficient use of water. However, the application of the principle is complex. A recommendation is to work towards a common understanding on how to practically apply cost recovery. Water pricing policies will be evaluated as part of the ex ante conditionality for certain EU funds; deadline for member states to comply with the EAC is December 2016. And the Commission will also review pricing policies in the 2nd RBMPs.

Droughts have not received so much attention in the EU as floods (though a working group on water scarcity and droughts did operate under the WFD CIS for some time producing a range of outputs that perhaps need to be more widely shared). The understanding of what is a drought in water scarce areas, where it combines with aridity, is different to wet areas where drought episodes can more easily be addressed. There is need for international knowledge transfer on this topic, from experienced regions towards areas affected by climate change. It would be important to reach a common understanding of this.

Generic discussions about quantitative problems should not mask the fact that objectives can be achieved differently in different regions, where local social, economic and environmental conditions can define different pathways towards good status.

In the plenary discussion, it was noted that the WFD CIS previously had a working group on scarcity and droughts and had produced a range of deliverables (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/scarcity_en.htm) and work had been done under various WFD economics working group on cost recovery and resource costs, although the latest deliverable on this could not be agreed via the WFD CIS process. In reply, the importance of using the existing information and moving to practice and locally tailored solutions was highlighted.

Other elements discussed in the breakout session were:

11

The consideration of all uses (sectoral, environment) is essential to plan agricultural water use, to avoid excess use undermines other policies and people's welfare. The CAP should actively support this.

The need for better coordination and cooperation of water and agriculture authorities in defining the several interacting policy tools (river basin management plans, rural development programmes) was widely acknowledged. The different timing of these tools, the delays in RBMPs, and governance issues need to be addressed. Further synchronising the cycles of both policies was considered pertinent. Some participants highlighted the complexity of agriculture planning, given the many societal and environmental objectives it has to meet (including food production).

Some emphasis was made on the need to tackle land use/landscape planning as a way to better manage the water cycle at river basin level. Issues such as water use, water retention and storage could be best addressed, together with the provision of other services including biodiversity, flood and erosion control, etc.

There was agreement on the importance of sustained support to education, demonstration and advisory services. These help in working with farmers and increasing the confidence of farmers. A potential enhanced role of Farming Fairs and Agriculture Unions as providers of advice, training and knowledge transfer was conveyed. The importance of involving the farmers in innovation, demonstration and pilot projects was highlighted. In particular, the farmers need to see the benefits (e.g. in terms of economy, welfare or comfort) of the eventual solutions adopted (e.g. precision farming, deficit irrigation).

On improving the delivery of water and agriculture policies, a need for finding the right combination, balance and timing between voluntary and compulsory measures to ensure good water status was discussed.

Optimising agricultural pesticides use Moderators: Piroska Kiss (DG SANTE) and Claire McCamphill (DG ENV)

Good legislation exists on paper, but implementation and enforcement need to be strengthened. There are also positive links between policies (WFD, DWD, SUD, RDPs). However, in reality ambition at MS level appears to be sometimes lacking.

There is a gap in some MS on a joint end point/goal between the relevant (water, agriculture, economic, health) authorities, which is essential to establish. Without a clearly defined end goal (e.g. no waterbodies failing to meet good status due to pesticides by 2021), that goal is unlikely to be reached.

Once this high level vision/objective is established the focus should then be on catchment level solutions targeted to local issues. A place-based approach needs to be developed using regulatory, advisory and voluntary initiatives and their combined action should secure the objective. There should be better targeting of measures to sensitive areas, acting on top of a better implemented baseline including Integrated pest management and best management practises that already have been defined (e.g. Topps project)

12

The evaluation of policies and programmes is essential as part of the better regulation principles to ensure they are effective and efficient.

Data gaps need to be addressed. However, MS do have enough data to act now.

Comprehensive risk based control/inspection systems should be developed that target particular sectors to improve performance and deliver environmental outcomes.

The toolbox of measures exists on paper, the next step is to involve those who design the funding, advisory and control mechanisms to understand the challenges to achieve EU goals.

Other elements discussed in the breakout session were:

The participants were asked to complete a short questionnaire highlighting problems, tools and measures to tackle pesticide pollution, wider potential solutions and best practices. Key findings from these are set out below.

Problems identified include: Lack of information on what pesticides are used where at the field/catchment level so

hindering management decisions. Insufficient communication and collaboration between agriculture and environmental

administrations in some cases. Financial budgets for implementing NAPs may not be sufficient or secure. Also lack

of sufficient budgets for advisory services. Control on the ground is often lacking, so that it is not clear if what is agreed in plans,

etc., is implemented.

Tools, measures and available information: There is good information on some issues (e.g. pesticide sales and some applications)

which can guide decision making. Available tools are not sufficiently used, e.g. due to insufficient information for

farmers. Measures are in place in some RBMPs, but consideration needs to be given to

development of measures over longer time periods. Using Rural Development Funds to target high risk farms.

Solutions: The need for a common understanding of the problems and solutions by agriculture

and environment authorities, farmers and other stakeholders. Improved information for farmers, such as through enhanced advisory services. Better understanding and then use of integrated pest management. Closer collaboration between agriculture and environment administrations. To deliver on sustainable pesticides it is necessary to go beyond the farm level to set

objectives for agricultural systems as a whole. Transparent sharing of agriculture and environment information, including on

understanding pressures from pesticides.

Best practices: Setting a national goal for what environmental and economically sustainable

agriculture looks like.

13

There are cases of good (even excellent) inter-ministerial collaboration in the setting of pesticide planning and targets.

Establishing suite of pilot farms for pesticide reduction actions and dissemination of lessons learned.

Test catchment projects examining all inputs affecting water quality and solutions to problems, leading to dissemination of lessons learned.

Collaborations between drinking water providers and farmers to identify options for cultivation which reduce or avoid pesticide use.

Detailed assessments at catchment level, understanding pollution pathways, undertaken with all stakeholders so that there is buy-in to the diagnosis and solutions.

Lessons from organic farms and organic farming networks.

5. HIGH LEVEL PANEL REFLECTION ON THE OUTPUT FROM THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DAY AND THEIR VIEWS ON POSSIBLE FUTURE JOINT WORK BETWEEN WATER AND AGRICULTURE SECTOR

Balázs Horváth: Senior Policy Officer - Water and Soil at the EEB.

The bringing together of agriculture and water directors is a good step, but it is only a first step. The early CAP was needed to increase food production, but now in 2016 there is a question of the efficiency of the CAP as a policy. There are no real data assessing the whole impact of the CAP. At a social level the distribution of payments is not good and higher income farmers are disproportionately supported. On the environment (not just water, but also biodiversity, soil) there is a question of whether the CAP is delivering on the targets the EU (including MS) has agreed. EEB has collected examples on use of greening – one MS used crop rotation subsidy for maize monoculture. Therefore, some of the flexibility given to MS is not being used against the environment.

There are opportunities. There are many voluntary measures moving in the right direction. However, it is not clear when these will deliver and if good status will be achieved. Thus there need to be some obligatory measures along with improved enforcement. There needs to be both carrot and stick.

There should be a Fitness Check of the CAP as soon as possible to look at all of these issues. There should be a common understanding of information/data about the CAP and what it is delivering. Then we should start thinking about the future of European agriculture based on facts, whether Europe needs to feed the world and use a lot of agrochemicals or rather support farmers who produce to the local markets and who save our resources by taking care of the environment.

In discussion the panellist was asked to select two important measures which could be introduced immediately and which would help to overcome the problems. In response the suggestion was to include the WFD and SUPD in cross compliance under the CAP and secondly for MS to improve their ambitions in the implementation of the RBMPs and RDPs

Niels Peter Norring: Director of Environment, Energy & EU in the Danish Agriculture and Food Council. Chairman of COPA’s group for Environment and Agriculture.

14

All can agree that there is still a long way to good status in all water bodies and it will not be achieved in 2021 or 2027. However, it is possible to continue both growth in agricultural production and a reduction in the pressure on water. However it is of utmost importance to reach the right balance.

Farmers are interested in reducing losses of nutrients, reducing use of water and pesticides. There seem to be two major approaches. We should be more efficient in farming in general and we should also focus on those areas where a lot can be achieved for not a lot.

There needs to be research on several issues, such as alternatives to pesticides, crop rotation, water reuse, buffer strips, spraying, etc. We should develop a better scientific basis to get the most clean water for the lowest cost and tailor measures to the local context. It would be best if each catchment could identify the right solutions to get the best water outcome for lowest cost. There are problems with barriers and with financing the tailored voluntary measures.

Michel Dantin MEP. Member of the agriculture committee, substitute member of the environment committee. Chairman of the Working Group on water & agriculture at the European Parliament. Chairman of the River Basin Committee Rhone-Mediterranean).

There is general agreement on the reality of the situation. There are two objectives – compliance with the Treaty (especially the CAP) and finding solutions for climate change.

The debate is especially important at local level. The key is that all actors at local level agree on the same data and information (e.g. regarding the level of water pollution or use of pesticides) and the terms of application of the legislation. When there are no grey zones, we can then build common solutions at the local level and stakeholders must be part of the solution – they must be active actors, not a victim or an enemy of the solution.

We need ambitious and practicable solutions. It is important to do applied research and identify technology that can be transferred and duplicated throughout the territory

Something not enough addressed is the responsibilities of local authorities in this process. They must drive solutions to pollution and solutions are local.

At the local level citizens are well aware of the problems facing waters. For example, 15 years ago he was chairing a meeting to discuss a case of pesticides polluting a lake. The farmers at the meeting said nothing, but afterwards they all shared their experience in private and individually, including that many farmers from the previous generation had suffered major health problems from pesticides. So, there was a second meeting summarising the discussion and from this a plan was created and measures taken to reduce PPP use.

It is also important to note that authorities and farmers in the south of Europe have much good experience to share with the rest of Europe.

In conclusion, there is no need for new legislation or a review of legislative framework, but to work towards meeting its objectives through better dialogue and cooperation between all stakeholders at local and regional levels

15

Fiona Marty: Head of European policies at FNAB, the French Organic Farmers Organisation. Member of the regulation task force of International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements EU (IFOAM EU).

It is important for the organic sector to be represented. In France the annual cost of nutrient and pesticide pollution is €54 billion, which is the annual CAP budget – so do we want to pay twice - once for agricultural support and then again for pollution? Organic farming is a model that works and is tested at catchment level. In France there is a network of 25 cities developing organic farming with significant results on the quality of water.

One question concerns the future CAP – what do we want to fund with the new CAP? Do we want an agricultural model which has weaknesses or do we want to fund environmental services and goods such as organic farming can deliver? Organic farming should be part of the CAP. Currently this is hard to deliver. For example, in France with reduced budgets, farmers wanting to convert find there is no longer any budget to support this.

John Gilliland: Northern Irish Farmer, Chair of Northern Ireland’s Expert Working Group

One barrier is that while there is a lot of knowledge, we are not good in communication. The key approach is to personalise the information – presenting it to a farmer about their own farm. However, it is not only farmers who have to change. There is still a need to identify knowledge gaps and there needs to be exchange of experience (e.g. that of the south on soil moisture).

There are policies with perverse outcomes. For example, as an arable farmer it is easier to buy imported fertiliser than buy the neighbour’s manure.

Farmers want to see enforcement as it tackles the bad farmers bringing the industry into disrepute. However, regulating alone the change will not deliver sufficient changes. There is also a need for a pull, such as from the retail and food processing sectors.

There are structural issues. As noted earlier, 30% of food produced in NI is from rented land, which does not give the farmer security to manage the land properly. Many farmers have not had a formal education. So these issues are barriers. So the next generation has a role to get behavioural change into family farm units which are the backbone of agriculture across Europe.

What we want to achieve is deliverable. A good environment can increase farm profits by supporting innovation.

Mr. Ivan Zavadsky: Executive Secretary to the International Commission for Protection of the Danube River

The ICPDR coordinates water management in the Danube River Basin therefore works in the EU and outside the EU. There is also the issue of the interaction with the Black Sea. In the lower and middle part of the basin, nutrient pollution from agriculture is not too bad, but it is not far from a tipping point, so if there was a significant intensification the situation could deteriorate. Therefore, those dealing with water need to have a dialogue with agriculture.

16

Data harmonisation is important to help ensure a common understanding of problems and ICPDR supports this.

There is a mixture of small farms and large industrial farms across the basin and the measures adopted need to be tailored to these different situations.

ICPDR would like to work with the countries to develop a guidance document on sustainable agriculture and to identify cost effective measures. ICPDR can also offer a partnership with DG ENV, AGRI, etc. to help dialogue and address problems.

6. NEXT STEPS AND CONCLUSION OF THE WORKSHOP

Mauro Poinelli (DG AGRI)

Both Agriculture and Environment Commissioners recognise that water is a precious resource and it is the basis for the production of food. But the improvement of water status is essential for sustainable agriculture. The conclusion of this workshop is that EU policies are sufficient, but what is needed is improvement in implementation and to fill gaps together. The key change is the mindset - to change behaviour and to do this at all levels. This includes authorities (ministries talking together), but also at regional and local level. The involvement of all stakeholders is essential to develop coherent and workable strategies. Sometimes there is the temptation to go for quick solutions, but these do not work. What works is the full involvement of all actors. Full understanding of the food-water nexus is needed to understand the sustainable wealth of our society. These issues can only be addressed together.

Pavel Misiga (DG ENV)

The workshop has identified a number of problems: Knowledge gap: complexity (scope, interaction between levels, objective,

effectiveness of actions). Structural problems/market failures (intensity (e.g. ability of land to absorb waste),

land-ownership, non existence of markets). Governance challenges. The need to change behaviours.

On legislative frameworks and tools the workshop noted: The legislation is good on paper, but there needs to be better coordination:

o In the implementation of plans – RBMPS, NAPs, RDPs.o For policies and their implementation to be better aligned.o For MS to be more ambitious in their implementation.

The legislation fails to deliver on its main objectives:o As it is hard to reach/communicate with individual farmers.o There is a lack of resources.o The use of EU funds is suboptimal.o There is a lack of determination from some actors.

The workshop also identified the principles of a solution: To keep the overall objective of good status in mind.

17

By better understanding/communication of issues. Collaboration between administrations, including agreement of common objectives. Collaboration with farmers and other stakeholders. To reconcile the need of tailored local measures and large scale solutions in order to

have a significant impact. To make improving water status profitable to famers. Better enforcement of legislation. Better use EU funds to support this.

The way forward should be to: Continue this process. Develop better knowledge, methods and tools. Collect and promote good practice, developments and applications in MS. Facilitate collaboration between water managers, agricultural administrations and

farmers (EU, national, regional, local level). Stimulate MS to take more ambitious actions (WFD) and make better use of RDPs

addressing water issues. Develop innovative tools to communicate with farmers, ensure farmers benefit and

involve other sectors (e.g. the retail sector). Bring water-agriculture issues into the future reviews of the WFD and the CAP.

The outcomes of the workshop will be brought to the attention of Water Directors in November, with the aim to get a mandate to organise a joint meeting of Water Directors and Agriculture Directors in spring 2017. The outcomes of the workshop will help inform Water Directors of the importance of this process.

Vladimír Novák, Slovak Water Director The hope was expressed that there will be continued dialogue between water and agriculture officials and stakeholders at all levels. Participants, speakers and moderators were thanked for their constructive contributions.

18

Annex I: Workshop Agenda

Workshop Water and Agriculture

Enhancing cooperation between water and agriculture stakeholders to deliver sustainable agriculture and healthy waters

24 October 2016

Bratislava, Slovak Republic

Agenda

Date and time: 24 October 2016, 8:30-18:00

Location: Hotel Bôrik, Bôrik 15, Bratislava, Slovak Republic

Workshop Moderator:

Danka Thalmeinerova

8:30-9:30 Registration and coffee

9:30-10:00 Welcome by SK presidencyVladimír Novák, Slovak Water Director

Welcome + Key note speech by the ECLanfranco Fanti on behalf of Commissioner Vella

10:00-10:45 Scene-setting Presentations by the European commissionCovering: State of play with regard to EU water status and agriculture: pressures, policies and challenges. Opportunities for EU water objectives and sustainable agriculture through better implementation and interaction of water and agriculture policies.

(DG ENV- Claire McCamphill, DG AGRI- Alfonso Gutierrez and JRC - Alberto Pistocchi)

10:45-11:15 Coffee

11:15-12:45 Presentation of four examples of co-operation between water and agriculture sector

1. Development of an integrated strategy for agriculture and water management

John Gilliland – Northern Irish Farmer, businessman and government sustainability advisor. Chair of Northern Ireland’s Expert Working Group, challenged with creating Northern Ireland’s first Sustainable Land Management Strategy for the Department of Agriculture, Environment and

19

Rural Affairs.

2. Addressing diffuse pesticide and nitrate pollution

French agriculture and environment ministry - the need to act locally and consider environment and economics together: case study the French city of Rennes. Emmanuel Steinmann, France

3. Optimising agricultural water use

Manuel Sapiano, Chief Technical officer, Sustainable Energy and Conservation Unit , Office of the Prime Minister, Malta

4. Towards sustainable plant protection while reaching water quality goals

Anja van Gemerden, Ministry of Economic Affairs Netherlands.

Q + A following all presentations

12:45-13:45 Lunch

13:45-15:30 Discussion in 1 of 3 break out groups on:

Optimising agricultural nutrient management (moderators: Oscar Schoumans (NL) and Pavel Misiga (DG ENV))

Optimising agricultural water use (moderators: Manuel Sapiano (MT) and Alfonso Gutierrez (DG AGRI))

Optimising agricultural pesticides use (moderators: Piroska Kiss (DG SANTE) + Claire McCamphill (DG ENV))

Attendees from both water and agriculture sector should come prepared to contribute on:

- To what extent is there cooperation between agriculture and water authorities to address these three water issues associated with agriculture in your MS or region?

- What are the most important steps to be taken to enable a joint approach for addressing these issues?

- What are the key challenges/barriers to be overcome?- What environmental and economic opportunities exist in addressing

these challenges?15:30-16:00 Coffee

16:00-16:45 Reporting back from the breakout groups to plenary and discussion

16:45-17:30 High level panel reflection on the output from the proceedings of the day and their views on possible future joint work between water and agriculture sector

20

Confirmed panellists:

Michael Dantin French MEP

Member of EP since 2009. Member of agriculture committee, replacement member on environment committee. Chairman of the Committee of the Water Agency for Rhone-Mediterranean Cost-Corsica)

John Gilliland

Northern Irish Farmer, businessman and government sustainability advisor. Chair of Northern Ireland’s Expert Working Group, challenged with creating Northern Ireland’s first Sustainable Land Management Strategy for the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs.

Balazs Horvath: Senior Policy Officer - Water and Soil at the EEB.

Balazs leads the water programme of one of the largest European environmental NGOs.

Fiona Marty: Head of European policies at FNAB, the French Organic Farmers Organisation For many years, the farmers’ organisation is involved in water quality management. At the European level, FNAB is one of the founding members of International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements EU (IFOAM EU). Fiona is a member of the regulation task force at IFOAM EU.

Niels Peter Norring: Director of Environment, Energy & EU in the Danish Agriculture and Food Council

Chairman of COPA’s group for Environment and Agriculture since 2003 – vice chairman since 2011 (Committee of Professional Agricultural Organisations in the European Union representing EU’s 11 million farmers).He has a PhD in agricultural economics.

Mr. Ivan Zavadsky

Executive Secretary to the International Commission for Protection of the Danube River this Commission since 2013. He worked for the Slovak Government in different senior management positions in the fields of environment and water management for more than 15 years.

17:30-18:00 Next steps and conclusion of the workshop (Pavel Misiga (DG ENV) and Mauro Poinelli (DG AGRI))

21